Difference between revisions of "User talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Misuse) |
Hojimachong (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:Yes, "misuse" has to be defined. Am I allowed to burn the entire content on DVD and sell it? Am I allowed to mirror the site and host my ads all around it? (I) seems to imply it, but it might fall under "misuse". (III) looks a bit confusing to me, considering that (I) and (II) already cover pretty much all usage rights (Then again, I'm not a lawyer.). Maybe it would be better to put (III) first, it strikes me as the most important part that other parts refer to. (IV) looks like it belongs into [[Conservapedia:General disclaimer]], it doesn't really have real connections to copyright and usage rights in my eyes. In general, it should maybe be clearer that Conservapedia and not its editors hold the copyright. Right now, (I) indirectly admits that Conservapedia has some sort of power, but (III) doesn't say who the content is copyrighted to. | :Yes, "misuse" has to be defined. Am I allowed to burn the entire content on DVD and sell it? Am I allowed to mirror the site and host my ads all around it? (I) seems to imply it, but it might fall under "misuse". (III) looks a bit confusing to me, considering that (I) and (II) already cover pretty much all usage rights (Then again, I'm not a lawyer.). Maybe it would be better to put (III) first, it strikes me as the most important part that other parts refer to. (IV) looks like it belongs into [[Conservapedia:General disclaimer]], it doesn't really have real connections to copyright and usage rights in my eyes. In general, it should maybe be clearer that Conservapedia and not its editors hold the copyright. Right now, (I) indirectly admits that Conservapedia has some sort of power, but (III) doesn't say who the content is copyrighted to. | ||
:And maybe this thing should be linked to from a more prominent spot if you really want others to give input. I only noticed it because I still monitor your Talk page. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 23:27, 11 March 2007 (EDT) | :And maybe this thing should be linked to from a more prominent spot if you really want others to give input. I only noticed it because I still monitor your Talk page. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 23:27, 11 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::I think it's in a great condition, just needs to be reworded into "legal lingo". --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 23:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
==Misuse== | ==Misuse== | ||
Revision as of 03:55, March 12, 2007
For this, we have to define "misuse". GofG ||| Talk 23:06, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Bravo!!! It looks magnificent!!! I'll make a few minor changes that should not matter to anyone.
Anyone else have some thoughts on this?--Aschlafly 23:07, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, "misuse" has to be defined. Am I allowed to burn the entire content on DVD and sell it? Am I allowed to mirror the site and host my ads all around it? (I) seems to imply it, but it might fall under "misuse". (III) looks a bit confusing to me, considering that (I) and (II) already cover pretty much all usage rights (Then again, I'm not a lawyer.). Maybe it would be better to put (III) first, it strikes me as the most important part that other parts refer to. (IV) looks like it belongs into Conservapedia:General disclaimer, it doesn't really have real connections to copyright and usage rights in my eyes. In general, it should maybe be clearer that Conservapedia and not its editors hold the copyright. Right now, (I) indirectly admits that Conservapedia has some sort of power, but (III) doesn't say who the content is copyrighted to.
- And maybe this thing should be linked to from a more prominent spot if you really want others to give input. I only noticed it because I still monitor your Talk page. --Sid 3050 23:27, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
- I think it's in a great condition, just needs to be reworded into "legal lingo". --Hojimachongtalk 23:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Misuse
Add ideas here
*Attempts to discredit Conservapedia
- I think this is WAY too restrictive. It would make pretty much ALL current news reports and blogs that reported on Conservapedia guilty of copyright violation. And I'm (still) not a lawyer, but what does Fair Use say there? --Sid 3050 23:39, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
- Good points, Sid. I think we could delete that item you reference ("Attempts to discredit Conservapedia"). We respect free speech rights to criticize us.--Aschlafly 23:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Strike Geo. 23:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
- Changing information negatively and then citing Conservapedia
- Harming an editor in some way, such as publishing his name with his entries in a way that hurts his employment
- Copying the entire site and using it to confuse potential visitors in some manner
- Copying material and then incorporating it into something that claims a new copyright that is asserted back against Conservapedia or an editor