you're chipper today, feeling festive?

"
That's simply common sense, to say nothing of legal. The right to publish copyrightable material can be withdrawn."

Interesting because I ran intoa situation where somebody wanted to revoke a use of work for reasons not relateing to the work itself. "My Ball" syndrome.

Anyway, wqhen I talked witha lawyer about it he said that in this situation, where content was given to me on a CD, that revoking theright of use wasn't really an opion unless abuse of work could be shown, or picture sused out of context or what have you.

This is of course why I prefer the Creative Commons method of dealing with all of this. In fact, (HEY WADE, GARY - PAY ATTENTION TO THIS) a lot of tribes content issues could be resolved very quickly of they simply adopted one of the Creative Commons licences as their own policy.

Images: creativecommons.org/image/
Text : creativecommons.org/text/

They have licences for both non commecial and commercial, shared use, etc.

This is, from what I'm reading from Wade exactly what Tribe is trying to impliment, but having problems with their wording. The crestive commons are in effect, an in perpetuity type of agreement, however ownership is never granted, just use permissons.

--S

"People should be free to decide when, where, and for how long they want something displayed. The fact that they want it displayed this week should not lock them into displaying it next week too."

Tribe can not be all things to all people. If you want this type of control over your posts, go find a forum that gives you that type of control. Many forums do NOT let people delete their own posts, so it's not like Tribe is doing something unusual here.

Personally, I'd MUCH rather have a functioning URL tagger, a system to automatically quote the part of the prior post I'm replying to, and other tools to make threaded discussions easier to follow and to reply to.

Deleting my own post isn't even on my radar - my usenet posts from the 90s are archived on DejaGoogle for all to see. I don't like the feature that lets a moderator delete a thread. This happened recently in one tribe I'm in, now we have a thread about people complaining about the deleted thread. Meanwhile, since I get a daily digest of all new posts in that tribe, I have the "deleted" thread contents on my computer and if I were a troublemaker I could repost it all again if I wanted. It's silly to think that "deleting" will fix anything. Just be more careful about what you post in the first place!

"That's simply common sense, to say nothing of legal. The right to publish copyrightable material can be withdrawn. "

The TOU says you give "a perpetual license" when you post. If you don't like that, don't post on Tribe! Just go find another forum that lets you "withdraw" and delete your posts if this is so important to you.

"And there is no technical or logistical reason why this ability should not be available."

I hate participating on forums where posts can be deleted. It's damn confusing when a post is missing from the middle of a discussion. I'm sure I'm not alone in prefering that once a post is made public, it stays.

If you don't like this feature of Tribe, why are you here??? There are hundreds or thousands of other places to have discussions, certainly some of those places have policies that better meet your needs. Go there! If they don't have the community you found on Tribe then invite your Tribe friends to go there with you to MAKE it into a community that works for you. If your Tribe friends won't move with you, then consider that perhaps Tribe works better for their needs, that they LIKE the features here.

>>I think teh problem is that it does lead to posting inflamitory shit, getting peopel riled up and then deleteing saying "I never said that"

I'm guessing that's the main reason. <<

I don't buy it. I could count the number of times I've seen that happen on one hand, and still have enough fingers left to list the Marx Brothers.

First of all, telling a whole tribe of people who have read what you wrote that you didn't really write that is pointless. They remember. Second, if it got people riled up then they've probably already quoted it back several times.

Third, even if this were Tribe's motive it wouldn't be enough to justify keeping such an important feature out of the members' hands.

>>A happy medium would be that if you quit tribe, then along with your pictures, all postings are deleted.<<

That's not a happy medium. That's a bare minimum.

>>what's the point of deleteing? <<

Copyright control. Tribe's "perpetual license" lapses if you remove your licensed content from Tribe. Breaking Tribe's license increases the value of the published work. The fact that it's quoted elsewhere doesn't matter, because only the author who quoted you is then covered by the license.

It's like being quoted in a book. If some other author quotes my writing in a book, that doesn't affect my ability to assign an exclusive license to the writing that the quote was taken from. That's called "fair use" in copyright law.

Basically, it's an idea that has been needed for a long time, and there's just no good reason to hold it back any longer.

>>There are still FidoNet systems in service despite the internet. <<

Yeah, but they're real dogs.

Nice try, but Usenet predates Fidonet by several years. Fidonet showed up in the mid 80s. I got my first access to Usenet in 1983, and it was several years old at the time. I believe Usenet started in 1979, though I'd have to dig around to find out for sure.

Fidonet is certainly not the first distributed node information network, and Usenet was NOT based on the Fidonet concept since it came first.

-Patti
(nethead since 1983, BBS sysop mid-80s, Usenet admin intermittently from 1984-1990 or so)

>>Well, we can always ask the moderator to delete such postings. I'm sure they will do it if we ask them. <<

A) Why bother the mod when you could do it yourself?

B) Why rely on the moderator's goodwill when you don't have to?

In other words, the only reason to leave it in the moderator's hands is because you don't trust yourself to use this power for good. If you do trust yourself, then take control of your own content.

>>Because when a everybody starts delete some postings here and there, tribe gonna be a mess, belive me. <<

It might be, but that's not what happens on services that allow this. Deletion is used sparingly. The "this would ruin Tribe!" argument is just not reflected in the real world.

Even a number of the services that jc was kind enough to point out as having perpetual licenses allow users to delete posts. Yahoo groups is a good example. It works fine there. It works fine on Livejournal. Basically, it works fine almost everywhere it's used. Why would Tribe be any different?

>>Why don't let all tribe users MARK postings for deletion?<<

There's not a bit of difference between that and just sending the moderator an email. And it's still making work for the mods that could be done by users, and giving moderators rather than users control over what's removed.

There's no need for that and no good reason to do it that way, and much good reason to put control in the hands of the users.

>>Gary C>>[Tribe] probably have a common law perpetual license to what's voluntarily posted here anyway.<<Gary C<<

>>Rapture>>Was that before or after Tribe stating that the license terminates upon removel by the user?<<Rapture<<

Probably both. Content is voluntarily posted with no explicit or implicit understanding (by *both* Tribe and posters) of how or when Tribe will get rid of every record of its posting. Content is regularly stored, copied (for web viewers), and archived on Internet sites. Absent some agreement to the contrary, a court will not (in my relatively informed opinion) invent some 'right to withdraw content' that neither the user nor Tribe agreed to at the time the content was posted. Instead, a court would most likely hold a poster to his failure to negotiate a 'right of withdrawal' prior to giving away his content.

That said, Tribe's license to posted material (both under the common law and under their new TOU) is probably no broader than the right to use posted material for "normal Tribe.net-type activities."