444
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 39:
Line 39: + + + + + +
User talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2 (view source)
Revision as of 18:07, March 16, 2007
, 18:07, March 16, 2007→Is this True?
The document goes on to say: "This is a binding legal document. By using this site you agree to be bound by it." Is this true? Is it really a binding legal document just because it says it is? And can we really insist that people be bound by it when they probably haven't read it? Or is it going to be on the front page? --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:38, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
The document goes on to say: "This is a binding legal document. By using this site you agree to be bound by it." Is this true? Is it really a binding legal document just because it says it is? And can we really insist that people be bound by it when they probably haven't read it? Or is it going to be on the front page? --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:38, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yes it is. When you go onto a site you agree to abide by the rules without even seeing them. Copyright goes into effect at creation, so they will have to obey it. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yes it is. When you go onto a site you agree to abide by the rules without even seeing them. Copyright goes into effect at creation, so they will have to obey it. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Hi. Can I assume that your response, “Yes, it is.” is in response to my question, “Is this true?” and not in response to the question, “Or is it going to be on the front page?”?
Anyway, if you’re convinced that’s fine – though it sounds a bit strange to me. For instance, suppose we introduced a rule stating, “Anybody quoting this material must pay 500 dollars.” We could then chase all the people who quote from us even though they didn’t know the rule existed. In fact it’s even better than that. Rule V makes things retroactive – so we could demand money from people who didn’t know the rule existed in respect of a rule which didn’t exist at the time they broke it.
OK. This may be an absurd example - but there is already some criticism of the legal statement on the front page, and it would be well to be quite clear on this and the retroactive question before posting it. --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:07, 16 March 2007 (EDT)