 Poster: A snowHead
|
davidof - repect. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| davidof wrote: |
| For me the ideal resolution is that the Ski Club news desk takes a more open, inclusive and civic attitude to other news sources rather than perhaps feeling they are gatekeepers of UK skiing. |
That's a very measured response David, which is admirable in the circumstances. For me the main issue I have is with the apparent attitude by the Club and some of its members that they intrinsically believe that they are Gatekeepers to or Custodians of all things ski-related in the UK. I guess that this is at the root of the problem with copying stuff from PisteHors and running it without attribution. It is an attitude change at the Club which is mostly likely to mean problems like this don't occur in the future. It would be better if the ethos was that it is a Club, not The Club, just as snowHeads is a forum not The forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
The thing with LeeLau was the (over?)reaction, rather than the principle. I don't think there was any serious dissent about the principle. You shouldn't just nick other people's stuff to publish as your own. As a bare minimum, morally, you should attribute.
Once you accept that, then it's a question of what action and what re-action, which is where people will have different views.
The principle is clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
davidof, Well said. Your considered and measured response does you great credit. I completely agree that this issue is not about the actions of a single SCGB staffer, but their whole attitude to copyright and editorial procedures, which as with all organisations come down from the top.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
davidof, sounds good. I raised the matter at the AGM last night, possibly not forcefully enough, but it sounds like there are enough members going into bat there for you electronically anyway. From what you (and CS-T) says it was a genuine mistake on the part of the culprit (however incredible that may seem), but hopefully the this affair will result in better processes being put in place to prevent another repeat. I think it's best if we all now shut up and let you and them sort this out between yourselves. But if you need to rally the cavalry again, feel free to sound the trumpet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
From what you (and CS-T) says it was a genuine mistake on the part of the culprit (however incredible that may seem)
|
I'm staggered that the Chief Exec would paint it as a "genuine mistake" when somebody needed to go to certain lengths to disguise the copyright of the pics. My information is that the Chief Exec was fairly light-hearted in answering the question and didn't appear to appreciate the real issues. Is that fair?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
davidof, To agree with many others you are to be admired for the way in which this episode has been conducted.
However, I am bemused that many are willing to 'blame' a lack of training and /or policy by the Ski club for this happening. I do not belive for one minute that removing a clearly displayed © could have been avoided by training, intentionally removing the © is the conclusive proof of the act of theft.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| Quote: |
From what you (and CS-T) says it was a genuine mistake on the part of the culprit (however incredible that may seem)
|
I'm staggered that the Chief Exec would paint it as a "genuine mistake" when somebody needed to go to certain lengths to disguise the copyright of the pics. My information is that the Chief Exec was fairly light-hearted in answering the question and didn't appear to appreciate the real issues. Is that fair? |
No I do not think it is fair. I was there and in my view the Chief Executive did not reply in a light hearted manner.
What information do you have? One ski club member who was at the meeting, this morning on the SCGB board said he felt that the response was not "contrite" enough. He did not make that comment, which I disagree with, at the meeting when he had the chance to do so. Is that the second hand piece of information you have received?
It was said stated that it was a mistake as way of trying to inform the members of what had happened. It was also stated that the club does have a policy on copyright which I will not repeat because I might misquote it, however to me as a non legal person it appeared responsible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
davidof, played with a straight bat sir. Its a pity that other  s and SCGB members can't learn from your measured response and desist from trying to have the last word by firing barbed comments at one another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think davidof has been incredibly polite and patient (especially as this is a third offence). To trim the PisteHors copyright logo from the photo would have taken a dedicated effort. this cannot be a mistake - sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
What information do you have? One ski club member who was at the meeting, this morning on the SCGB board said he felt that the response was not "contrite" enough. He did not make that comment, which I disagree with, at the meeting when he had the chance to do so. Is that the second hand piece of information you have received?
|
richjp, Doesn't sound like it. It was described as more flippant, like it was a trivial matter that would sort itself out. My "informant" isn't someone with an axe to grind, just an interested bystander. I wasn't there which is why I asked if it was fair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Bode Swiller, no, not flippant. Not profusely apologetic either, but fairly businesslike in that davidof had been contacted and the matter was going to be resolved. If your informant was not satisfied by the answer, why did he/she not make any further comment, as I was the only one even making an attempt to raise the issue  , and everyone else either had no idea what we were talking about, or were firmly sitting on their hands.
And to clarify: "mistake" as in the person involved did wrong (obviously deliberately), but this was an action unbeknown to, not sanctioned by and in contravention of the stated policies of the organisation. As I said above, I hope the processes are tightened up after this. The only people who have any right to institute a witchhunt on this are either davidof (who while being rightfully aggrieved does not currently seem minded to do so), or possibly SCGB members who feel their/out club has been brought into disrepute by this action. Lets wait on davidof's feedback before sounding off further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I raised the photoshopping of logos, and as Davidoff has explained, the second image WASNT marked originally, and wasnt photoshop altered for the SCGB website. The first Image was simply cropped.
So the crime is a BIT less 'pre-meditated' than I originally implied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| lampbus wrote: |
I raised the photoshopping of logos, and as Davidoff has explained, the second image WASNT marked originally, and wasnt photoshop altered for the SCGB website. The first Image was simply cropped.
So the crime is a BIT less 'pre-meditated' than I originally implied. |
It's no less premeditated. The person involved simply had to do less work.
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Fri 1-12-06 20:07; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
I wouldn't call a copyright infringer a thief on a public forum. Whatever one may think of them, they have not, in law, committed theft.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
richmond, ¿ Wouldn't that depend on how or whether the intellectual and actual property is stolen or the copyright infringed ? Surely legal semantics are within the province and framing of the formal claim? However the lay comment that the SCGB in the form of its officer(s) took the property of davidof from his premises (leased web space) and then removed clear identifying features and presented it as their own property can clearly stand to be described as theft?
As I said before, any person that has the ability to add editorial content to the SCGBs site has authority from the club to do so. Any act of malfeasance, as clearly demonstrated here, is a reflection to the club's attitude to the law and the individual(s) moral turpitude. 'Cut-N-paste' is web etiquette 101 in every classroom. Here there was a deliberate act to remove evidence of prior ownership and that can only be described as "THEFT" (with intent to defraud?) there was no mistake in the action taken and in the extraordinary chance that this was a mistake of ignorance . . . just how the hell was this ignorant person given access to the SCGBs website? Negligence?
In either case the SCGB owes davidof a serious apology and at the least a substantial donation to a charity of his choosing.
Everything in this thread is indicative of an organisation with a overreaching opinion of its authority, a habitual offender and seemingly, harbouring an irrational, or perhaps rational, fear and loathing of 'common upstarts' like Slushnuts.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Fri 1-12-06 20:09; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
richmond, I forgot you had an A level in law. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Our law. I believe in the USA, copyright infringement can be criminal, in some circumstances. That does not seem to be so, here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Masque, I'm with richmond on the theft question. I think it's dangerous to pursue analogies between the world of atoms and the world of bits. If I steal you car, I have it and you don't. If I cut and paste from your web site, you still have the original. I may have reduced your ability to derive a benefit from your web-site, and hence reduced its value, but that's not the same as theft, wrong as it may be.
typo edit
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Fri 1-12-06 22:08; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Masque, no. It's just not theft, just as smacking someone the mouth isn't theft. My concern is not mere pedantry (on this occasion), but that it might be a ground of complaint against this site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
laundryman, Yes there is that ambiguity in UK law, I was defending the lay-persons right to call it the theft it was and any formal action by the SCGB in defence of its behaviour would be extraordinarily damaging to what's left of its credibility.
As I'm moving an action there, I am better versed in the US interpretation of copyright and do tend to lean towards that.
richmond, It wasn't a simple matter of GBH. The club took his property and made specific changes to represent it as their own. There is a question as to whether they have sold it in whole or part to a third party? I'm not attempting the futile task of applying morality to law . . . just defending the right of the lay-person to apply a term within their common reference to an act by the SCGB.
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Fri 1-12-06 21:19; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| bh1 wrote: |
| richmond, I forgot you had an A level in law. |
I wish I did have. It would have made getting my postgraduate qualification in intellectual property law much easier, I expect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going skiing with a bunch of lawyers (sorry, don't know the correct collective term... is it "a drivel"?) next week-end. Can't wait for the absorbing after dinner chat 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Bode Swiller, oddly (or obviously not ) there's a lot conjecture on what to call a collection of lawyers . . . a 'murder' coming from their crow-like appearance, but that's more applicable to silks. A 'litigation' it too lazy and obvious . . . but a 'huddle' of lawyers has a strong following.
Me . . . I quite like a 'brothel' of lawyers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Masque wrote: |
| Me . . . I quite like a 'brothel' of lawyers |
Each to his own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
A scrotum of lawyers
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
A bundle of lawyers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Masque wrote: |
| laundryman, Yes there is that ambiguity in UK law, I was defending the lay-persons right to call it the theft it was |
As I'm sure they explained to your parents at your birth, ignorance is no excuse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| AxsMan wrote: |
admin, dunno if you have access to the SCGB forums but in case not I thought I'd confirm your assumption is correct up to a point. The 'usual suspects' are dragging 's name through the mud and IMHO trying to muddy the waters and deflect the argument. However the vast majority of posts are critical of the SCGB's actions and supportive of Davidof's position. This seems to be particularly true of members who admit to being 'new' and not having any Axes (boom boom) to grind.  |
I'm one of those new ones I have to admit - joined a couple of weeks ago primarily for the discounts to be honest. It's given me the completely unforseen opportunity to take these 'usual suspects' to task over their bizarre attitudes though so all to the good. It seems to me though that the vast majority posting over there are as shocked at what's happened as are people here so remember the 'usual suspects' are a tiny, if vocal, minority.
Where does all the bile towards Snowheads from these people originate though? I really don't know the history so it's all a bit of a mystery to me!
There's one individual over there whose main retort to a post he didn't like was to write, and I quote (fair use, honest  ), "you post a lot on snowheads, I've noticed" - now that's just plain sad!
However, these are individuals and I don't think the entire club should be judged by them alone so I reserve judgement and will keep an eye on how this progresses. The bottom line for me is that as a web professional myself I have no wish to belong to an organisation that allows the kind of behaviour this thread is discussing to happen.
| admin wrote: |
| AxsMan, I don't question for a moment that the vast majority of SCGB members are fine, fair minded, 'naturally occuring' snow-heads |
LOL, well some of them (me) are primarly Snowheads looking for a few bargains! 
| Quote: |
| However, if a few rather insecure individuals exhibit agressive paranoia when their club is criticised, no matter how just the criticism, it doesn't look good on the club as whole and it might be wise of the administration to address it at some point - esp. if some of those individuals appear to be very close to that administration. |
Are they? Genuine question there because again I don't have a clue about the politics and history of all this, I've just observed some seemingly unreasonable individuals doing their thing and trying to ignore the main issue. (I've also noticed they seem to see being abusive to Dave Goldsmith as some kind of enjoyable bloodsport but again I haven't got a clue what motivates this behaviour or the politics behind it.)
| Quote: |
| Anyway - that's their concern not ours. |
That, I know, is definitely the case
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| richmond wrote: |
| I wouldn't call a copyright infringer a thief on a public forum. Whatever one may think of them, they have not, in law, committed theft. |
I understand your point although my original words were "content theft" - maybe not an appropriate legal term but in very widespread colloquial usage for copying material. Other people may have run with my original wording.
Copyright is effectively a government backed "charter" to protect intellectual property for a certain time period. Content theft doesn't deprive the originator of the "property" but potentially could deprive him of some financial gain from that property.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
roga, If you think SCGB & DG are unique that's because you missed his dialogue with many of the posters over here - which culminated in him "resigning" - largely because Admin. of this site refused to kow-tow to his demands regarding the Terms and Conditions (aka "Tamsin") which Admin. had placed on his own site.
Unfortunately - although he seems to object to everything about SCGB - from the use of Reps. in resorts to the graphs in the accounts - he unaccountably remains a member.
If you stay tuned over there you will probably become as irritated by the regularity with which he raises the same issues time and time again - sometimes disguised - sometimes not. It's like the first cuckoo................
That is why some members may have appeared to have strayed off the -in itself altered - topic of the thread to question DG's motives .
I think that all of those posters have also expressed sympathy with davidof,
and/ or questioned the way SCGB have responded to the matter even if their questioning of DG comes over louder. That is my reading anyway.
I certainly agree that no copyright infringement should be initiated by such a large organisation as SCGB,
that this is particularly inexcusable when it occurs from such a well organised site such as PisteHors which clearly states its copyright policy
and that SCGB should ensure that davidof, is fully appraised of and happy with whatever actions SCGB take in regards to apology and action on internal procedures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
I guess the thing with forums is that it's easy to attribute the views of one poster to the whole community, or the organisation that runs the forum. I suspect that's part of the reason that the SCGB originally closed its public forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Tim Brown wrote: |
| [ As I'm sure they explained to your parents at your birth, ignorance is no excuse. |
As ever, you demonstrate yours . . . along with the rabid irrational paranoia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
roga, Well said, and the individual you refer to in
"There's one individual over there whose main retort to a post he didn't like was to write, and I quote (fair use, honest ), "you post a lot on snowheads, I've noticed" - now that's just plain sad! "
is also prone to mudlsinging over here, as Masque, reminds us above. As you say, just plain sad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
davidof, I wasn't commenting on your use of 'content theft'; it was the description of an individual infringer as a thief which I think was a bit intemperate.
The financial loss suffered by a copyright owner as a result of infringement is dealt with by damages. The criminal penalties do not seem to be tied to financial damage; merely infringing in particular circumstances may be a criminal offence even if the owner suffers no financial loss. This is another reason for not regarding copyright infringement as theft.
The collective noun for lawyers is a bore, I believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| richmond wrote: |
| ........The collective noun for lawyers is a bore, I believe. |
I have some legal friends who aren't. But I can't help liking that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hoppo wrote: |
| I guess the thing with forums is that it's easy to attribute the views of one poster to the whole community, or the organisation that runs the forum. I suspect that's part of the reason that the SCGB originally closed its public forum. |
Interesting case on that under California law recently... common sense prevailed and it was held that the posters, not the board operator were responsible for their posts... but that's a different discussion.
Anyway back to my point.
I can see how the 'error' could be positioned. I run one of Switzerland's largest corporate Intranets and I can quite safely say that no matter how much you tell people, write directives, make examples of them and generally moan - if someone likes a bit of text or a picture they will happily nick it and post it until someone complains. I have hundreds of 'innocent' authors that would make just such an 'error' if we didn't watch them like hawks.
However, if our admin teams do find something like this they have to remove it and to educate our authors and ensure their competence. As an organisation we clearly carry the responsibilty for someone 'being a kipper', if we fail to make our users aware of what they can do it is the organisation that has been negligent. Untrained people in that sort of position is, in my view, a greater crime than some nerk who really doesn't understand the legal or indeed the moral principles involved.
Anything that forces an organisation to evaluate itself from time to time is a good thing. Let's hope that the ski club learns from this and congrats to Davidof for being so level headed. Who knows this may be the start of an offical content syndication contract - something that could benefit both parties?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rutschen, good post
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
hibernia, All Rutschen's, post are good. Pergaps we should concentrate on quality, not quantity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rutschen, That was in regard to open forum posting, here we are discussing editorial content, its provenance and the intent behind the use. Anyone with editorial access would have to be remarkably inappropriately qualified to make a "mistake" of this nature . . . just possible had not the photo been cropped to hide evidence of its true ownership . . . No this was a deliberate act by someone in a position of authority or at the least to have been approved by a person of authority within the club for it to be placed in the web publication. At some point at least one person knew there had been a bad act. There is no equivocation that the club should be apologising to davidof, its members and to the public since the purloined article was on the public side of its web presence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
