I’m willing to wait.* This should be fun when the lawyers get here. Especially if they ask you if you understand what “irrevocable” means.
Or the line that:
meaning that they have ownership rights to every post in the archives, including yours. Copyright exists from the moment of posting and nothing short of formal transference of rights can alter who has control over them.
*Hey, pulling up a chair is banned only in the Pit. I’m anticipating knowledge flowing like water.
It should be a lot of fun. Previously, as a non-fee member, I could search posts and threads, my posts count was shown, etc. Now, I can’t have these things as a nonpaying member. Obviously, the “contract” has changed and the old contract is not binding any longer. But some would suggest, let’s pick and choose from the old contract what we want to continue … like past nonpaying ex-member threads and posts. Definitely a losing legal SDMB proposition …
The “contract” never mentioned these things. They were offered by the SDMB as a courtesy, and can be revoked as they please.
All that the “contract” gave you was a right to post here, and even that has a disclaimer that they can delete your posts for any reason (or no reason at all).
I’m curious also, because the Chicago Reader no longer wanted to keep paying for this message board. Ok, they stop paying and we start. So now that we are the people paying the bills what rights do the Chicago Reader have to our material? If you wish to use my material for profit then don’t charge me. If you wish to charge me cease making a profit on my work.
Kind of seems simple but I know there’s a not so simple explanation.
The right that you gave them when you signed up, obviously.
This is like people complaining about getting a speeding ticket from a cop by saying “I pay your salary”.
Please cite in the “new” contract, where paying SDMB $5/year, for the first year, you also give up your rights to SDMB to profit from your contributions?
Certainly:
The Reader hold the copyrights to all your posts, and thus they have the right to profit from them if they wish.
Oh, and this has nothing to do with the $5 subscription, since the Reader hold copyright for all posts, not just those of paid subscribers.
It’s really hard to argue with you because you’re really not making sense. There’s clearly something about the situation that you don’t grasp and I’m not quite sure what it is.
Perhaps you have the idea that the original SDMB registration agreement was a sort of mutual license i.e. the SDMB gets to use posters’ material as only so long as the SDMB allows posters’ to use the board under the terms of that agreement.
But that’s not the way it works. Every post was, in essence, posted under a separate contract. Whatever terms were in force at that time govern the rights and responsibilities of the parties with respect to that post. The Reader never, ever guaranteed that people would have some sort of continuing access to their posts as a condition of granting The Reader an irrevocable license to use their posts however it wanted to. Rather, The Reader discharged all its responsibilities under the agreement by simply allowing the member to post on The Reader’s message board.
My emphasis.
Well, that’s certainly a reasonable position for you to take. But that’s not what the terms of the registration agreement are. You have three choices, 1) accept it as it is and grant the SDMB an irrevocable license to use your posts, 2) Negotiate a different deal with the SDMB or 3) Don’t register. As a practical matter, you’re stuck with 1) or 3).
They have whatever rights you grant them by agreeing to the registration agreement. In this case, it’s an irrevocable license to use your stuff however they want. If you don’t agree with this, see option 3) above.
Oh, and by the way, you don’t “give up your right” to profit from your posts here. The SDMB has an irrevocable nonexclusive license to use your stuff. This means that you can use your stuff, too. So Scylla, for example, could use his “Attack of the Nazi Groundhog Blimps” thing somewhere else, if he wanted to.
This is very simple. Regardless of whether or not a “new” contract can be said to exist. All posts made before the subscription process came into effect were under the original TOS you agreed to, making them property of the Chicago Reader. It doesn’t matter if you choose to end the agreement and give up your posting priveleges; you’ve already signed your posts over.
Suppose you were on a tv show, and you agreed in your contract that all footage of you was property of XYZ Productions. After three seasons, your contract runs out, and is not renewed. Does that mean XYZ is now bound to edit your appearances out of their shows when they are rerun? Of course not. The footage was under your contract, and that fact that the contract has now ended does not mean that your agreement can be retroactively cancelled.
SettingSun, your questions have been answered as best they can in GQ. If you still have issues, feel free to contact the mods for clarification of board rules.
This is closed.
-xash
General Questions Moderator