Jeff Ream Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 That makes 100% sense. Except where it doesn't make sense, which is in points #1 and #2.If DCI isn't going to up the coin to get their lawyers to enforce their copyrights and protect their IP, that's their problem. Likewise, DCI is not responsible for someone bootlegging their IP and putting it on YouTube ... If the music publishers want to enforce their rights, it's incumbent upon them to pursue the matter with YouTube, not DCI. Sorry, John, but not being up-to-date in current business standards and practices regarding new media publishing is showing in this thought process. I'll agree with Whitedawn, and say your policies are completely outdated. well, if you dont like what John does, you have an option: start your own version of DCP and pay those bills and stop using DCP. He pays for the place, and what he decides goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 Cyberplace: Defining a Right to Internet Access Through Public Accommodation Law (Temple Law Review, Vol. 76, pp. 225-276, Summer 2003 )This isn't the Soviet Union ... Hell, even the Soviet Union isn't the Soviet Union any more. (Oh, and I'd check that language filter circumvention ... It's in violation of the TOS, you know.) and he owns the site, so what he says goes. so say hello to Chairman Donovan, ruler of the DCP Party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 Well, no. NOT end of discussion. We can voice our opinions, ideas, and concerns until this thread is closed. I'm kinda of the opinion that dcihasbeen has stated. I understand that DCI and the corps have asked them to remove links... BUT, if it's not illegal, then what? I dunno, something seems amiss. If the policy doesn't change, I'm not going to cry about it.AND - although it is HIS site, he relies on the community to provide content, revenue, and relevance. If we get angry and go away or create an alternative, methinks it's not in his best interest. true. but you know what's funny? In the 6 years DCP has been here, under various owners and management, only twice has anyone started to set up anything that would be an alternative. and I dont know of anyone who has been to those places in years. So maybe, just maybe, given the age of happy lawsuit folks we live in, John is doing what's best to cover HIS ###. All it takes is one suit, and DCP's gone. Better safe than sorry. now if he starts charging to post here, then people have a right to say stuff about how he runs things in terms of legal issues, as we'd be helping pay those bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 No one ever said you weren't free to create your own site if you're not satisfied with the way things run here . . .it's how DCP was borne of RAMD, after all. Competition is always healthy; just don't expect to get free advertising for it on here like you already do for the misadventures of Michael Boo. In this "sue first, think things through later" age we live in now, being cautious is better than just seeing what happens if we open the floodgates. you're so cute when you're dead on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bawker Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 so say hello to Chairman Donovan, ruler of the DCP Party. DCP Moderation factoid #1 (of eleventy billion + two): whereas most moderation teams just issue user bans from a "ban hammer", DCP actually uses a banhammer and a bansickle. Drum Corps Planet: Есть человек, есть проблема. Нет человека, нет проблемы. disclaimer: the above is intended for humorous purposes only. Offer void in Guam and American Samoa. Offer may be rescinded due to Cavaliers 2003 guard uniform threads on DCP, a piece of peanut brittle I found, or by watching a "Little People, Big World" marathon on TLC. For shizzle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 (edited) Edited December 5, 2008 by jeffsnewjetta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCIHasBeen Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 (edited) No one ever said you weren't free to create your own site if you're not satisfied with the way things run here . . .it's how DCP was borne of RAMD, after all. Competition is always healthy; just don't expect to get free advertising for it on here like you already do for the misadventures of Michael Boo. In this "sue first, think things through later" age we live in now, being cautious is better than just seeing what happens if we open the floodgates. Well, you're right about the "sue first, think things through later" mentality ... However you've already had an attorney give you an opinion on the likelihood of a suit based on copyright infringement here, and that opinion follows the thinking of most of the IP attorneys whose work I've come in contact with. The fact of the matter is while John owns the DCP infrastructure, he's really only the shepherd of a community of content creators who contribute their IP to his site, increasing it's value not only to the community, but to DCP Partners' bottom line by increasing the site's value to potential advertisers. It seems kind of self-defeating to take a hard-line stance on the unlikely risk of copyright infringement litigation, while pursuing draconian policies towards your user base that could very likely, at some point, result in being litigated against on Public Accommodation grounds. The latter representing a risk that could cripple the business financially, regardless of its success or failure. It's an area of law that more lawyers are willing to explore as the realized value of the Internet as real property takes on more emphasis in the marketplace. Any business that would put itself in that kind of a risk situation through its inaction in servicing its user-contributors is doing itself a disservice, imo. Edited December 5, 2008 by DCIHasBeen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 well, until John changes his mind, or his attorney changes his mind, my guess is he'll stay with how he has it currently. but hey, at east you get free advertising from it, so it cant be all that bad right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCVsopAaron Posted December 5, 2008 Author Share Posted December 5, 2008 I'm curious as to why you have such a big problem with him posting a link/graphic in his sig? Um, it's totally w/in TOS... I mean, heck, if I created an alternate universe DCP and put the link in my sig, it's within my right, right? Also, I think the whole "sue first" mentality is going away, ESPECIALLY with regards to IP like youtube, bitorrent, etc... That stuff is used by a LARGE portion of our society and it has been embraced by the mainstream. I expect those laws to go away sooner than later as the younger generations get into positions of power. Technology is moving too fast for the laws to keep up and be relevant... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle B Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 I don't think Jeff has anything against the image or the link...just stating that he's got free advertising on this site. And no....actually it's not within your right, it is if JohnD and the other people who run this site says so. Granted, 95% of the time it doesn't go against the TOS or anything else, but we are members on a site controlled by other people. The idea of free speech doesn't apply. It does apply if they want it to, and again, in most cases they do want it to apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts