I just read the new ToS

[B_JasonDawgxxx]

Think link!

That would make a great slogan on a t-shirt, lol. :biggrin1:

 

[DaveyR]

Of course others have a right to say as they wish, as do I. I just dont think attacking me is the way to go here. My point was and still is this. If a person doesnt like the mods,the site etc. NOBODY is forcing them to log on, Jason.

Sometimes people make negative posts about the site, the mods or some members but that does not necessarily mean they do not like the site. That is how people try to foster change and improvement. Things would become static and boring if everyone turned into Pollyana and constantly said how wonderful everything is.

People have different ways of dealing with what they want to improve and we should remember that. Expression of something negative can and often is the start of something good if people deal with what has been said in the right way. Jumping on the defensive solves nothing.

 

[Lex]

It is not a personal attack, Jason. Don't be so delicate.

Wow. I have not seen a poster take a such a benign difference of opinion as a personal attack since the glory days of Stronzo.

I'd like some clairification on something, please.

In the ToS, it says that I am not allowed to post copywritten images, correct?

Does that mean that I can't have pictures of celebrities in my avatar or gallery? I'm a touch confused on what the difference is.

For example, I noticed that Mr.Snakey recently removed a photo from a Mario Lopez thread, while others were left behind. What makes that one picture removeable? How am I supposed to know what's copywritten and what isn't?

How about the fact that there are copyrighted pictures OF celebrities in the avatar selection pool (not me mention those bouncing tits and more). Hmmm...

 

[DC_DEEP]

Jason I really don't see DC's posts as an attack on you. He's merely responding to the points you have made. It is obvious that you both see what has happened in the past from differing perspectives.

Where you have a right to express your thoughts and opinions others have a right to see things differently and say so.

Don't worry, Davey, he's had a bad hardon for me since he first joined...

 

[B_JasonDawgxxx]

Sometimes people make negative posts about the site, the mods or some members but that does not necessarily mean they do not like the site. That is how people try to foster change and improvement. Things would become static and boring if everyone turned into Pollyana and constantly said how wonderful everything is.

People have different ways of dealing with what they want to improve and we should remember that. Expression of something negative can and often is the start of something good if people deal with what has been said in the right way. Jumping on the defensive solves nothing.[/quote]

And that sir, was my whole point.:biggrin1:

 

[ManlyBanisters]

A brilliant idea, Miss Banisters... but.... I also noticed that Snakey removed a link to a photo at a site, and stated it was copyright issues. So, I'm still lost as to why some links are ok and others aren't.

I'm all for the site linking as it keeps people posting photos, but I am still confused. I'm sure a mod will pop in eventually and try to explain how it works.

Maybe they are still finding their feet on the issue. Maybe Snakey made an error. A clearer definition would be nice, I agree.

 

[B_JasonDawgxxx]

Don't worry, Davey, he's had a bad hardon for me since he first joined...

Again with another personal insult.

 

[Lex]

Jason--if you take offense to someone taking offense then you may want to consider not reading the posts where they do so. Telling people with different opinions to just go away is a lot of things, but not mature, probable, or healthy.

 

[DaveyR]

And that sir, was my whole point.:biggrin1:

Then I am glad that you agree as it applies to us all. :smile:

 

[jeff black]

While discussing this with Rob he said that if images are linked here, not uploaded so that they are part of the actual site, then it isn't an issue.

Nope, try more for me, please.:smile: What about Avatars with celebrities in them? Am I allowed to post those?

 

[IntoxicatingToxin]

Then you need to grow a pair, Meg. It is not all about you and I expect the vast, vast majority of the board (including Nick) had no idea that you wanted to be a mod - so why the hell take his comment personally?

I'm not trying to make it about me. I took offense to that post for ALL the mods, not just me. I don't know who all really wanted to apply and who was coerced to apply or anything like that, but I read that as being inconsiderate to the ones who really wanted the position. I've read Nick8's apology and I'm over it. Just explaining how it made me feel when I read it.

Also, on a side note, I did know you wanted to be a mod and I was extremely pleased for you when I saw your name on that list - since you've been a mod though I have seen almost exactly fuck all of you. You hardly ever post and (apart from this thread) I've not seen you come in to a thread as a mod at all - and even here you came in to defend yourself and have stuck around to argue the 'site(s) that defame' rule. Now maybe I have missed something, but there has been plenty of controversy since you and the others joined the team and I've seen everyone but you moderating the board. I know stuff goes on that I do not see, I don't always agree with the actions of the others that I have seen - but I have seen them, Meg.

I did not come here to defend *myself* and I'm sorry if you saw it that way. And for what it's worth, I think I do a fine job moderating the board. Just because I'm not the type to post comments on threads doesn't mean that I'm not around, not acting on things that need to be acted on, and not voting on moderating actions or taking part in the moderator forum. You'll know from my posting history that I tend to stay away from threads full of drama. That hasn't changed. I'll talk about them on the moderator forum when necessary and give my opinions and views on the subject and what action we should take (if any), but I'm not the type interject on the forums in these cases. If the other moderators have an issue with this, nothing has been said to me about it. Also, I spend a large amount of my time in the chat room, especially late at night, helping to keep things clean in there. I read the forums every single day and keep up to date on the threads so I know what's going on. If that's not enough for you, then maybe I'm not the mod for you.

Well - that's really helpful, Meg - that really makes the board a better place. More 'cloak and dagger the mods know stuff you don't neener-neener' attitude. Why not explain to us why 'that simply isn't true'?

The basic idea is that the *other* site isn't the only website in all of the internet that's been used now or in the past to defame members of LPSG.

I could understand 'no linking to content that defames LPSG and/or its members' - that would cover those recent childish blogs and anything silly mentioned elsewhere about LPSG. But this rule uses the word 'sites' - which is a very broad brush, too broad, to echo mindseye once again. Freddie has clearly said above (and other mods have said in the past) Rob_E wants no links to Size Matters. Fine, that is his right, that's totally fine - but you need to call it what it is; no links to defaming content and no links to that one site no matter what the content. That's not hard.

I guess I can understand why you think that the term "sites" is a broad brush, but I think that's exactly what we mean. A website. If a website (social networking site, blog, forum, whatever) is used specifically to defame a member of LPSG then we wouldn't want you linking us to it here.

 

[vince]

And you know this because you've spent time there, or because it's what you've heard, or because you read a few isolated posts there?

I know that because I've read more than just a few theads there.
Has it not been pretty crappy lately?
What with mystery characters (trolls), banned members airing the laundry and old warriors slagging each other (in some very nasty ways I might add).

I'm a member and have thought from time to time to take a more active role. But I start reading around and I'm like.. whoa. To much of the energy is negative.

I have nothing against the membership or the site's existence. There are some brilliant people there. But unfortunately it seems to lack purpose other than as a club for friends and a vehicle for discussing the shortcomings of this site.

Actually, I'd be really pleased if there was no need for the site. But there is a need for it for some people and we can't change history.

Or forgive and forget apparently.

 

[DC_DEEP]

To DC to help clarify another issue raised: No, the policy about linking to other sites was not made for one site specifically, we have had several problems with other sites in recent weeks. It is no secret that Rob takes particular issue with a certain site however we feel that the new policy makes things far fairer across the board. It would be highly unfair to request that some things be removed, while letting others do as they wish, simply because of the site involved in it.

I am still a bit unclear. Meg's post and Freddie's post (and now, your post) seem to be direct contradictions.

Also, is posting a link to a blog site which defames (strongly and repeatedly) an LPSG member a violation?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm trying to understand what the rules are, how they are applied, and where the lines are drawn.

 

[IntoxicatingToxin]

I am still a bit unclear. Meg's post and Freddie's post (and now, your post) seem to be direct contradictions.

Also, is posting a link to a blog site which defames (strongly and repeatedly) an LPSG member a violation?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm trying to understand what the rules are, how they are applied, and where the lines are drawn.

Like Kotch said, we've had issues with other sites lately that led us to put this new rule in the ToS. Sure the *other* site may have been one of the numerous reasons we chose to go with this new rule, like Freddie said, but it's definitely not the only reason, nor the main reason.

 

[Mr. Snakey]

I'd like some clairification on something, please.

In the ToS, it says that I am not allowed to post copywritten images, correct?

Does that mean that I can't have pictures of celebrities in my avatar or gallery? I'm a touch confused on what the difference is.

For example, I noticed that Mr.Snakey recently removed a photo from a Mario Lopez thread, while others were left behind. What makes that one picture removeable? How am I supposed to know what's copywritten and what isn't?

On 2/10/2009 9:48 am, 9:59 am, 11:23 am, i performed 3 edits in the Mario Lopez thread. All were attachments. So when it comes to the posting of pic's of celebrites post links only. What is copywritten and what is not? We simply won't take that chance. This is going to take some time and understanding by everyone. For that i thank you in advance.

 

[Gillette]

I am still a bit unclear. Meg's post and Freddie's post (and now, your post) seem to be direct contradictions.

You'll get a slightly different interpretation of the reasons for from each of us as each of us puts different emphasis on different points or events. That's just a natural given you can't have even five people describe the same witnessed event identically.

I'll throw my viewpoint in as a fourth to clarify or muddy the pic.

Also, is posting a link to a blog site which defames (strongly and repeatedly) an LPSG member a violation?

Yes. Recent occurances of this are in my opinion the driving reason for this addition to the ToS. Had you know what been the reason we'd have made the change long ago.

Sadly this rule may mean that we'll miss out on the entertainment of any new lists made.:wink:

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm trying to understand what the rules are, how they are applied, and where the lines are drawn.

Understood. Questions are the best way to get clarification.

*Edit Looks like I'm still the slowest typist.

 

[Freddie53]

And that's a great though, MB. However, since I don't know the difference.....I feel as though I could be in trouble.

I mean, won't this rule affect the celebrity endowment section of the site? If we can't post pictures of cock/ass shots from movies and tv, then we're just talking about it.

What if I'm having a discussion about someone and I want to show who he/she is, so I submit a photo from a website that has pictures? Bannable offense?

Jeff, first the ToS statement on copyrighted material is one of the standard disclaimers that are used concerning copyrighted material used throughout the Internet world. As you know from college term papers you can quote and then cite pasages from a book,. mag etc.

It would be my interpretation that a two minute filim clip from a movie would not be in copyright violation. But then I remember a U Tube movie segment of about two minutes that was removed and it mentioned copyright violations.

Keep in mind I am not an attorney. Keep in mind also that our concern with this segment is to protect you the member, the mods, and the owner from any legal reprecussions from a lawsuit. Speaking as an individual I don't give a country damn. but I know we have to consider legal requirements.

Pictures are the most troubling concerning copyright issues. We can all agree that if the words copyright appear on the pic itself by someone else, we can't allow the pic.

But what about a pic of say President Obama taken from the front page of the Washington Post? Does it fall into the same category as quoting a line from the the newspaper and citing it? Or is it a stand alone item and can only be citied in part? Also, the pic is on every newspaper and magazine in the nation. At what point does that pic become "free to use?"

The mods are very aware of these questions. We are looking for legal answers.

I do know that most sites try to word it so that if there is a question the site has no legal liability and it all falls on the person who posted the illegal copyrighted material.

In the past we have always removed copyrighted material when requested.

This also begs the question and this question has major implications for the members. What if copyrighted material is posted here without pemission. Is it just Rob E that is liable? Doubtful? The person posting the copyrighted material would be just as liable?

So to the members: If I as a mod knew that you had posted copyrighted material and tha the owner wanted to sue you if you didn't remove it, what would you want me to do? Ask you to remove it or say nothing and wait until you received your legal notice that you were now being sued for violating the copyright laws.

Now I am going to get on my soapbox for a moment. The answers to some of the above depends on who the judge is and what state or nation. Two identical situations get two different rullings in the US court system. Probably true in every other nation aw well, but it does make it tricky.

So many of the ToS questions are about opinoins. How people want this siet to go. ETC This one is about legalities is for real Big Time.

I for one am trying to research it. If there is a member who has lots of background in using copyrighted materials and can give me a hiint of your qualifications, feel free to contact me or any mod especiaolly if you can quote a book on how to use copyrighted pics without breaking the copyright law yourself.

It is in everyone's best interest for this site to be beyond the shadow of a doubt legal.

 

[HazelGod]

Wow...talk about teapot tempests.

Look, people, the content owner must first make it known they believe that an infringing usage of their material exists.

Quit getting your panties bunched up over hypothetical scenarios that have a ridiculously infinitesimal probability of ever coming to pass, and that carry virtually zero actual sanction potential if somehow they actually do.

Common sense. Move along.

 

[DC_DEEP]

But what about a pic of say President Obama taken from the front page of the Washington Post? Does it fall into the same category as quoting a line from the the newspaper and citing it?

Yes, absolutely, it does. Staff writers and photographers rarely retain copyright to their published work (except in very unusual contract agreements.) If it appears on the front page of the Washington Post, does that make it public domain? Absolutely not. Who holds the copyright? Most likely, and in most cases, it is the publisher.

If you publish a link to their site, that is not infringement. If you publish content, even with attribution, that is infringement. That's not too difficult a concept, even for some of our less astute members here.

 

[2322]

To my knowledge, copyright violation seems to be in the eye of the copyright holder. There are exceptions for what is known as, "fair use." Since fair use because a doctrine in 1976, educational institutions, which were excepted in copyright law to use citations of a limited amount of a copyrighted work, have followed the rule of 10%. Generally, educational institutions, including students, are permitted to quote up to 10% of a given work without danger of copyright infringement. When considering moving images, the rule is 10% or three minutes, whichever is less. When it comes to still images, an entire image may be used however no more than 5 images from a single copyright holder may be used in any one publication, or 10% of images from a collection of works.

I don't know what the commercial law is nor know if LPSG is a for-profit venture, but I do know the laws are far stricter for commercial enterprises than for education, not-for-profit, or private use. A private person can play a popular MP3 that person legally owns for a party of people but a commercial radio station would have to pay royalties to play that same MP3 for the same number of people. I know LPSG has at least one lawyer on staff, I suggest asking him to do some research into the question to give all of us a better idea.

I find the question of disallowed sites rather vague. I only know of two sites that violate this rule yet one of them is actively linked in a member's signature line. There was a time though when LPSG had some media coverage and I'm not sure I'd call some of those media reviews favorable. I also don't think I'd call them overly critical. LPSG does get mentioned on the internet in smaller media quite frequently, usually with some dismissive comment about why on earth people with big penises would need support. I don't think those comments necessarily qualify either. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I would say that if there are any specific websites which are always forbidden, that those sites be mentioned in the TOS. That's a double-edged sword for LPSG, but if it's a rule then it should be mentioned in the TOS out of a question of fairness to the membership.

I'd also like to say I'm a bit flummoxed about the personal information rule. If I want to share personal contact information with someone and can't do it in PM, then how do I do that? Each party would have to divulge at least some private information in order to facilitate off-site contact. Have I misread that rule?

Vince: Yes, the other place does have a troll issue right now however those trolls were enticed to join the other site at the behest of an LPSG member via his personal website.