How to host the downloaded Training Forum

[PaulaO]

I ran across this thread on one of my BBs about how to host a small PDF file. Thought it might of interest

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/sho ... p?t=771526

Yes, I also posted this on TDF.

[Chancellor]

Thank you PaulaO. I still have not received the file.
I am fairly certain I know how I will do it.....but I have to see the file first.

[digihorse]

Do I take this to mean that Chris is transferring UDBB to you? Interesting.

[Snork]

I don't believe this would qualify as a transfer of UDBB. First, it is just one forum. Second, it is a copy of the posts made, and is not "workable" the way the forum would be if it were transferred. And, third, most importantly, the copy has been provided by a third party to two different boards.

We can argue the legal and moral aspects of wholesale republishing (and I think the opinions are going to differ there) but putting a file copy of the old posts of another board, for educational purpose only, with no ability to edit or modify the text, is not going to turn this board into an UDBB successor any more than slapping a Santa hat and a few reindeer in the banner makes this a North Pole.

[digihorse]

Hmm... but, if "this" board should at any time in the future wish to charge for access, then that makes that document an object for sale, of content to which the UDBB does not own, and neither does DDBB nor does either have the legal right of license of same. This is EXACTLY the scenario that I questioned before Chris took down UDBB. Once there is a "file" that is a PDF, you have "published" the contents of the UDBB training forum in a "book" format, without permission of the "authors" of that content.

[digihorse]

It has come to my attention that someone has managed to download the training forum content. This information is from Facebook. Be forewarned: Nothing posted to Facebook regarding this content is legally binding, as it assumes that those whose content is being stolen from them have access to that Facebook account.

At this time, I consider that copyright infringement has taken place both by Chris Vinson, and further by any entity or person who seeks to copy and/or any content from that which was known as the UDBB. No one has my permission or license to copy, use or distribute any content I posted to the entity UDBB.

[Snork]

Why so much hatred? Your posts were fully accessible on UDBB before. Why is it a problem that they remain accessible on the net? What are you trying to achieve?

And knock off that Chris Vinson hating. As far as I know, someone copied posts from UDBB before it closed, that someone being neither Chris nor an agent of his under his direction. If that is true, how has Chris infringed upon your copyright? The short answer is that *he* has not and it is not entirely clear whether anyone has. Sorry if you don't like it but lets just stop spreading hysterical nonsense.

[Rhianon]

Okay, I know nothing about the legal bits of stuff like this. But I have to say that it never occurred to me that I would "own" anything I posted on a public forum.

As a professional writer, I have a pretty clear idea of what I do "for profit" and what I do knowing somebody else can easily pick it up and run with it. I protect the hell out of the former, and consider that if anybody is interested in the latter it is my little contribution to the universe.

[Snork]

That's not how it works 6c. The police won't come after you because you "own" the words, the police comes after you for doing the wrong thing, which just happens to be by means of word.

A closer analogy is someone taking a picture of you getting arrested for being drunk as a skunk in a public place. You are clearly responsible for being drunk as a skunk in a public place. You "own" your drunkenness as per your example. But do you own the picture of you being drunk as a skunk? No, you don't, and it is quite legal to post that picture everywhere because you were in a public place.

[Hayburner]

It seems many of us valued the shared knowledge that the training forum offered.

I for one, posted asking Chris to please let us have access to the forum.

Why does this have to turn into a this legal issue? I don't consider Anything I have posted on this BB to be mine, nor public information.

Can't we all just be happy and grateful to have the information for our personal use??

[digihorse]

No, we can not. I have never consented to that content leaving a place where i had control over it, and the ability to delete it if I chose.

A compendium of those posts is no longer a BB where the users can control their information. I am not willing to have my posts, under my name on Facebook for ANY reason!

If you choose to give up your rights to your name and identity go right ahead. I do not wish to do so.

[kande50]

No, we can not. I have never consented to that content leaving a place where i had control over it, and the ability to delete it if I chose.

What good would it do to delete it when it's been up on the board where anyone could copy it? We don't own pictures that someone else took of us without our knowledge or consent, so why would we own posts that we voluntarily put up on a public bulletin board? If I had actually posted a piece of paper on a bulletin board and someone else took it, I doubt the courts would give it back to me if I wanted it back, because I had voluntarily posted it on a public board.

[musical comedy]

No, we can not. I have never consented to that content leaving a place where i had control over it, and the ability to delete it if I chose.

A compendium of those posts is no longer a BB where the users can control their information. I am not willing to have my posts, under my name on Facebook for ANY reason!

If you choose to give up your rights to your name and identity go right ahead. I do not wish to do so.

Put me down for agreeing with Digi.

[pawsplus]

Many online BBs restrict ones's access to edit or delete material. They only allow you to edit your posts for a limited time after posting (30-60 min usually). So you can't delete them, ever. Just sayin'.

[Ryeissa]

The FB post about this went poof (?)

I would have felt a lot better if there was a notice in the TR Forum ahead of time so people could be made aware of the transfer of material to a new forum. I was under the impression all of the material was going away (which it was/is on the UDBB site) and now later we hear that someone, somewhere, has the whole thing and may post it again with no options to edit or remove things like pictures.

I wouldn't feel good about taking this material from one board to another where the UDBB members were not made aware of this downloading. It may not be 100% illegal, but I also don't' agree it's just free for the taking. Sure you CAN take it but SHOULD you?

I don't care about my posts per say, it's more the idea of it.

Do we get a say in how the material is handled? Who owns the content? I don't have the answers.

It seems we give up a lot of rights once we post, more than I realized. I'm definitely not going to post as much after pondering this for a few days. Just doesn't feel good. I know for sure I'm not posting any pics online again where it might evolve into something I can never delete. (I know some forums don't let you delete, but I don't post on those for that very reason).

I would value the content for personal download and study, so I would love a personal copy.

[Racetrackreject]

One must remember to read the TOS when one signs up for a board as, typically, this sort of thing is covered, ie who owns posts.

As for copyright infringement, I don't know that you would have a case there anyway. Just going by what I know from photographic copyright law. There are sections of copyright law that state using copyrighted material for educational purposes, for free, is allowable. Since these things were posted into the training forum, they could very well be considered "for educational purposes". One would also have to prove how they were being "damaged" by this material being posted in one forum and not the other- why were you fine allowing it here for all the world to see, but not here?-. There is also the question of have you legally copyrighted this material? Yes, a copyright is implied when you create said work, but it still has to be registered to be considered legally copyrighted.

Charging for use of the message board doesn't really change anything, in my opinion, because I believe what is being charged for is use of the service itslef, not the content. Again, that would be something covered in the TOS.

ETA: I believe that it was posted over on the FB page that no photos or videos were brought over.

[Ryeissa]

One must remember to read the TOS when one signs up for a board as, typically, this sort of thing is covered, ie who owns posts.

so what were the UDBB TOS? I didn't read last week as I was under the impression things were going away permanently.

Yes, I realize Chris said "take what you want" but no description of for public or private use.

[Ryeissa]

ETA: I believe that it was posted over on the FB page that no photos or videos were brought over.

That post doesn't exsist anymore so I can't confirm that.

I feel like I'm going round and round here, so I'll stop. People usually end up doing what they want anyways

[Chancellor]

Given the way the posts were being brought over, I do not believe that any pictures or videos were brought over.
I used a similar script to get all my posts in the Obs Lounge although I haven't perused them yet as they are sitting on my husband's Linux computer at the moment.
Nonetheless, it seems that this is not going to happen. It's a damned shame.

[Ryeissa]

Nonetheless, it seems that this is not going to happen. It's a damned shame.

who actually has the training forum posts?

can't it be hosted on a google drive site? dropbox? Then we can download on our own computers for personal study.

[drg]

It is going to happen. I have the posts. I can't provide them until I strip the HTML. I've been busy at work and riding , plus I have a RSI that means I shouldn't use my laptop too much. I deleted the Facebook post because it devolved into arm-chair laywering (plus I delete stuff I post on Facebook after a time, in general). Will have a look this weekend. Will have to come up with a way to remove people's content who don't want it posted, like digi. Basically I need time to get it in the right format.

It's a huge amount of data, even though it's text files (around 1.5 GB). Way bigger than anything that could be emailed, Dropboxed or Google Drived. I didn't save the images, videos, etc. It won't be made into a PDF, that would make it unreasonably huge.

The issue of monetization is important. No one may charge for access to the posts, as posts belong to the original authors. I've also saved the UDBB TOS. The TOS does not (did not) state that copyright transfers to the owner. Hence, posters retain the copyright on their posts. UDBB owns the database, and the code to display the website, but not the text. The question is, does any single post have actual monetary value? Or are forum posts even subject to copyright? Are they inherently different from conversations, which are not copyrightable? Or are they more like letters (there used to be one poster, KateC, who charmingly used to write every post as "Good afternoon, words words words, Best wishes, KateC", so maybe these are letters). It's something that doesn't seem to have been tested in the courts.

Also the UDBB can still be accessed at its IP address http://50.22.179.178/forums/index.php . If someone does reinstate the UDBB database in some incarnation, any hosted posts should be removed. The intent is only to preserve 14 years of knowledge, which the current UDBB owners don't own, not to make any gains from said knowledge.

[Alex]

I don't want to be too discouraging but I don't believe there's anything that any authors can do to receive compensation for their UDBB writings even if those writings are subsequently "sold" to another entity at some future time. At the time of being published on the internet, they were written for the PUBLIC DOMAIN w/no intention of RECEIVING COMPENSATION for the information they contained. Besides which, they are basically a compendium of what we have all learned from other trainers and from the great writers of our technical equestrian bibles. If anyone has produced anything totally unique on UDBB for training technical instruction, I haven't been aware of them doing so. If anyone wants to write books in order to protect their status as the author of the information, they'd better write ACTUAL BOOKS and not just short BB postings.

[KathyK]

It has come to my attention that someone has managed to download the training forum content. This information is from Facebook. Be forewarned: Nothing posted to Facebook regarding this content is legally binding, as it assumes that those whose content is being stolen from them have access to that Facebook account.

At this time, I consider that copyright infringement has taken place both by Chris Vinson, and further by any entity or person who seeks to copy and/or any content from that which was known as the UDBB. No one has my permission or license to copy, use or distribute any content I posted to the entity UDBB.

Why so much hatred? Your posts were fully accessible on UDBB before. Why is it a problem that they remain accessible on the net? What are you trying to achieve?

See, this is one reason I dislike internet forums. One person makes some statements, seemingly well-reasoned and factual, and another person comes back with "Why the hatred?" Good lord, just because you don't like what a person thinks about something or someone, it doesn't necessarily translate in to hatred. Get a grip, folks.

I have no dog in this fight, but I do know that digihorse is well versed in most things internet. If I had content in the training forum that I didn't want distributed, for whatever reason, I would pay attention to what she wrote.

[PaulaO]

To drg. COOL!

[Sunshine2Me]

I'm impartial on this issue, however I would add that I don't believe anyone should ever believe that something you post on the internet is private or secure. Good or bad, wrong or right, it's just a fact.

[drg]

I don't want to be too discouraging but I don't believe there's anything that any authors can do to receive compensation for their UDBB writings even if those writings are subsequently "sold" to another entity at some future time. At the time of being published on the internet, they were written for the PUBLIC DOMAIN w/no intention of RECEIVING COMPENSATION for the information they contained.

I'm afraid this is an assertion that doesn't seem to have been tested in a court of law. Things aren't in the public domain unless theirs creators say so, or the copyright expires. Anyway we're into armchair lawyering again. I don't think anyone is trying to get any money out of the posts, except perhaps the current UDBB owner, perhaps to recoup costs... however I am thoroughly surprised that it has cost $10k.

[Amado]

Ok, I think it's awesome that we can STILL VIEW UDBB. Thanks for the link, drg! And I found my first post! July 23, 2005, defining "opening the hip". COOL! You can't post, but you can still search. Wonder how long it will stay that way...

[CanadianTrotter]

No, we can not. I have never consented to that content leaving a place where i had control over it, and the ability to delete it if I chose.

A compendium of those posts is no longer a BB where the users can control their information. I am not willing to have my posts, under my name on Facebook for ANY reason!

If you choose to give up your rights to your name and identity go right ahead. I do not wish to do so.

Put me down for agreeing with Digi.

I am afraid I agree as well.

I don't have a Facebook account and I have absolutely no interest in having any of my posts or pictures plastered all over it. Mind you I only posted in the OB and PF, so I don't know if that means anything I posted would be transferred or not.

How do I get ahold of Chris to tell him I want all of my posts to be "redacted" as well?

[CanadianTrotter]

It is going to happen. I have the posts. I can't provide them until I strip the HTML. I've been busy at work and riding , plus I have a RSI that means I shouldn't use my laptop too much. I deleted the Facebook post because it devolved into arm-chair laywering (plus I delete stuff I post on Facebook after a time, in general). Will have a look this weekend. Will have to come up with a way to remove people's content who don't want it posted, like digi. Basically I need time to get it in the right format.

It's a huge amount of data, even though it's text files (around 1.5 GB). Way bigger than anything that could be emailed, Dropboxed or Google Drived. I didn't save the images, videos, etc. It won't be made into a PDF, that would make it unreasonably huge.

The issue of monetization is important. No one may charge for access to the posts, as posts belong to the original authors. I've also saved the UDBB TOS. The TOS does not (did not) state that copyright transfers to the owner. Hence, posters retain the copyright on their posts. UDBB owns the database, and the code to display the website, but not the text. The question is, does any single post have actual monetary value? Or are forum posts even subject to copyright? Are they inherently different from conversations, which are not copyrightable? Or are they more like letters (there used to be one poster, KateC, who charmingly used to write every post as "Good afternoon, words words words, Best wishes, KateC", so maybe these are letters). It's something that doesn't seem to have been tested in the courts.

Also the UDBB can still be accessed at its IP address http://50.22.179.178/forums/index.php . If someone does reinstate the UDBB database in some incarnation, any hosted posts should be removed. The intent is only to preserve 14 years of knowledge, which the current UDBB owners don't own, not to make any gains from said knowledge.

I don't understand..

You've just openly claimed that the content belongs to the individual member/poster... then openly admit you have copied each author's work. Are you not committing infringment by doing just this?

[drg]

The link wasn't obtained by 'hacking' in any way. The numbers are where the UDBB was always hosted (at least since Mark stopped running it), it's just that the text ultimatedressage.com doesn't point to the site anymore. Think of it like a phonebook: the UDBB now just has an unlisted number. All websites can be accessed this way, for example Google http://74.125.224.72/ . If you want to learn more about this to be sure, please read this wiki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System

The fact that the website is still accessible makes me hopeful that the UDBB owner may yet hand it over to someone. After all it is our community and our content. The owner is under no obligation to continue hosting it for us, but is it 'right' that he should be able to sell it? In contrast, I am suggesting that for those who agree to having their posts archived, that the old training forum be provided openly.

You've just openly claimed that the content belongs to the individual member/poster... then openly admit you have copied each author's work. Are you not committing infringment by doing just this?

Copyright law makes provisions for fair use. Does this qualify as fair use? That is a complex question. But all I've done so far is visit every post in the training forum with my computer, which is certainly not infringement.

[CanadianTrotter]

My mistake possibly... apologies if it is.

I thought you said, "It's going to happen, I have the posts. I can't provide them until I strip the HTML".

Does that mean you "have the posts" because they're in your computer memory or because you copied them to a file? Wouldn't they have to be copied to a file in order to strip the HTML?

If people want the training forum provided openly, wouldn't the owner have to get permission of each individual author and remove any and all posted material of those that do not or cannot give their permission?

[Josette]

I would be thrilled to be read and reference posts from UDBB training forums. Again, there is miles of experienced advanced riders and trainers who posted. They shared their knowledge and it is very helpful to reference for ammy riders. Many moments occurred because someone explained a situation a certain way - and concept clicked.

[Rhianon]

Here's how my DH explained it to me. The name "UDBB" was simply a short-cut to make it easier to go the IP address for the site. The IP address is basically the computer location of where all the stuff is kept. As long as the IP address still exists, then whatever conditions applied to getting there before still apply. So, while the board was "up" anybody could visit the UDBB. And now anybody can visit the IP address.

I have no idea of the politics of this particular situation or why the site hasn't been taken down yet, but I thought I'd explain the deal with the IP address for those of us who aren't so technically savvy.

[drg]

Does that mean you "have the posts" because they're in your computer memory or because you copied them to a file? Wouldn't they have to be copied to a file in order to strip the HTML?

Same thing technologically.

If people want the training forum provided openly, wouldn't the owner have to get permission of each individual author and remove any and all posted material of those that do not or cannot give their permission?

Legally, maybe yes, maybe no, it hasn't been tested in court. Morally, getting permission is probably the right thing to do.

[Ryeissa]

I would be thrilled to be read and reference posts from UDBB training forums. Again, there is miles of experienced advanced riders and trainers who posted. They shared their knowledge and it is very helpful to reference for ammy riders. Many moments occurred because someone explained a situation a certain way - and concept clicked.

Right, I fully agree with this, however, how it is done matters a lot.

I don't understand who exactly has the downloads, and where exactly is it posted?

To me, there is a failure of the owner of the board to provide clarity on what exactly by "take what you want". Is he completely signing off on any rights? is this considered premission to post publically?

to me someone has to be the authority on what can and can't be done with the material.

[CanadianTrotter]

Does that mean you "have the posts" because they're in your computer memory or because you copied them to a file? Wouldn't they have to be copied to a file in order to strip the HTML?

Same thing technologically.

If people want the training forum provided openly, wouldn't the owner have to get permission of each individual author and remove any and all posted material of those that do not or cannot give their permission?

Legally, maybe yes, maybe no, it hasn't been tested in court. Morally, getting permission is probably the right thing to do.

You said you , "have the posts". Do you mean that you have actually copied and saved them?

I'm assuming if you copied them for your own personal use then there would be a question of the legalities of it. If you copied them with the intent to put it all over the internet, I doubt it would be a "legal, maybe yes, maybe no", I have no idea if something like this has been tested in a court of law yet, but I have a feeling it would lean towards the, "maybe yes" it's illegal to do so... if/when it ends up in court.

[CanadianTrotter]

I would be thrilled to be read and reference posts from UDBB training forums. Again, there is miles of experienced advanced riders and trainers who posted. They shared their knowledge and it is very helpful to reference for ammy riders. Many moments occurred because someone explained a situation a certain way - and concept clicked.

To me, there is a failure of the owner of the board to provide clarity on what exactly by "take what you want". Is he completely signing off on any rights? is this considered premission to post publically?

to me someone has to be the authority on what can and can't be done with the material.

I might be wrong but I do not believe Chris has the legal right to tell anyone to "take what you want" from the UDBB and I doubt he can just "sign off" on any rights. He owns the UDBB and he has legal and binding responsibilities to the content.

[carpevita]

KInd of amazing how stubborn he's being about this isn't it?

[Dragonfly]

I would be thrilled to be read and reference posts from UDBB training forums. Again, there is miles of experienced advanced riders and trainers who posted. They shared their knowledge and it is very helpful to reference for ammy riders. Many moments occurred because someone explained a situation a certain way - and concept clicked.

To me, there is a failure of the owner of the board to provide clarity on what exactly by "take what you want". Is he completely signing off on any rights? is this considered premission to post publically?

to me someone has to be the authority on what can and can't be done with the material.

I might be wrong but I do not believe Chris has the legal right to tell anyone to "take what you want" from the UDBB and I doubt he can just "sign off" on any rights. He owns the UDBB and he has legal and binding responsibilities to the content.

Please cite your sources for this? I am sure we would all like to view e laws as they pertain for state to state, province to province and country to country.

[Rhianon]

Thing is, the whole time the UDBB was up folks could "take" the posts in a variety of ways such as screen shots or cut/paste without any special technologies or permission. I don't remember anybody being worried about their posts being stolen then. So I don't know why folks are worried now. Maybe I'm missing something.

[Ryeissa]

Thing is, the whole time the UDBB was up folks could "take" the posts in a variety of ways such as screen shots or cut/paste without any special technologies or permission. I don't remember anybody being worried about their posts being stolen then. So I don't know why folks are worried now. Maybe I'm missing something.

Of course they can, I have absolutely no problem with copying individual threads for HOME STUDY, I have done it a few times...

it's complete different to take the entire thing and post publically on a new forum.

I think, technically, it makes logical sense that the content is owned by the board owner, but I also think intellectual property comes into play (I'm a scientist, not a lawyer-- my objections are more about what's right vs what's illegal).

[drg]

I think, technically, it makes logical sense that the content is owned by the board owner, but I also think intellectual property comes into play (I'm a scientist, not a lawyer-- my objections are more about what's right vs what's illegal).

I am also a scientist, and I don't think it makes logical sense, nor is it 'right' that the content is owned by the board owner . Could you explain why you think the board owner owns the content?

[xhltsalute]

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
https://ucomm.wsu.edu/the-internet-copyright/#1
https://ucomm.wsu.edu/what-copyright-protects/
http://www.socialfresh.com/how-to-use-c ... copyright/

[Ryeissa]

Myth No. 1: It’s on the Internet, so Anyone Can Use It.

Legal Truth: This one is unwaveringly and unequivocally false. Claiming that all online content is free is like saying, “Hey, the front door of your house was open, so I just came in and took whatever I wanted.” Just because you find an image or blog post or article or video and you like it, you may not have permission to share it.
“Folks run into problems when they do more than just link to something online,” Koustenis says. "When you directly copy or display the actual copyrighted material—in whole or part—even if you also provide a link to the original content, you're likely engaging in copyright infringement.”
And what if you share content from a friend or a brand you follow that they didn't have a right to share? If they posted stolen content and you share it, Koustenis says you’re guilty of copyright infringement.
“Knowledge or intent isn't required for copyright infringement liability,” she says. “Your right to share is only as good as the right to the original post. Know your source before you share.”
So how do you figure out what’s OK to share and what’s not? Koustenis has a few smart tips:
Look for built-in sharing options. Many professional photographers, like Gerard Tomko, keep multiple social media profiles that enable their fans to share images they’ve approved (and watermarked) for sharing. Matt Inman of The Oatmeal has social media sharing buttons at the bottom of every comic he creates. Blogs and news articles have share buttons, as do YouTube and Vimeo videos. When those social sharing buttons are present, you know it’s OK to use them and share the content.
Share within the same social network. Similarly, the terms of service for a particular social networking service may permit sharing as long as it's contained within that service. Twitter’s terms of service, for example, state that anyone posting content on Twitter expressly agrees to permit “re-tweeting” by others within Twitter.
Share licensed content. Use sources such as Copyright Clearance Center, Creative Commons and Wikimedia Commons to find content that's already been licensed for sharing. Google and Flickr both provide ways to limit your image search to licensed images only.
When in doubt, ask for permission. See something floating around the Internet you love but don’t see how to easily share it? Reach out to the content creator/publisher/artist/reporter, and ask for permission. Be sure to say how and what you’d like to share, and agree to provide attribution.


Myth No. 2: No Copyright Notice Means It’s Not Copyrighted.

Legal Truth: “By U.S. copyright law, copyright is granted to a content creator the moment an idea is fixed into any tangible form,” Koustenis says. In plain English, that means that the moment a photographer clicks a shutter, a writer pens a story or an artist creates an image, it’s protected by copyright. The work doesn’t even have to be published to be protected by U.S. copyright laws. With regards to content published online, this means that every blog post and news article out there is copyrighted as well; images, music and videos are, too.
Koustenis advises every website owner to put a copyright notice on their website. The footer is the most common area to do this, and you can do it today if you haven’t already. Registering a copyright is only necessary if you’re going to take legal action against someone for violating your copyright. In cases such as those, an attorney can help you expedite the copyright registration process.


Myth No. 3: You Can’t Copyright Words.

Legal Truth: Actually, you can. I once encountered three websites that had stolen, nearly verbatim, a single page of my website. After a brief fight, two of those pages were taken down. The other page never made it to publication because the copywriter who was asked to “polish” my stolen content by his client said, “Hey, I know this writer. You can’t use this.” (Thankfully, he had contacted me and let me know—I’m forever grateful.)
“People may be confused here because they've heard you can’t copyright facts or ideas. This is true. But one’s expression of those facts and ideas is protected," Kousenis says. "When it comes to written expression, copyright infringement is determined by a measure of substantial similarity.” That means if you compare two pages—the copyrighted, original work and the potentially offending work side by side—they need to be substantially different in order to avoid copyright infringement. Even if you paraphrase, and change some words and the order of sentences, you can still be found guilty of copyright infringement and assessed the penalties you see cited below in Myth No. 5.
Your best bet? Write your own stuff from scratch or hire someone to do it for you, if you’re not so great with words.

Myth No. 4: If They Didn’t Want It Shared, They Shouldn't Have Posted It.

Legal Truth: C’mon. You’re smarter than this. While the Internet makes is easy to share, that doesn’t mean you're granted a right to share just because you have an Internet connection.
“There's plenty of public opinion today in favor of a copyright-free or at least a copyright-less Internet, and further evolution of copyright to keep up with the Internet age is almost certain,” Koustenis says. “But that doesn’t discount the importance of protecting and encouraging creative expression.”

Myth No. 5: I Didn’t Know I Couldn’t Use That Content, so I Can’t Get in Trouble.

Legal Truth: Use that same argument with the cop who pulls you over for running a red light or driving under the influence, and let me know how that works out for you. Ignorance of the law doesn’t excuse you from the law.
When you steal stuff online, there are several actions that can be taken against you:
The content creator can sue you. Are you ready for a lawsuit? Costs can be hefty. You may be liable for damages that run into the thousands of dollars—this photographer won almost $250,000 in damages.
Your website can be shut down if you host stolen content. If you post stolen content on your site, the copyright owner can file a DMCA Takedown Notice with your hosting company. Not only can they force you to remove the content, but your entire site might be shut down if you don’t comply.
So many people these days are most likely sharing content that's protected by copyrights. For additional reading and resources related to this topic,

Koustenis recommends the following:
The U.S. Copyright Office has useful guides and FAQs such as this one on fair use.
Copyright & Fair Use from the Stanford University Libraries
Mediashift: Your Guide to the Digital Media Revolution, a PBS.org site.
Read more articles on legal issues.
This article was originally published on August
28, 2014. OPEN FORUM

[CanadianTrotter]

To me, there is a failure of the owner of the board to provide clarity on what exactly by "take what you want". Is he completely signing off on any rights? is this considered premission to post publically?

to me someone has to be the authority on what can and can't be done with the material.

I might be wrong but I do not believe Chris has the legal right to tell anyone to "take what you want" from the UDBB and I doubt he can just "sign off" on any rights. He owns the UDBB and he has legal and binding responsibilities to the content.

Please cite your sources for this? I am sure we would all like to view e laws as they pertain for state to state, province to province and country to country.

I didn't have time to do a search for legal sources to cite at the time of that post... only personal knowledge through the experiences of others that I consider a very reliable sources in the business world I travel in. Because I had no legal sources to cite I used the terms, "I might be wrong/I do not believe/I doubt", when I typed that post.

From xhalt's and Ryeissa's posts you can see that my personal knowledge isn't far off from their sources.

What makes things worse for anyone that decides to copy anything from the UDBB and post it on a public site, is that Chris actually encouraged everyone to do so without any care or caution of the legal ramifications.

In my opinion he has acted in an extremely unprofessional manner with little or no thought for anyone except for himself.

[CanadianTrotter]

I think, technically, it makes logical sense that the content is owned by the board owner, but I also think intellectual property comes into play (I'm a scientist, not a lawyer-- my objections are more about what's right vs what's illegal).

I am also a scientist, and I don't think it makes logical sense, nor is it 'right' that the content is owned by the board owner . Could you explain why you think the board owner owns the content?

You didn't answer my question so I'm going to hazard a guess(which may be wrong) that you've already copied the content because your intentions were to strip the HTML.

I think you should go ahead with your rash plan so we can all get a crash course on what can/could happen.

[Ryeissa]

I think, technically, it makes logical sense that the content is owned by the board owner, but I also think intellectual property comes into play (I'm a scientist, not a lawyer-- my objections are more about what's right vs what's illegal).

I am also a scientist, and I don't think it makes logical sense, nor is it 'right' that the content is owned by the board owner . Could you explain why you think the board owner owns the content?

You didn't answer my question so I'm going to hazard a guess(which may be wrong) that you've already copied the content because your intentions were to strip the HTML.

I think you should go ahead with your rash plan so we can all get a crash course on what can/could happen.

Sounds like decisions have been made. Being a grey area, yes, there are a lot of differing opinions.

As I said CT I agree that Chris didn't provide much assistance in defining who owns content and what he is ok with. I can't say what is "done" in these situations.

Between the sudden demise of the UDBB and the way people are acting (secretive, at will), and how people were there... well a wake up call to me-- is this something I want to invest in?

No, the answer is no. I'm reading, not posting (except for this thread, because what is being discussed are things I contributed to and I want my opinion heard).

[Chisamba]

I do not understand how anyone can post information on a publicly accessible site, that an be freely accessed and copied can still consider they own the rights to any of it. It seems illogical to me.

I do know that if some one takes a photo of you in a public place, ( like a horse show) they own that photo and can publish it at will.

of course i am a lay person so none of my opinion has any legal weight

[Tuffytown]

Ownership belongs to the creator. That photographer took the photo and that act of creation make the photographer the owner of the image. Now s(he) can't use it without limitation for commercial purposes i.e. model releases but there is particular criteria where that applies.

When the poster wrote (created) the post they automatically have ownership (copywright) to the words they created.

Simplistic explanation.

[kande50]

Ownership belongs to the creator.

So drg created the copy, just like the photographer created the copy of whatever he photographed.