Thanksgiving

[Grazza]

Mancubus II said:

There is a rules page and a FAQ. If it's not in there, then there's no proof other than this particular thread that such a rule even exists. (Lightner, 2003)

Copyright law perhaps? From http://mason.gmu.edu/~montecin/copyright-internet.htm:

When creating a Web page, you CANNOT: ... Copy and paste information together from various Internet sources to create "your own" document. [You CAN quote or paraphrase limited amounts, if you give credit to the original source and the location of the source. This same principle applies to print sources, of course.]

[Manc]

Then add it to the FAQ so everyone will be happy.

You're also assuming that posting in a forum is creating a webpage, which I guess in some ways it sort of is, but in other ways it isn't. I don't own this webpage, and cannot control any content other than what I post. I'm not saying you're totally wrong, but for the love of god, this thread was derailed because of this. If you want a rule like that to apply to the entire kingdom, you add it to the FAQ.

That webpage said:

Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of "original works of authorship" including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, architectural and certain other intellectual works.

Why are you quoting something from a copyright page relating to the united states? This is a prime example of why copyright laws are shady. They're not always observed in their entirety worldwide.

[fodders]

I shall refrain from creating a web page then :P

[Fredrik]

Mancubus II said:

Then add it to the FAQ so everyone will be happy.

Should we add the rest of the law too?

You're also assuming that posting in a forum is creating a webpage

Telefragged and the Doomworld staff is running a website. It is their responsibility to remove content that infringes copyright.

[darknation]

last time I posted a source from the rotten library I got shat on.

So what if I get information from there?

This is unworkable.

[fodders]

This needs bringing back to Thanksgiving with a reminder of last year :)

[Manc]

Fredrik said:

Should we add the rest of the law too?

What law? Swedish law? British law? German law? US law? Unless there's a worldwide adopted copyright law that all countries uphold, you cannot expect every single person under the sun to simply observe US laws. And this is coming from a swede no less. Is this a new trend? Hell, why am I arguing this? I'm American...


And happy thanksgiving!!!oneone

[Grazza]

Mancubus II said:

Why are you quoting something from a copyright page relating to the united states? This is a prime example of why copyright laws are shady. They're not always observed in their entirety worldwide.

Copyright laws and conventions are fairly consistent around the world. Much more so than they used to be, at least, especially when it comes to the fundamental points.

[Nanami]

While we're at it let's ban SkullTag for having modified Doom sprites.

And ban ZDoom for using a few sprites from Hexen.wad in the ZDoom.wad file.

And ban the demos forum because it uses demos in the offending ports and we don't need to support demos which may be used in illegal ports.

[darknation]

er, we break laws everyday in some part fo the world. I'm pretty sure the day-to-day faggotry in here is illegal in a lot of places, freedom of speech and parody of famous people, comedy in general, goatse.

[Manc]

Grazza said:

Copyright laws and conventions are fairly consistent around the world. Much more so than they used to be, at least, especially when it comes to the fundamental points.

Still not a solid argument for this copyright page being accepted worldwide, when it's founded on US principles.

Look, I'm sorry I even egged it on. I just found it a little funny that someone from Britain quoted a page about US copyright law, and then a swede replies saying "Maybe we should add the rest of the laws" when that is not only absurd but very vague as to which particular country or region of laws he's talking about.

And once again, I don't think it's wrong to have people quote sources. I'm not arguing that at all. My problem is that you all of a sudden "command" it, and expect everyone forum wide to all of a sudden obey. If you don't want to edit the faq, make a sticky in EE or something.

God damnit.

[Fredrik]

Mancubus II said:

and then a swede replies saying "Maybe we should add the rest of the laws"

Which was irony meant to demonstrate how absurd it'd be to add the stuff about copyright to the FAQ in the first place.

[Sharessa]

darknation said:

last time I posted a source from the rotten library I got shat on.

So what if I get information from there?

This is unworkable.

Yeah, I once wrote something up then mentioned I got it from the rotten library and I got my post edited so it wasnt there anymore. What is up wioth that? And now that I mentioned rotten, this is just going to get deleted isn't it?

[Grazza]

Mancubus II: Heh, that's OK. I quoted it because it seemed a nice simple summary of one aspect of copyright law that is pretty much universally accepted. Anyway, Doomworld is hosted in the USA, so it is US law that is most relevant here.

I only brought up copyright law because you asked why such a rule wasn't in the FAQ.

darknation and the_Danarchist: Aha, I see what you mean: what should you do if you quote some material from a website that you can't link to because it also contains offensive/illegal content? Heh. Maybe "Quoted from a website that forum rules prevent me from linking to:". One of UV's threads included something along those lines.

And dn, you didn't get "shat on"; no one felt that you were at fault in that case, but the link did need to be removed.

[Manc]

Fredrik said:

Which was irony meant to demonstrate how absurd it'd be to add the stuff about copyright to the FAQ in the first place.

So wait, are you agreeing with me or not? My point is that if it's to be a rule, it should be in the rules/faq section. People may forget to quote a source from time to time. That's no reason for a ban or deleted posts. If it is, then it should be a known rule in an open place for everyone to see. That's why I feel it should be added to the faq/rules, and if not then just ignore the fact that the source wasn't quoted.


/me chases down fodders...

[Amaster]

Clearly the only way to solve this problem is to segregate everyone on DW according to their location.

[Fredrik]

Mancubus II said:

So wait, are you agreeing with me or not? I'm confused...

Okay, back to the start :P I think it'd be silly to add a note about copyright to the FAQ, because copyright is only one of several laws that apply to posts in this forum and there's really no reason why that one should be considered more important than any other.

And I don't think the issue is that big, people here are generally too lazy to look up sources for themselves when they rant :P

[Manc]

Fredrik said:

Okay, back to the start :P I think it'd be silly to add a note about copyright to the FAQ, because copyright is only one of several laws that apply to posts in this forum and there's really no reason why that one should be considered more important than any other.

Good enough for me.

[Nanami]

Grazza said:

darknation and the_Danarchist: Aha, I see what you mean: what should you do if you quote some material from a website that you can't link to because it also contains offensive/illegal content? Heh. Maybe "Quoted from a website that forum rules prevent me from linking to:". One of UV's threads included something along those lines.

What's the point of citing a source that nobody can actually reference? That's the same as not citing it.

"I heard the world was going to end tomorrow and all the scientists in the world agree!" - I can't cite teh sourcE!@#

[Grazza]

Mancubus II said:

My problem is that you all of a sudden "command" it, and expect everyone forum wide to all of a sudden obey.

Actually, I think people here are pretty good about giving sources/links when they quote material, and for the most part have been doing so unprompted.

[Nanami]

Grazza said:

Actually, I think people here are pretty good about giving sources/links when they quote material, and for the most part have been doing so unprompted.

Exactly... most of the time people do it automatically. But people shouldn't be bashed for NOT doing it. What's the point in that, other than aggrivating people?

[Ultraviolet]

Grazza said:

One of UV's threads included something along those lines.

Which one?

[Manc]

Grazza said:

Actually, I think people here are pretty good about giving sources/links when they quote material, and for the most part have been doing so unprompted.

Yes, I would agree. So if one person slips up, it's ok. Nobody's perfect.

I think the ultimate point we're missing is that this is all fodder's fault. I say we celebrate "good riddance day" nice and proper. :P

[Grazza]

Nanami said:

What's the point of citing a source that nobody can actually reference? That's the same as not citing it.

Not really, since it explains why a source can't be cited in the forum post itself, but suggests that it may be available upon (private) request.

UV: the one about tantricism.

[Grimm]

Wow, I've never seen a mod get hassled like this. Listen to the man, dammit, and quit hassling him!

[Grazza]

I think people just misunderstood, and thought I was asking for a drastic change in the way most people post. In fact, almost everyone is already giving fully adequate sources/links when they quote lumps of material, both from a "formal requirement" viewpoint and to enable others to verify their sources (and to challenge them if they see fit).

Storm in a teacup, or whatever your favourite metaphor is.