So I’ve got all the material from the old SSSF forum in my archives, and I’d be able to host it on my business website. Would there be a point to this? Would there any legel impediment? Does the material belong, in some sense, to the Australian government?
It’s a staggering amount of material, really. Some half a billion words. More than a hundred thousand threads.
dv said:
So I’ve got all the material from the old SSSF forum in my archives, and I’d be able to host it on my business website. Would there be a point to this? Would there any legel impediment? Does the material belong, in some sense, to the Australian government?
I’m no lawyer, but I’d argue that both the original contributors and the operators of the forum retain the right to republish… but not anyone else
I’d be surprised if you couldn’t find the old terms of service somewhere…
diddly-squat said:
dv said:
So I’ve got all the material from the old SSSF forum in my archives, and I’d be able to host it on my business website. Would there be a point to this? Would there any legel impediment? Does the material belong, in some sense, to the Australian government?
I’m no lawyer, but I’d argue that both the original contributors and the operators of the forum retain the right to republish… but not anyone else
I’d be surprised if you couldn’t find the old terms of service somewhere…
Well the current TOS of ABC Communities are here:
http://about.abc.net.au/terms-of-use/
2. Contributing Content
You are responsible for all content you contribute to any ABC Online Services, including text, photos, videos, audio and links (Your Content).
By contributing content to any ABC Online Service, you grant the ABC a royalty-free, non-exclusive licence to use Your Content in any way that we want, and in any media worldwide. This may include the use of your photos or video on ABC television, transmission of the material by our overseas partners and syndication to our Australian content partners. You retain copyright and any other rights you hold in Your Content and can continue to share and commercialise Your Content as you wish.
You confirm you own or have the right to use any copyright material included in Your Content (including music, photos, quotes and excerpts of audio or video), that you have permission of anyone appearing or performing in Your Content and that you are not infringing any person’s rights by submitting the content to the ABC. You also confirm you have, where appropriate, sought the consent of the parent or guardian of any person under the age of 18 who is featured in Your Content.
Please ensure you keep your own copies of Your Content as the ABC may not archive, store or back-up Your Content nor continue to make Your Content accessible online.
The ABC will endeavour to provide you with an appropriate credit when using Your Content on ABC platforms, though you understand and agree this may not always be possible.
All intellectual property rights in the content, software and systems owned by or licensed to the ABC on any ABC Online Services, including logos, images, names, designs, trademarks and copyright (ABC Content) are reserved to the ABC and its licensors.
Such content is provided for your personal, non-commercial use only. Unless specifically noted in the House Rules for a particular service, you may not otherwise reproduce, republish, modify, adapt, translate, prepare derivative works from, reverse engineer or disassemble ABC Content, without obtaining the ABC’s prior written permission.
You agree not to remove, obscure, or alter any ABC copyright notice or trademark on any content you access and use. You also agree not to use ABC Content in a way that implies endorsement by the ABC or any person included in the materials.
The ABC is releasing certain archive materials through special initiatives including the Open Archive Project and Pool. Further information on Open Archive Project, ABC Archives and ABC Pool is available online.
If you are interested in using ABC Content other than for personal, non-commercial use, please contact ABC Library Sales for further information.
Entitlements under Parts VA, VB and section 183 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) are reserved to the ABC. For educational institutions: Visit www.screen.org for information about Part VA (download of audio-visual content) and www.copyright.com.au for information about Part VB (copying text/images).
—-
I suppose it implies that copyright remains with the authors, and that ABC’s rights were non-exclusive.
OTOH given that in most cases the posters are anonymous, the onus on them (should they wish to assert their rights) to prove authorship. I could choose not to be a dick and if I know for a fact that an individual is associated with a particular username and that person contacts me to say they don’t give me permission to publish it, I would remove it.
diddly-squat said:
I’m no lawyer, but I’d argue that both the original contributors and the operators of the forum retain the right to republish… but not anyone else
I’d be surprised if you couldn’t find the old terms of service somewhere…
Would the Archive be breaking copyright just by storing (someone’s) web pages?
here are the Terms of Use for ABC Communities…
http://about.abc.net.au/terms-of-use/
some interesting stuff about archived material in there…
in all reality however, I very much doubt the the ABC would care very much if you hosted the archives…
do you just have the thread text? how would you go about republishing it?
creative commons license and user content licensing
you would probably have to get permission from the ABC, at the very least, unless they have a creative commons license
diddly-squat said:
in all reality however, I very much doubt the the ABC would care very much if you hosted the archives…
do you just have the thread text? how would you go about republishing it?
Unless I could be fucked doing something fancy, I would just be publishing the threads in HTML pages from fairly simple menus
But, firstly: would any of y’all be interested in using it?
I have “archived” a number of posts, because of verbal abuse etc. It’s my personal study material for an ongoing project.
dv said:
But, firstly: would any of y’all be interested in using it?
While on the topic, I seem to have lost your thread about flightless birds. Do you have a link or copy?
mollwollfumble said:
dv said:
But, firstly: would any of y’all be interested in using it?
While on the topic, I seem to have lost your thread about flightless birds. Do you have a link or copy?
Well I dare say I can Google it up
https://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/topics/7170/
How large is it?
About 3 GB.
Two thoughts from a non-lawyers viewpoint:
1. If the data belongs to the Australian Government, then it belongs to all of us, since the government is merely a representative and servant of the people.
2. Publishing something on a public forum implies permission for that text to be viewed by anyone and everyone for an indefinite period. There should therefore be no reason to seek renewal of permission to re-publish, providing that the context in which it is published is sufficiently similar to the original.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Two thoughts from a non-lawyers viewpoint:1. If the data belongs to the Australian Government, then it belongs to all of us, since the government is merely a representative and servant of the people.
2. Publishing something on a public forum implies permission for that text to be viewed by anyone and everyone for an indefinite period. There should therefore be no reason to seek renewal of permission to re-publish, providing that the context in which it is published is sufficiently similar to the original.
I find your conclusions presumptive
diddly-squat said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Two thoughts from a non-lawyers viewpoint:1. If the data belongs to the Australian Government, then it belongs to all of us, since the government is merely a representative and servant of the people.
2. Publishing something on a public forum implies permission for that text to be viewed by anyone and everyone for an indefinite period. There should therefore be no reason to seek renewal of permission to re-publish, providing that the context in which it is published is sufficiently similar to the original.
I find your conclusions presumptive
Feel free to provide your arguments for and against.
The Rev Dodgson said:
diddly-squat said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Two thoughts from a non-lawyers viewpoint:1. If the data belongs to the Australian Government, then it belongs to all of us, since the government is merely a representative and servant of the people.
2. Publishing something on a public forum implies permission for that text to be viewed by anyone and everyone for an indefinite period. There should therefore be no reason to seek renewal of permission to re-publish, providing that the context in which it is published is sufficiently similar to the original.
I find your conclusions presumptive
Feel free to provide your arguments for and against.
1. by this argument we all own the IP associated with say, inventions/discoveries of the CSIRO – which of course isn’t true
2. most sites (including the old SSSF) have very specific conditions of use that cover reproduction of material from the site.
diddly-squat said:
1. by this argument we all own the IP associated with say, inventions/discoveries of the CSIRO – which of course isn’t true
If the Australian people do not own the assets of Australian publicly owned companies, who does own them?
diddly-squat said:
2. most sites (including the old SSSF) have very specific conditions of use that cover reproduction of material from the site.
I was talking about what might be considered reasonable rights of the authors to limit the re-publication of their words, rather than any rights the ABC might have to restrict re-publication, should they want to do so.
Well in the old days, it the smoke filled pubs of Fleet Street the first piece of advice you’d get would be publish and be damned.
>If the Australian people do not own the assets of Australian publicly owned companies, who does own them?
The “Australian people” don’t own these things as individuals. The government controls it all through various laws. For example, the government can sell the ABC without our permission.
dv said:
But, firstly: would any of y’all be interested in using it?
I know I would be, but only occasionally.
Did you also save Scribbly and TT?
Personally speaking, I posted some top quality material on the original forums as both myself and other people and sometimes it would be good to retrieve half remembered information rather than having to come up with it from scratch again…
I don’t know, there was an awful lot of rubbish posted on that forum, along with the good stuff.
For example, putting umpteen Zarkov threads back on the internets doesn’t seem terribly worthwhile.
Bubblecar said:
>If the Australian people do not own the assets of Australian publicly owned companies, who does own them?The “Australian people” don’t own these things as individuals. The government controls it all through various laws. For example, the government can sell the ABC without our permission.
Wha?!? You mean that they don’t need to ask my permission first? FB says …
THE TREASONUS GOVERMENT IS IN BREECH OF SECTION 48B©(iv) PARTS 1-10 OF THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION!!! THEY ARE NOW ALOUD TO DO THIS TO US!!!
Bubblecar said:
>If the Australian people do not own the assets of Australian publicly owned companies, who does own them?The “Australian people” don’t own these things as individuals. The government controls it all through various laws. For example, the government can sell the ABC without our permission.
The government just manages these things. They are no more the owner of the assets than the management of a private company are the owners.
The Australian people own the assets managed by the government in exactly the same way that share holders own private companies, other than that they do not have the right to buy or sell their ownership.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Bubblecar said:
>If the Australian people do not own the assets of Australian publicly owned companies, who does own them?The “Australian people” don’t own these things as individuals. The government controls it all through various laws. For example, the government can sell the ABC without our permission.
The government just manages these things. They are no more the owner of the assets than the management of a private company are the owners.
The Australian people own the assets managed by the government in exactly the same way that share holders own private companies, other than that they do not have the right to buy or sell their ownership.
I’ve always thought selling off public assets for a cash influx is such a short sighted thing and in the long run must surely weaken a government powers as it no longer has control of how they are run.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Bubblecar said:
>If the Australian people do not own the assets of Australian publicly owned companies, who does own them?The “Australian people” don’t own these things as individuals. The government controls it all through various laws. For example, the government can sell the ABC without our permission.
The government just manages these things. They are no more the owner of the assets than the management of a private company are the owners.
The Australian people own the assets managed by the government in exactly the same way that share holders own private companies, other than that they do not have the right to buy or sell their ownership.
Yes but shareholders just own shares. If for example you’re a shareholder in a publishing company, that doesn’t give you a personal right to its products without paying for them, or a right to independently republish them.
>>I don’t know, there was an awful lot of rubbish posted on that forum, along with the good stuff.
Some days were diamond some days were stone.
Bubblecar said:
Yes but shareholders just own shares. If for example you’re a shareholder in a publishing company, that doesn’t give you a personal right to its products without paying for them, or a right to independently republish them.
I didn’t suggest that these rights exist either for shareholder owners of a company or citizen owners of a country.
Peak Warming Man said:
>>I don’t know, there was an awful lot of rubbish posted on that forum, along with the good stuff.Some days were diamond some days were stone.
Some days were outright poo and weewee.
Bubblecar said:
Peak Warming Man said:
>>I don’t know, there was an awful lot of rubbish posted on that forum, along with the good stuff.Some days were diamond some days were stone.
Some days were outright poo and weewee.
Unlike here.
runs away
Bubblecar said:
I don’t know, there was an awful lot of rubbish posted on that forum, along with the good stuff.For example, putting umpteen Zarkov threads back on the internets doesn’t seem terribly worthwhile.
I disagree… I think there was some great stuff in many of his threads… most of it directly debunking his claims…
The Rev Dodgson said:
diddly-squat said:1. by this argument we all own the IP associated with say, inventions/discoveries of the CSIRO – which of course isn’t true
If the Australian people do not own the assets of Australian publicly owned companies, who does own them?
diddly-squat said:
2. most sites (including the old SSSF) have very specific conditions of use that cover reproduction of material from the site.
I was talking about what might be considered reasonable rights of the authors to limit the re-publication of their words, rather than any rights the ABC might have to restrict re-publication, should they want to do so.
1. “owning” (for lack of a better term) a part of an asset doesn’t necessarily give you the right to reproduce it… that’s the whole point of intellectual property rights…
2. in all fairness I think if you asked a lawyer they would probably suggest that you would need to get the expressed written consent of both all the authors as well as the ABC in order to republish the content of the old SSSF…
diddly-squat said:
Bubblecar said:
I don’t know, there was an awful lot of rubbish posted on that forum, along with the good stuff.For example, putting umpteen Zarkov threads back on the internets doesn’t seem terribly worthwhile.
I disagree… I think there was some great stuff in many of his threads… most of it directly debunking his claims…
The first examples, maybe. But remember, he never changed his tune, and kept reposting the same nonsense ad infinitum.
There were many, many days when nothing much was active in the forum except the same old shitty Zarkov themes.
Bubblecar said:
diddly-squat said:
Bubblecar said:
I don’t know, there was an awful lot of rubbish posted on that forum, along with the good stuff.For example, putting umpteen Zarkov threads back on the internets doesn’t seem terribly worthwhile.
I disagree… I think there was some great stuff in many of his threads… most of it directly debunking his claims…
The first examples, maybe. But remember, he never changed his tune, and kept reposting the same nonsense ad infinitum.
There were many, many days when nothing much was active in the forum except the same old shitty Zarkov themes.
no worse than republishing the chat threads…
My space threads were highly valued I remember
SPPPPPAAAACCCCEEEEE
diddly-squat said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
diddly-squat said:1. by this argument we all own the IP associated with say, inventions/discoveries of the CSIRO – which of course isn’t true
If the Australian people do not own the assets of Australian publicly owned companies, who does own them?
diddly-squat said:
2. most sites (including the old SSSF) have very specific conditions of use that cover reproduction of material from the site.
I was talking about what might be considered reasonable rights of the authors to limit the re-publication of their words, rather than any rights the ABC might have to restrict re-publication, should they want to do so.
1. “owning” (for lack of a better term) a part of an asset doesn’t necessarily give you the right to reproduce it… that’s the whole point of intellectual property rights…
I didn’t say that it did.
However, if an asset is not being used by the group that has direct control over it, and if re-publication would not give the publisher any direct financial benefit, and would provide a benefit to anyone who chose to access it, then in principle there is no reason why that re-publication should not go ahead.
diddly-squat said:
2. in all fairness I think if you asked a lawyer they would probably suggest that you would need to get the expressed written consent of both all the authors as well as the ABC in order to republish the content of the old SSSF…
Quite likely. But in my opinion that is a totally unreasonable position, which benefits nobody.
The Rev Dodgson said:
diddly-squat said:
The Rev Dodgson said:1. “owning” (for lack of a better term) a part of an asset doesn’t necessarily give you the right to reproduce it… that’s the whole point of intellectual property rights…
I didn’t say that it did.
However, if an asset is not being used by the group that has direct control over it, and if re-publication would not give the publisher any direct financial benefit, and would provide a benefit to anyone who chose to access it, then in principle there is no reason why that re-publication should not go ahead.
diddly-squat said:
2. in all fairness I think if you asked a lawyer they would probably suggest that you would need to get the expressed written consent of both all the authors as well as the ABC in order to republish the content of the old SSSF…Quite likely. But in my opinion that is a totally unreasonable position, which benefits nobody.
I don’t disagree with you on the practicality of getting consent… but I can’t see any reason why it would be in the interests of the ABC to formally allow publication of material that it can’t be sure won’t, at some point, turn around to bite it in the arse… Just because something is unreasonable, doesn’t mean it it should be ignored.
There was a lot of chat (a lot of it criticism) on that site about the ABC that would be very hard to edit out unless someone was prepared to go through every word and redact the hairy bits…
FTL
d-s – The idea that forum archives should be edited to remove the bits that were not in the “best interests of the ABC” seems to me ridiculous, even in principle.
Peak Warming Man said:
>>I don’t know, there was an awful lot of rubbish posted on that forum, along with the good stuff.Some days were diamond some days were stone.
And given that diamonds are stones, the former set is either equivalent to or contained by the latter.
Bubblecar said:
diddly-squat said:
Bubblecar said:
I don’t know, there was an awful lot of rubbish posted on that forum, along with the good stuff.For example, putting umpteen Zarkov threads back on the internets doesn’t seem terribly worthwhile.
I disagree… I think there was some great stuff in many of his threads… most of it directly debunking his claims…
The first examples, maybe. But remember, he never changed his tune, and kept reposting the same nonsense ad infinitum.
There were many, many days when nothing much was active in the forum except the same old shitty Zarkov themes.
I have recently been reading The Edge of Objectivity by Charles Gillespie, which is both an entertaining and annoying read, and was struck by how similar were the ideas of Descartes on gravity to those of Zarkov.
Zarkov could also be both annoying and entertaining.
The Rev Dodgson said:
d-s – The idea that forum archives should be edited to remove the bits that were not in the “best interests of the ABC” seems to me ridiculous, even in principle.
I agree… and that is exactly why I doubt anyone would ever get formal permission to republish that material
diddly-squat said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
d-s – The idea that forum archives should be edited to remove the bits that were not in the “best interests of the ABC” seems to me ridiculous, even in principle.
I agree… and that is exactly why I doubt anyone would ever get formal permission to republish that material
In the distant future when a utopian society based on our collective wisdom is formed I’d like some credit
Don’t bother for my sake. I’d not bother to go and read it. It’s ephemeral.
buffy said:
Don’t bother for my sake. I’d not bother to go and read it. It’s ephemeral.
Yeah some of it was pretty gay
dv said:
buffy said:Don’t bother for my sake. I’d not bother to go and read it. It’s ephemeral.
Yeah some of it was pretty gay
And witty?
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
buffy said:Don’t bother for my sake. I’d not bother to go and read it. It’s ephemeral.
Yeah some of it was pretty gay
And witty?
festive
dv said:
buffy said:Don’t bother for my sake. I’d not bother to go and read it. It’s ephemeral.
Yeah some of it was pretty gay
uncloaks
O hai.
dv said:
But, firstly: would any of y’all be interested in using it?
Yeppers. I’d love to read some of the more interesting posts again. Anything by Donde, for instance, springs to mind.
I still shake my head, I think I was the second person to respond to him on his original thread.
Yep, be good to go back through FF and see if my jokes were just as funny the first time around.
Bogsnorkler said:
Yep, be good to go back through FF and see if my jokes were just as funny the first time around.
Didn’t know the old forum went back that far.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Bogsnorkler said:
Yep, be good to go back through FF and see if my jokes were just as funny the first time around.
Didn’t know the old forum went back that far.
DV has transcribed it from slate..