I think the fuckhead is people who post to OPs in the Pit with nothing to say but empty insults with no substance.
How about something constructive, or how about contributing to the conversation by offering an anecdote, examples, facts, etc.
I wrote a story that people thought was funny and liked. This other website stole it an published it as if it was theirs without permission and without giving credit or compensation.
I got emailed a link about it by a person who liked the story who knew I wrote it.
I emailed Lynn Bodoni, who went after them and told them to cease and desist or the Chicago Reader would enforce their copyright.
They claimed that the story had been submitted by a third party and that they were not aware of breaking a copyright. They apologized and offered to remove the story, and were otherwise very decent about it. They liked the story and wanted to use it though. We worked out terms and they used the story with proper attribution, and it was all very decent and friendly and the problem was solved smoothly, and I tend to beleive they made an honest mistake.
Here’s the thing:
The reason why it was solved smoothly was because I originally posted the story on this message board. This established provenance. I could prove I wrote it, and I wrote it first. I had the help of the Straight Dope Message Board and the Chicago Reader who were extremely happy to help defend my copyright.
Just about anywhere else on the internet, it would have been difficult to prove, and I doubt I would have gotten this kind of help anywhere else on the internet. I needed it, because I have no idea what I’m doing in these matters.
Because they share in my copyright, an infringement upon me is an infringement upon them, and they helped me zealously, and the situation was resolved to the mutual benefit of all.
You may see the story as it now appears credited and with permission
So my friend, far from being a disadvantage, sharing the copyright with the Chicago Reader can be a great benefit.
What do you call your OP? No substance, and a bunch of insults at the Reader for, I guess, holding a gun to your head and making you agree to the user liscense.
Wait, there wasn’t a gun? You agreed to it of your own free will? Then what the fuck are you complaining about?
It’s probably just more fun to mock you, and equally productive, as you clearly haven’t learned anything from the last time you got raked over the coals.
It may be an old game, but you throw in Donkey Kong, Soda Popinski, and some Koopa Troopas, and I think we may be on to something. I might just call my friend at Nintendo in the morning.
It’s not. You cannot copyright an idea. For example, I could make a movie about “quite some time in the past in a nebula quite a distance away”, where a farmboy fights an evil empire, led by a man in black armor with a breathing problem who turns out to be a relative of the farmboy, and they fight with energy weapons and magic powers. And Lucas couldn’t do shit about it, as long as I didn’t actually use the names (which are trademarked), script, and footage from Star Wars. Patents work differently, but they also aren’t automatic, at the very least you have to take the time to file it.
Likewise, the Reader doesn’t own any ideas we express in our posts, just the posts themselves. The Reader can’t claim ownership of a video game you describe on these boards (although they, or anyone else who reads it, can copy the idea and try to beat you to market if they’re so inclined), unless you’re dumb enough to actually post the code, but they might sue you if you copied your own posts to put in teh game manual or ads or something.
Thanks for the explanation.
Ditto. You certainly have a right to be proud about that post; something like 130,000 views?!! :eek: That’s almost 3 times our membership (and our ‘membership’ certainly ain’t our ‘active’ membership); did you ever try to get it published in a book or something, maybe make some change off it? 
Did it involve blimps?
So I suppose every time someone argues about the police or the court systems in this country, I should just fall back on the old ‘Go to Russia, then’? That’s what your doing- any time someone complains about the way things are in an environment, a detractor points out that that person either agreed to those terms when he entered that environment, or that he has the ability to leave that environment. Fuck your argument, Miller, and for also falling back on these:
- let’s point at andrew and flame him! hee hee!
and - whelp, guess since you started two more Pit threads about [insert topic here], and because you used words in those pit threads, you obviously learned nothing from your experience
Yep, I obviously learned nothing from that experience, because now I start more Pit threads in which I use bad words and don’t have substance, even though it did have substance because it contained a complaint about a policy on these boards that I didn’t like; whereas other users can start Pit threads about any worthless topic they please without any objection, because no one has their eye on them.
Fuck that hypocrisy, and for being so nit-picking of every action I’m doing. Get lives. Learn to enjoy these boards in some other way than piling on someone who complains about something, even if the thing they complain about is impossible to change; hell, if I want to complain about the fact that I’m going to die some day, should I be flamed for that? I can pit mosquitos, who will never go away, and should I be flamed for that?
Often we vent about things that won’t change because they suck for that very reason. For instance, Miller and many other users are always going to make potshots at people who start threads in the Pit; there will never be a Pit for people who just want to rant about topics or people who aren’t members. That sucks, but it will never change.
This is why a lot of Free software developers assign copyright over to the Free Software Foundation: It establishes provenance and creates a link between them and people who will go to the mat to defend their rights over their work.
It’s a very good thing that the Chicago Reader is willing to function in a similar role for people who post things here. (Of course, being associated with a guy as funny and talented as yourself is of no little advantage when it comes to publicity.)
Wow, really? I knew parody was fair usage, but that’s incredible.
But here’s the thing- if Chicago Reader or somebody were to say, steal my idea for the next great American novel, and print that novel, then yes, I can still print my version of it, assuming that it’s different enough not to infringe their copyright of their ripped-off version.
But who would want to read mine, the seen-as-a-rip-off version? Who would want to go see Pirates of the Bahamas directed by andrewdt85 when they already saw the same darn thing with Pirates of the Caribbean?! :smack: Being first counts when it comes to the entertainment industry, because knock-offs don’t ever do as well as the original.
You’ve been watching the derivative crap produced by the entertainment industry for the past few centuries, haven’t you? Whole genres are predicated upon the legal ripoff.
Really? I wonder if someone could compare box-office take for The Seven Samurai vs. The Magnificent Seven, or the obscure samurai film Star Wars is based off of and Star Wars.
I think that using words in your threads is the root of your problem: eliminate them entirely and you should be fine.
Sorta…they say it was originally published on sdmb.com (which is for sale BTW)
Keep in mind that ideas in and of themselves are worth nothing. It’s what you do with an idea that leads to a good book or movie or whatever. For example, Shakespeare’s plays are familiar (and public domain) stories but people are still redoing interesting versions of them.
Theres this new book coming out called Fuck the Chicago Reader for having the right. its by the Chicago reader. Dang, I would feel ripped off if I were you, andrew.
When you produce a piece of original written work - a post for a messageboard, or a 500,000 word novel, it makes no difference - you own the copyright to that work.
If you want it to be published, you have to cut some sort of deal with a publisher, in which you assign to them the right to display your written work to the general public, in some format.
When you submit a post to the board, the Chicago Reader is, in effect, acting as your publisher; your written work goes onto their web servers, and is displayed by them, electronically, for the (no doubt avid) general public to read. But, for them to do this, you have to agree to let them - this is the purpose of the user agreement for the board as a whole. If you don’t grant the owners of the board the right to publish your written work, then they can’t do it.
So, the user agreement, which assigns certain limited rights in your written work to the Chicago Reader, is necessary if you’re going to post your written work on their board.
(I was going to go into some more detail as to why the agreement is worded in the way that it is, but on looking through the thread I found that Colibri and Finagle had covered those topics more than adequately already. Or, in short, they stole my idea, before I’d even had it! Bastards. I oughtta sue.)
You already said the same thing back on post 74.
Yep, I remember. :rolleyes:
Try and inject some levity into a pit thread and what do I get? A green smilie lookin up.
Post 74 is copyrighted.
:dubious:
It’s not entirely what you’re posting about; it’s the raving and over-the-top manner in which you do it. That’s why you’re getting flamed.
You can fucking Pit whatever you want, but just because it’s in the Pit doesn’t mean you won’t get called out for being an ass. You don’t get any sort of free pass to be a complete douchebag when you post in the Pit.
Again, it’s not the content of your OP so much as the way you sputtered it out like an old man with Tourettes having a stroke.
Instead of a Pit thread, you could have made it an ATMB thread.
And instead of:
Fuck Chicago Reader for having the right to steal any idea we post here,
maybe you could have said something along the lines of:
Can the Chicago Reader really use whatever we post here for their own use?
See in my version, there’s no unfounded accusations of corporate thievery. Nor does my version involve metaphorically shitting on our host’s couch.
Instead of:
Here’s an idea for you to steal with your “nonexclusive irrevocable right to re-use your posting in any manner it or they see fit without notice or compensation”- take a pencil and shove it as far up your fucking asses as you can, you idea-thieving fuckheads
howsabout you say:
Ya know, it doesn’t really seem fair that if I post something here in the SDMB, the Chicago Reader can use my idea however and whenever they feel like it without my consent.
And instead of:
Because of your shitty stealing rights, I can’t share ideas I have for inventions, story plots, games, etc. etc., with users here, because someone at your magazine might rip it off
you could’ve said:
I’m a little bit leary about posting some stuff, on the off chance someone at the Reader takes a liking to it and decides to use it to make a profit. Is there any foundation to my fear, or has anyone else run into this situation before?
And instead of:
Fuck you guys for your shitty laws,
maybe you might want to research the rules and practices of a place before you pay $15 and start whining about problems that don’t exist.
You ballbag.