Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
350,900
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 111:
Line 111: − − :It would only be "free market" if we decided to put it in the contract. I for one have closed many Web site accounts for fear of someone bringing a charge against me where I have no means of self-defense and would be stuck paying not only the Web site owner thousands of dollars, but everyone's "legal fees" to the arbitration forum. Plus, if I am correct it costs companies money to join/fund these forums. I suggest we put as many waivers in as we need, such as waiving the right to a jury trial to discourage long cases and class-action suits. But to involve ourselves in something like this where we not only risk lacking the ability to pay and/or putting the financial safety of one editor/administrator/visitor against another, people's lives can be destroyed over a single debate about something. Conservapedia is not a multinational corporation, and we get picked on/spammed by liberals and atheists, both celebrity and troll, quite a bit. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 11:12, 6 February 2011 (EST) − − :NathanLarson et al, I thought you should know that Creative Commons at some point introduced something called CC0. It is a list of waivers, not a license, and it waives not only the copyright but all of the "all rights reserved" which come with copyright (this doesn't include patents or trademarks). If any part of waiver is not legally possible, the unwaivable rights are re-waived in a "public license fallback", and if that doesn't work, you agree to not to pursue any legal action against others regarding the work. I have applied this to my journal/poetry/opinion blog, but in terms of something like Conservapedia, every editor and administrator would have to know that there is no "taking back" of anything other than deleting it from Conservapedia.com, discouraging automatic spidering using ROBOTS.TXT, and asking/requesting/begging people. Also, there is no attribution requirement, so people can claim not only full credit for our work but partial credit as well (they cannot claim anyone here endorses it). For example, those liberal and atheist spammers can take whatever content they want, pervert it into something else, and claim it it was based on real Conservapedia content, so long as they don't say it's approved/endorsed by any of us. Links: [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ|CC0 FAQ] [[http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/|CC0 main link] [http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode|CC0 legal code]. Personally I personally think it would be too much of a hassle to put out press releases on what is and isn't genuine all the time, especially with people like Jon Stewart making fun of us on national TV. I just thought I'd share info on the new CC0 system with NathanLarson and anyone else who happens to read this. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 10:59, 6 February 2011 (EST)
Conservapedia talk:Copyright (view source)
Revision as of 16:38, February 6, 2011
, 16:38, February 6, 2011Reverted edits by Danq (talk) to last revision by TK
A more "free market" solution would be to eliminate all mention of U.S. Government courts altogether, and provide for the settlement of copyright-related disputes through some sort of [[alternative dispute resolution]] (ADR) - perhaps [[mediation]] as a first step and then [[arbitration]]. If any litigation did occur, it would reduce the cost and time required to resolve it. A typical ADR boilerplate clause reads thus:
A more "free market" solution would be to eliminate all mention of U.S. Government courts altogether, and provide for the settlement of copyright-related disputes through some sort of [[alternative dispute resolution]] (ADR) - perhaps [[mediation]] as a first step and then [[arbitration]]. If any litigation did occur, it would reduce the cost and time required to resolve it. A typical ADR boilerplate clause reads thus:
{{cquote|'''Arbitration of all Disputes.''' As a material part of this Agreement, the parties agree that any and all disputes, claims or controversies arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the purchase of the Property, shall be determined by confidential, final and binding arbitration in Newark, New Jersey, in accordance with the then-existing rules for commercial arbitration of the American Arbitration Association. Disputes, claims, and controversies subject to final and binding arbitration under this Agreement include, without limitation, all those that otherwise could be tried in a court to a judge or jury in the absence of this Agreement. By agreeing to submit all disputes, claims and controversies to binding arbitration, each of the parties expressly waives its rights to have such matters heard or tried in a court before a judge or jury or in any other tribunal. Any award shall be final, binding and conclusive upon the parties, subject only to judicial review provided by statute, and a judgment rendered on the arbitration award may be entered in any state or federal court having jurisdiction thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, each party agrees that before undertaking the aforementioned arbitration, they shall submit all disputes, claims or controversies to a mutually agreeable mediator in an attempt to a informally resolve said disputes, claims or controversies without the need for arbitration.}} [[User:NathanLarson|NathanLarson]] 12:39, 1 March 2010 (EST)
{{cquote|'''Arbitration of all Disputes.''' As a material part of this Agreement, the parties agree that any and all disputes, claims or controversies arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the purchase of the Property, shall be determined by confidential, final and binding arbitration in Newark, New Jersey, in accordance with the then-existing rules for commercial arbitration of the American Arbitration Association. Disputes, claims, and controversies subject to final and binding arbitration under this Agreement include, without limitation, all those that otherwise could be tried in a court to a judge or jury in the absence of this Agreement. By agreeing to submit all disputes, claims and controversies to binding arbitration, each of the parties expressly waives its rights to have such matters heard or tried in a court before a judge or jury or in any other tribunal. Any award shall be final, binding and conclusive upon the parties, subject only to judicial review provided by statute, and a judgment rendered on the arbitration award may be entered in any state or federal court having jurisdiction thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, each party agrees that before undertaking the aforementioned arbitration, they shall submit all disputes, claims or controversies to a mutually agreeable mediator in an attempt to a informally resolve said disputes, claims or controversies without the need for arbitration.}} [[User:NathanLarson|NathanLarson]] 12:39, 1 March 2010 (EST)
== Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 ==
== Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 ==
The [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license] is a pretty good one. It's not a [[copyleft]] license like the [[GFDL]] or [[Creative Commons Share-Alike]] licenses, so cumbersome contractual entanglements pertaining to derivative works are avoided. Functionally, it's not all that different from a [[public domain]] license (see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ this page]), except that it's perhaps on firmer legal footing. (There is still some question as to whether a copyright owner is allowed to release his work into the public domain.) I don't think it would be such a bad idea to migrate this site to Creative Commons Attribution 3.0. [[User:NathanLarson|NathanLarson]] 15:33, 1 March 2010 (EST)
The [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license] is a pretty good one. It's not a [[copyleft]] license like the [[GFDL]] or [[Creative Commons Share-Alike]] licenses, so cumbersome contractual entanglements pertaining to derivative works are avoided. Functionally, it's not all that different from a [[public domain]] license (see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ this page]), except that it's perhaps on firmer legal footing. (There is still some question as to whether a copyright owner is allowed to release his work into the public domain.) I don't think it would be such a bad idea to migrate this site to Creative Commons Attribution 3.0. [[User:NathanLarson|NathanLarson]] 15:33, 1 March 2010 (EST)
:Thanks, Nathan. The owner of this site is a licensed Attorney and not merely a wiki-lawyer, however. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 19:46, 1 March 2010 (EST)
:Thanks, Nathan. The owner of this site is a licensed Attorney and not merely a wiki-lawyer, however. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 19:46, 1 March 2010 (EST)