How to host the downloaded Training Forum

[Tuffytown]

Original creation. Sorry, copying is exactly what COPYwright laws are written to protect the ORIGINAL creator.

Based on that logic I can get data storage devices and copy microsoft software to my hearts content and distribute it all about. Yea. Let's see how that goes over for me.

[Dragonfly]

What I wonder though...when the UDBB was sold, did any of us have to resign up? Agree to anything?

So...
-the BB was sold and no one made a fuss...
-if the BB was sold again, changed hands, hosted on yet a new server...how is it any different than the first time?

And

Can't any one of us still log on and go and delete any of our own posts at any given time?

And lastly...

If any of us can go and redact our posts...what's the point of crying foul?

[Tuffytown]

I think that the uddb was sold but the content remained in is same location the posters orginally wrote it with the same ability to edit, remove, etc.. Posters put information into a community that they felt safe, comfortable, etc. When mark sold it what resulted was mostly a continuation of the existing community.

Now there are individuals proposing to put the content out on facebook etc where the original posters did not plan on it being and it makes some uncomfortable since there is a lot of personal information contained. That is even outside the idea of some who graced the training forum with a lot of their expertise and wisdom not having control of their intellectual property and the idea of wider distribution without their permission is disturbing.

I don't believe what remains is still editable so no, a poster cannot go into the database and redact their posts.

[Chisamba]

there could be many copies of it, it was a public forum, you did not have to be a member to read it, in the decades, your words could have been read, used copied and redistributed multiple times. it was even searchable on google by topic.

that said, when someone took Simthsons words and compiled them into a tribute, no one cried "copyright". we read them with tears in our eyes and enjoyed the tribute to our online friend.

[kande50]

]Based on that logic I can get data storage devices and copy microsoft software to my hearts content and distribute it all about. Yea. Let's see how that goes over for me.

And yet someone can copy someone with a camera and then it's considered a creation. Except in court when the judge doesn't allow it, and then they have to copy what they see by drawing it. Odd.

[Dragonfly]

I think that the uddb was sold but the content remained in is same location

Not quite true. It could have been moved from place to place for years, I seem to remember there being threads on that very topic over the years. Someone else explained how a name and a bunch of numbers can be married up to make the name searchable. As it sits now, the UDBB is in the same place it was a few weeks ago, but when you type in Ultimate Dressage it goes to something that is NOT the UDBB....if you punch in the numbers and it takes you to OUR UDBB. The name and numbers have been divorced.

So back to....its been sold, its been moved, its public (you don' need to log in to see it), you can still delete your posts....who knows who has copied what over the years...why the screams of copyright infringement now?

And an even bigger question...who is actually going to put their money where their outrage is, and file a lawsuit?

Edited to add: And when Chris finally takes it completely offline, and it's gone, all the outrage over whether the posts actually fall under copyright, aren't going to matter any more, are they? But good God, ther worry over someone archiving, "does this saddle make my butt look big" will have been for nothing.

[digihorse]

What I wonder though...when the UDBB was sold, did any of us have to resign up? Agree to anything?

So...
-the BB was sold and no one made a fuss...

No one had a choice. It was gone, and then undercover, sold.
-if the BB was sold again, changed hands, hosted on yet a new server...how is it any different than the first time?
It is different because people other than the original authors are illegally copying posts they have no right to, and removing them from the original source that was known as UDBB. It is, the same database. Therefore no one needed do anything to login, and continue on as before. There was not a new terms of service created, nor required to continue posting

And

Can't any one of us still log on and go and delete any of our own posts at any given time?

No. It is read only by anonymous
And lastly...

If any of us can go and redact our posts...what's the point of crying foul?

To bring it to the attention of the unwashed masses who believe they have the right to steal. To make it known, that posting any of that content on ANY site is done as a violation of copyright law, and that yes, some of us care.

[digihorse]

Ownership belongs to the creator.

So drg created the copy, just like the photographer created the copy of whatever he photographed.

Purposely being dense? Read what has been posted.

DRG stole content. Period! Further... she did so, while a site was fundamentally closed... which to ethical systems people means stay out, which means she hacked the site to gather the content. Changing the access by changing the DNS pointer is the owner saying "this site is no longer available". Whether it is still at its IP, is irrelevant. The intent of the site owner is clear and known by those with ethics.

[CanadianTrotter]

I am also a scientist, and I don't think it makes logical sense, nor is it 'right' that the content is owned by the board owner . Could you explain why you think the board owner owns the content?

You didn't answer my question so I'm going to hazard a guess(which may be wrong) that you've already copied the content because your intentions were to strip the HTML.

I think you should go ahead with your rash plan so we can all get a crash course on what can/could happen.

Sounds like decisions have been made. Being a grey area, yes, there are a lot of differing opinions.

As I said CT I agree that Chris didn't provide much assistance in defining who owns content and what he is ok with. I can't say what is "done" in these situations.

Between the sudden demise of the UDBB and the way people are acting (secretive, at will), and how people were there... well a wake up call to me-- is this something I want to invest in?

No, the answer is no. I'm reading, not posting (except for this thread, because what is being discussed are things I contributed to and I want my opinion heard).

Chris didn't provide any assistance except to cause more trouble for himself and to lead people to believe they could do "whatever they want" with the UDBB content.

The only grey area is whether an individual poster/author "wants their opinion to be heard" or "doesn't want their content spilled all over the internet".

Quite simple really... if you want "your opinion to be heard", then you can let the person who intends to copy and move content know they have your expressed permission to do so. If you don't want your content to be copied and used then you need to make the person that intends to copy and move content that they don't have your permission to do so.

That leaves out the people that have no idea what is happening right now or had ceased to be members of the UDBB. They will have no idea that thier content is being used without their permission whether it matters to them or not. That can come around and bite the person copying and moving the content on the arse in the future... because it is illegal to do so.

I for one am stating my preference for the record as I know "drg" is reading this thread. I do not want any of my written content copied and moved anywhere, that includes anyplace where my words were quoted by other posters.

[CanadianTrotter]

Ownership belongs to the creator.

So drg created the copy, just like the photographer created the copy of whatever he photographed.

Purposely being dense? Read what has been posted.

DRG stole content. Period! Further... she did so, while a site was fundamentally closed... which to ethical systems people means stay out, which means she hacked the site to gather the content. Changing the access by changing the DNS pointer is the owner saying "this site is no longer available". Whether it is still at its IP, is irrelevant. The intent of the site owner is clear and known by those with ethics.

Awwww... but Chris said, "Do what you want with it" before he closed it down. He failed to point out that one can copy it for personal use only before he shut it down.

Not only was it hacked into after it was shut down, but it was then basically advertised with a link with a "Hey, look what I did!".

[Racetrackreject]

Original creation. Sorry, copying is exactly what COPYwright laws are written to protect the ORIGINAL creator.

This is actually becoming a fuzzy place. I mean I agree with what you're saying, but the law is changing it's view on this. There is the recent case of a man who took peoples' Instagram photo posts, made large copies, hung them in a gallery, and sold them for something like $90k/piece. He won out in court and the originators of the work were sent home with nothing and told there was nothing they could do about it.

Basically, the law is changing on this sort of thing so quickly that there is no clear line in who is right anymore.

[CanadianTrotter]

I do not understand how anyone can post information on a publicly accessible site, that an be freely accessed and copied can still consider they own the rights to any of it. It seems illogical to me.

I do know that if some one takes a photo of you in a public place, ( like a horse show) they own that photo and can publish it at will.

of course i am a lay person so none of my opinion has any legal weight

If you read the links that xhalt provided, the text that Ryeissa provided or did any research on this subject yourself, your attitude is bordering on willful ignorance.

Here's a little test for you...

Quote something/someone from the hacked link of the UDBB and go post it on COTH. See what happens when you do that. Sometimes a person has to go through the steps of a scenario before they understand it and it becomes logical.

[Chancellor]

I am going to close this topic now. It looks like this is all a moot point. It looks like a few litigious people are going to ruin the searchability for everyone. I simply do not have the time or money to fight frivolous lawsuits. Sorry folks. There will be no searching of old UDBB posts here on DDBB.