Disillusioned Penguin
Guest
|
Authored by Disillusioned Penguin on Aug 29, 2013 21:19:53 GMT
A few hours ago on Groklaw, there was an interesting thread about forking Groklaw, including forking the comments. PJ has since deleted all vestiges of that thread, so I am opening it here, because it is an extremely important topic, which deserves serious discussion.
In that now-deleted thread, "Celtic Hacker" expressed his regret to see years of thoughtful Groklaw comments being locked up, and expressly stated that he was placing all of his comments under the CC-NC-BY permissive license, to allow his comments to be reproduced or mirrored on another site.
I responded to his comment with the following post:
"This is very simple matter from a legal standpoint.
Each comment author owns the copyright to his or her own comments, and regardless of how much we all admire and appreciate PJ's work over the years, she has absolutely no legal authority to speak for the comment author either to grant or to DENY anyone the right to mirror any comments.
The right to grant or prohibit reproduction is a right that belongs exclusively to the individual comment authors, and is a private matter between the author and the person doing the mirroring.
If a comment author wishes to grant permission to reproduce their comments, or conversely to bring a lawsuit against a person for mirroring their comments without permission, whether it be on someone's own personal computer for non-commercial reasons, or on some other public site, then the comment author is free to exercise either option, as is their right under copyright law, but PJ has no legal authority to interfere with that author's exercise of his or her rights."
Everything that Celtic Hacker and I stated is completely correct, and I can see no legitimate reason for PJ to have deleted those posts, except that she wishes to assert her ownership over individual poster's comments which she does not legally have the right to do.
|
|
|
Authored by cpeterson on Aug 29, 2013 23:25:26 GMT
If PJ has "absolutely no legal authority to speak for the comment author either to grant or to DENY anyone the right to mirror any comments", then by what magic do you have that exact same authority?
The comments ownership policy on Groklaw was "comments are owned by their authors." Yes, as in the example of "Celtic Hacker" which you quoted, a comment author has authority to grant further permissions on their own comments. No one else - not PJ, not you, not me - has a right to do that.
So you are faced with the logistics of the task. Get permission from each member - what were there, over 20,000? - to mirror their comments. Then go get permission from each and every anonymous user. For that you'll have to... let's see... you'll need to get the IP addresses from which those comments were posted; that means you're going to have to go after PJ and her server. (That would require a warrant.) And then track back to each user's ISP. (And another warrant. For each.) And after they have all complied and dumped the private data as to the identity of each poster, then you can contact each anonymous poster and ask them (politely) if you can copy their comments. And if they ALL say yes, then you can just mirror the whole thing. So your project is going to require that no ISPs have gone out of business, or deleted data over the last 10 years; that no user has gone untraceable, or died; and perhaps most critically, that no user denies permission to use their comments.
There were a number of times over the years that I posted anonymously; a few of those times were with information I didn't feel safe to put my name on. I will not be acknowledging those posts; therefore you will not get blanket approval for a mirror, even if was just me.
You keep concentrating on saying that PJ doesn't have the right to say "no" for everybody. That isn't the point. The point is that she knows what policy she created in the first place, and that she can't retroactively alter it. She knows what would be required to get all those permissions, and that "I want to ask permission" does not rise up to the level of Probable Cause for getting those warrants you would need.
I don't have authority to require that you don't run face-first into a brick wall. My authority isn't the point.
|
|
Disillusioned Penguin
Guest
|
Authored by Disillusioned Penguin on Aug 30, 2013 0:23:38 GMT
I don't know why you believe that in order to reproduce Groklaw's comments it would be necessary to use warrants to obtain IP addresses from PJ, then warrants to get contact information from ISPs, then politely ask each poster for permission, because none of that is necessary.
Perhaps I can give you an example that you can relate to.
Let us take Slashdot as an example that almost everyone of us is familiar with. Their comment policy -"Comments are owned by whoever posted them." - is identical to Groklaw's policy.
I have posted hundreds of comments on Slashdot over the years, and all of them have been posted as "Anonymous Coward". Every single Slashdot comment that I have ever made is archived in Google's, Yahoo's, and Bing's caches of those Slashdot articles. But neither Google, Yahoo, nor Bing has ever contacted me and asked me for permission to archive my comments, nor has my ISP or Slashdot ever been served with a warrant in order to obtain my private information.
If Google, Yahoo, and Bing, which are all for-profit businesses can copy and archive my comments without first asking me for my permission, then why do you think that a non-profit group or private person would need to do all of those steps that you mentioned in order to archive the comments that I and many others have posted on Groklaw, either as "Anonymous" or using our handles?
|
|
Anonymous Coward
Guest
|
Authored by Anonymous Coward on Aug 30, 2013 8:11:54 GMT
Perhaps Google, Yahoo and Bing have actually illegally copied and archived your comments. Get your lawyer to send them a [DCMA take down notice] letter to remove your comments from their archives and sue them if they don't? (A nice litle earner...)
|
|
|
Authored by tiger99 on Aug 30, 2013 13:03:28 GMT
Has Groklaw not been archived by the Library of Congress? So it is preserved for posterity anyway.
I sensed that that PJ was under a lot of stress when the discussion was under way. But technically she was correct, and we can't just make a complete copy of Groklaw. If you make a private copy, that no-one will ever know about, there is not really a problem, except that it is illegal. A lot of illegal things are done in private, which does not make them right, and the issue becomes whether someone values their integrity, rather than will they be caught. So best not to do it.
Which of course leads to how ownership and copyright of this site are being handled. It may (and I say may, because IANAL) be advisable to have everyone agree to their comments being under a suitable license, most likely a version of Creative Commons, so that this question will never need to be debated again. But that may have a downside, as no doubt someone is going to come along and explain.
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Aug 31, 2013 0:01:03 GMT
A few hours ago on Groklaw, there was an interesting thread about forking Groklaw, including forking the comments. PJ has since deleted all vestiges of that thread, so I am opening it here, because it is an extremely important topic, which deserves serious discussion. It wasn't deleted, so don't accuse her of doing so. The "Personal Mirror" thread that "Celtic Hacker" and PJ went round and round on (ending in the "Shroedinger's Cat" postings from yesterday and the day before) is still out there. I just looked at it a moment ago to get the link and the quotes in the next paragraph. And the important point was raised there in PJ's last post in that thread (found here), where she wrote "You have rights on your own comments, but not on those of other people." Legally speaking, unless everybody released copyright on their comments (under Creative Commons, or whatever), you don't have the right to do anything with them. I agree with her question of "Why is that hard to fathom?" Even the footer of the site has said for as long as I can remember, "Comments are owned by the individual posters."
|
|
tebee
Veteran Member
Posts: 12
|
Authored by tebee on Sept 5, 2013 14:44:58 GMT
Incidentally this why I suggested we make posts here under a creative commons licence. grokthelaw.freeforums.net/thread/3/posting-rules?page=1&scrollTo=102If at some point in the future we want to move this forum elsewhere, there would be no problems about ownership and copyright of the comments. They would belong to the posters but anyone would have a right to use them. I had a bad experience back in 2006 when a forum I was helping run split into two factions - how do you sort out ownership of the posts? in the end we had to start again from scratch.
|
|
celtichackr
Veteran Member
Hacker, geek, all around technoaddict. Amateur Scientist (well except for those pesky degrees).
Posts: 51
|
Authored by celtichackr on Sept 7, 2013 3:15:02 GMT
I should probably jump in here, since I AM celtic_hackr. The one and same that went round and round with PJ. As we have done a few times. I have never articulated that we should mirror all the comments on Groklaw. I lamented that. I also lamented the conflict between how computers, webbrowsers, and the Internet work and how copyright works, yielding the inevitable paradox between the two worlds. One must copy a webpage to view it. A more or less (depending on your browser settings) permanent copy is made on the harddisk (or in the buffer waiting to be written to it). Also PJ didn't delete the thread. It can be difficult to relocate my thread. I missed it once. The fact is Groklaw can't be copied wholescale without violating copyright law, but the conundrum is you can't view webpages without breaking copyright law, because a real copy is made. Protection was extended for software but not webpages. Hence the entire Internet is illegal! You just broke the law by reading this! Now of course there is a legal way to copy ALL of Groklaw. Form yourself as a legal entity as an archive and use section 108 of the Copyright law to make one copy. That is how the Internet Archive is allowed to do it. As well as Google and Yahoo, et al. They are all archives. Or form yourself a library. You have to actually do this as a legal entity, which means filing annual tax returns, etc. I could do this under one of my companies. But I'm disinclined to acquiesce to that idea (means no). So, one the one side you have the law and the other the way the tech actually works, resulting in a BROKEN copyright law. Still it's a simple thing, if you ignore the reality of the tech and focus only on the law. But I've never been much of one for the law and more for justice (which includes the morally right thing to do). I've found the two are sometimes in conflict. So yes it's simple, but when has justice ever been as simple as a law? (Yes, I'm paraphrasing Star Trek, and POTC in the same post. Get over it.) celtic_hackr PS It is my understanding the LOC has archived only the posts, but by law they can copy any and everything they want. Also by law, you are supposed to submit a copy, or two, to the LOC every time you copyright something.
|
|
celtichackr
Veteran Member
Hacker, geek, all around technoaddict. Amateur Scientist (well except for those pesky degrees).
Posts: 51
|
Authored by celtichackr on Sept 7, 2013 4:35:05 GMT
Furthermore, PJ chose the system she chose for particular reasons. Reason which I also endorse. Some of the people who posted on Groklaw did so only because they were able to retain copyright AND control of the content. It's a difficult world. Compromises are often necessary. Most of the articles can be archived, probably all the legal documents can be archived. Some of the comments are copylefted. Some gave the rights to PJ, what legal state that leaves them in, I have no idea.
Speak to a lawyer, if you plan to archive Groklaw. That's all I can say. I would do it if PJ gave me permission, but I have not asked and she really can't give me permission, for a host of legal reasons. Still if she asked, I'd put on my grey hat and do it. And damn the torpedoes. Because I'm that reckless.
Now here's a riddle for you, if you set up a new PC (say a cheap used one for $25) set your browser cache to unlimited and never delete, and go to Groklaw and click on every link, are you guilty of copyright infringement? If you now disconnect the internet from that machine, and tweak the browser so it displays the cached pages when it is off-line, are you breaking the law reading your private archive of Groklaw? If you instead use wget and a command line browser to download and view each page and comment, are you breaking the law? Where is the line, since the copyright act doesn't give us one specifically for Internet content.
|
|
Disillusioned Penguin
Guest
|
Authored by Disillusioned Penguin on Sept 7, 2013 15:51:42 GMT
For the record, CelticHackr, PJ did delete that sub-thread on Groklaw. It wasn't just a case of you accidentally "missing it" once.
I watched it disappear within one hour after I posted my response to you, obviously because PJ deleted it or marked it as hidden from public view. Then, several hours AFTER I started this thread here, she restored the thread on Groklaw.
That is not an accusation, but a fact.
I find it astonishing that an apparently reasonable and logical person, such as you seem to be, would prefer to doubt your own eyes and the testimony of others, than believe the simple truth of the matter which is that PJ deleted or suppressed a post that factually contradicted her stated position.
|
|
stegu
Veteran Member
Posts: 15
|
Authored by stegu on Sept 9, 2013 7:35:36 GMT
So what? It's back, and even if it weren't, I am prepared to let her make a lot more serious mistakes before I start throwing stones. PJ is a person I have come to trust over the course of ten years. I can't even imagine what she is going through right now, and I am not going to point a finger. She has had to deal with some pretty nasty trolls over the years, and I have had posts deleted in a heavy-handed way for reasons that I might not agree on, but I have accepted her judgment. Mostly it has been feeble attempts at satire being misinterpreted as defamation, and the world is not poorer from not having those posts around.
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Sept 9, 2013 19:38:24 GMT
So what? It's back, and even if it weren't, I am prepared to let her make a lot more serious mistakes before I start throwing stones. PJ is a person I have come to trust over the course of ten years. I can't even imagine what she is going through right now, and I am not going to point a finger. She has had to deal with some pretty nasty trolls over the years, and I have had posts deleted in a heavy-handed way for reasons that I might not agree on, but I have accepted her judgment. Mostly it has been feeble attempts at satire being misinterpreted as defamation, and the world is not poorer from not having those posts around. Agreed. I might not always have had the same opinions as PJ, but she has earned our trust. She always tried to be fair, even to The SCO Group. It will take time for us to put together our own system. Using what PJ did as a base, is probably the best way we can do it. Overall Groklaw worked, and worked far better than many communities I've been part of. That a lot of us stuck around for ten plus years is good evidence of that. Wayne madhatter.ca
|
|
celtichackr
Veteran Member
Hacker, geek, all around technoaddict. Amateur Scientist (well except for those pesky degrees).
Posts: 51
|
Authored by celtichackr on Sept 9, 2013 21:27:49 GMT
DI,
Okay, maybe she did. Maybe she didn't. As stegu says, so what? It's HER website. Were it my website, I'd feel free to delete posts, if I felt like it. PJ deletes posts mostly from abusive trolls. I don't always agree with her, in fact we've had several extended arguments on Groklaw, but she's not seen fit to delete them before. But if she did, that's her right. I've been to sites that make a habit of deleting contrary opinions, or not even allowing them past the filters. PJ doesn't do that. You'll find lots of contradicting opinions on Groklaw's comments. Mostly, she deletes offending posts or some of the worst trolls who she's banned.
I also have to wonder if you are one of the banned people, who has taken to "tracking" posts PJ has deleted so as to be able to attack her on other sites with, "See! She deletes opposing opinion posts!" types of comments. My mother always taught me if you've got nothing nice to say don't say anything. But, I don't see what the issue is. If you're the one whose already downloaded all her posts, comments and deleted comments, what are you complaining about? You've got your copy. If not well you can always try to contact the one who did, and get his copy.
Also, there is nothing stopping you from making a copy of every post and comment, yourself. It's just not legal, so don't advertise if you do.
|
|
Anonymous
Guest
|
Authored by Anonymous on Sept 12, 2013 18:41:04 GMT
PJ deleted posts all the time that had nothing to do with the rules. A lot of the posts she simply disagreed with. Others asked questions she didnt like. AllParadox found that out and was banned and all comments deleted from that point after a disagreement over writing a book on Groklaw.
I wonder if this site will do the same thing.
|
|
Anonymous
Guest
|
Authored by Anonymous on Sept 12, 2013 18:47:38 GMT
Those that use the excuse that it was her site so she could do as she wished I point to the fact that she called Groklaw a community. As such it became more than the personal blog she started. As such she was left in charge of something for the purpose of safeguarding it, not twisting it to her own ends. She did a great disservice to AllParadox who was a retired lawyer and hurt no one. She did a great disservice to posters who thought they were part of a community, and that they had a share of what was being created only to find out it was removed to help preserve PJ's points.
|
|