Roger_That wrote:

What is this ?

Other than laziness? Copyright infringement. Tsk.

DoucheEllington wrote:

Your specialness, I will try harder to act like I care.

Sorry, Il Douchey, but if it were truly up to me, then there are occasions where you might not speak at all...but since I'm perfectly OK with the fact that it isn't, you might try not to swipe entire, unattributed articles, no matter how interesting they are. I'm really not an aggressive copyright enthusiast, nor do dislike your link (I think it's terrific, actually, and wish I'd thought to do something similar), but I'm pretty sure you don't want to endanger the continued existence of High Street with such a large chunk of someone else's work.

And yes, I'm special. My short bus has mag wheelz. So there.

DoucheEllington wrote:

pALEPHx wrote:

Roger_That wrote:

What is this ?

Other than laziness? Copyright infringement. Tsk.

Your specialness, I will try harder to act like I care.  Maybe.  No, probably not.

I've no idea what in the fuck transpired during my hiatus from Cruel; But, as I recall, we were all quite aware and diligent when it came to pushing the limits of "fair use" (And, when it comes to limits, I've pushed more than my share in my time).  The unfortunate thing about deciding whether one's posting may or may not constitute "fair use" is generally a rather grey area as neither you nor the original author knows exactly how a judge or jury is going to rule a year or two down the road.  Again, that's generally the case; However, when you copy and paste an entire article, I'd be willing to bet everything that I own against your ass come judgment day.

Now, obviously, you don't give a fuck as you don't see it as being your flabby, white, ass on the line.  Granted, should somebody decide that they've nothing better to do than to throw away a few grand on a law-suit against some pitiful, internets, link-dump, Choad will be named as the primary respondent; However, that doesn't entirely let your ass of off the legal hook either.  So, this isn't being pointed out to you merely to save our own hides - A bit of yours could well be on the line as well.

You need to edit your posting down to a few choice paragraphs from the article.  Seriously, I'm a hard-core bastard when it comes to defending "free-speech;" So, you know that if I'm in here bitching about this, you have seriously stepped over the line.  For Fuck's sake, man, the only thing that you did was tack a lame fucking title on the posting itself.  You've added no commentary of your own - Not even a lame, fucking, hot-linked, image.  Seriously, you need to edit your posting or an administrator may be forced to delete it (And, I'd hate to see that happen; However, I'd certainly have to consider them justified in such an action).

Now, before you cop your little, biggest kid on the play-ground, attitude, allow me to make this perfectly clear:  I'm not saying this simply to give you a rash of shit (Did you see any lame sarcasm in this posting?  Yeah, a rarity for me, I know.).  I'm telling you all of this, because it's a serious issue which could lead to legal liabilities, and - Worst case scenario - result in the death of the Green High-Street Lobster with the two-pronged crown . . .  Whatever the hell we're calling it these days.

Again, I'm not trying to give you a rash of shit here.  I'm simply attempting to explain the realities of copy-right infringement, and asking that you please edit your posting.  We're currently paying our attorneys at LOL here in bricks of cheese, and that's fucking killing us as it us.  Imagine what they'd demand if they actually had to file a motion or two; Or, Hades forbid, have to physically appear in a court-room?  A quarter of a pound of pulled-pork?  A half-gallon of Southern Comfort?  Look, we're operating on a cheese string budget here, and these bastards would bleed us dry within a week on something like this.

Thank You In Anticipation, Clonazepam

Pale wrote:

I somehow think Dec managed to speak for a whole three hours and not once acknowledge that he agreed with me. I may cry.

It was ever so subtly implied in an off-Broadway, pseudo-artistic, only-slightly-homo-erotic kind of way.

Decadence wrote:

DoucheEllington wrote:

pALEPHx wrote:

Other than laziness? Copyright infringement. Tsk.

Your specialness, I will try harder to act like I care.  Maybe.  No, probably not.

The unfortunate thing about deciding whether one's posting may or may not constitute "fair use" is generally a rather grey area as neither you nor the original author knows exactly how a judge or jury is going to rule a year or two down the road.  Again, that's generally the case; However, when you copy and paste an entire article, I'd be willing to bet everything that I own against your ass come judgment day.

Now, obviously, you don't give a fuck as you don't see it as being your flabby, white, ass on the line.  Granted, should somebody decide that they've nothing better to do than to throw away a few grand on a law-suit against some pitiful, internets, link-dump, Choad will be named as the primary respondent; However, that doesn't entirely let your ass of off the legal hook either.

Whoa, nelly- takew a minute and breathe.  Would you like some chamomile tea?  There, there.  Now.  While I may agree with parts of what you write, you assume waaaay too much about my race, gender, & level of fitness.   Not that it's not amusing to be mistaken for "the average man" every now and then - but if you're gonna throw down any kind of smack, at any level, it's more effective if you use words/epithets that I might assume are directed at me and not at the white guys eating themselves into irrelevance.  It can be a special treat for you - you don't often get to use that vocabulary to much effect  here, and polish your insults to use on the multi-racial workforce of the future. I promise I've heard worse in real life & didn't give two shits.

What I didn't give a fuck about was the usual whining.

You need to edit your posting down to a few choice paragraphs from the article.  Seriously, I'm a hard-core bastard when it comes to defending "free-speech;" So, you know that if I'm in here bitching about this, you have seriously stepped over the line.  For Fuck's sake, man, the only thing that you did was tack a lame fucking title on the posting itself.  You've added no commentary of your own - Not even a lame, fucking, hot-linked, image.  Seriously, you need to edit your posting or an administrator may be forced to delete it

Super, super gurl.  And where are these edicts made clear?  I'm not the only person pasting entire articles here - and I cop to neglecting to post the link/cite the source, which was an oversight made in haste rather than deliberately, & subsequently fixing it, after the whining turned out to be for a reason, for once.  My own preference is to post entire what is short and from a source of general lameness, while including a link & citing the source. 

I'm simply attempting to explain the realities of copy-right infringement, and asking that you please edit your posting.  We're currently paying our attorneys at LOL here in bricks of cheese, and that's fucking killing us as it us.  Imagine what they'd demand if they actually had to file a motion or two; Or, Hades forbid, have to physically appear in a court-room?  A quarter of a pound of pulled-pork?  A half-gallon of Southern Comfort?  Look, we're operating on a cheese string budget here, and these bastards would bleed us dry within a week on something like this.

So as a solution to CYA re this and other matters, how's about some FAQ? Yes, it's a pain int the heinie, but those of you in the line of fire could probably cut & paste what you've already posted here & in your backroom discussions into a loosely organized, searchable document/post.  That way us cats shitting in the playground sandbox don't get off so easily.

Now, before you cop your little, biggest kid on the play-ground, attitude, allow me to make this perfectly clear:  I'm not saying this simply to give you a rash of shit

That could be fun. Let me go put on my play clothes & I'll meet you by the monkey bars.

Roger_That wrote:

So as a solution to CYA re this and other matters, how's about some FAQ? Yes, it's a pain int the heinie, but those of you in the line of fire could probably cut & paste what you've already posted here & in your backroom discussions into a loosely organized, searchable document/post.  That way us cats shitting in the playground sandbox don't get off so easily.

So what you're saying is, you want a FAQ for common sense?

No.  I'm suggesting an FAQ to serve the stated purpose of minimizing responsibility for those who operate the site as well as inform those who post here.  What you regard as "common sense" is a product of your experiences and the conventions associated with them.  If the ppl who operate the site want to make $ with it, & aim for larger exposure, it can't be assumed that everyone who drops something here will share your experiences and conventions.  In fact, most of them will probably be completely non-invested in the well-being or success of this environment. 

With the fairly widespread editing of each other's posts, and the hoo-ha kicked up by people here because if it, a casual poster may assume that the admins or moderators have the responsibility of editing posts to suit the appropriate legal and mechanical conventions.

hate to rely on tired clichés; But, "ignorance of the law is no excuse."  We don't need no stinkin' FAQ for such matters.  As an internets user, it's your responsibility to understand at least the basic liabilities which one should consider when dealing with the general public.  Are we also expected to tell each and every member:  "Oh, by the way, you do know that It's illegal to infect and hack other's systems, don't you?  Just wanted to make sure.  You can never be too careful."

Your objection was, over the general lameness, that improper quoting and citation would lead to trouble for the ringmasters and probable cost.  It's unlikely that posters here will use the most public forum to infect anyone; I don't know if Choad is responsible for what happens in/through/because of personal messages.  Since this forum is the most public aspect of the site,  & you state that the penalties for poor form are high, it might be a good idea to be able to claim that members are definitely informed of proper procedure and proceed at their own risk with the loosest possible oversight.

I would be reluctant to assume that people attracted to this forum - or anywhere in the world - have what you regard as "common sense."  I'm not going to tattle, much, but the occasional noob targeted here does exactly as i did above or even worse -& in the resulting pile-on, no-one appears to tell them it's a bad thing & what to do instead.  Even if that was a tagline routinely attached to "show us your tits," you can't bank on it happening or the post being edited in a timely manner.  That's not your or anybody's fault, but who gets to eat the biggest rations of shit in the worst case scenario?

A suggestion I'd throw out is that part of the registration process involve each registrant acknowledging a brief & incomplete list of guidelines for citations & basic behavior (don't cut-n-paste entire articles, don't threaten to assault those who are paying the cost to be the boss, etc etc.) before they get a password.  That seems like a standard registration requirement for many forums, & it doesn't feel like a violation to me (but my bar is set pretty high).  However, I have no idea how much work it would entail.