This should never happen and there should be sanctions for moderators who do this. We see Seven got banned but where’s the sanction for TubaDiva?
IMO, from the limited facts, it sounds to me like TD had a grudge with Seven and used the ban hammer to take care of the the irritation.
…
Why on earth would it be a copyright issue? What does copyright have to do with personal correspondence? I mean, if Seven had published a book of SDMB staff PMs, I could maybe see it, but simply relaying what someone else emailed or PM’d you? 
Honestly, I’m not even sure how to argue logically against this as it flies so far in the face of my understanding of how both copyright law and the Internet work.
John was wrong on the copyright issue. There are cases on this.
No. Actually he said the opposite.
Can you legally publish a letter someone wrote to you? - The Straight Dope
You’re probably right about this.
I have to go against the consensus here a little bit. This is only the second worst banning in our history. The worst banning was the first time Otto was banned because Ed forgot to take a Midol that day. This is getting ridiculous.
~Shit be on, bitch
Let’s see. Hypothetically, I start a “guess the movie quote” game. Are all participants supposed to contact the copyright owners of the quote and ask for permission before posting anything?
Or, if it’s only for sigs. Would I be banned for using a quote from a copyrighted book, or a couple of lines from a song without the owner’s explicit permission?
Geez. Not being banned in this board sure is a lot harder than I thought.
I really hope nobody forwards any of my posts to which I’ve appended my sig to the estate of George Carlin, lest the grumpy ol’ bastard’s lawyers sue me.
Just another person chiming in to say that 9 years of positive posting history should take precedence over a brief spate of complaining about board administration. And the fact that said banning supposedly took place due to a ‘malfunction’ regarding placement of PM information is simply utter drivel. If that were truly the case, as others have proclaimed, a suspension (if that) would have been the order of the day instead. A warning would’ve been more appropriate though.
Seven has been wronged and we’re (both the ‘community’ we always here about and the board reputation) the worse for it.
Presumably copyrighted material in sig. I claim fair use.
No you’d only be banned if you implicitely made the Ruling Party look bad with said quotes, else it would be bleeding obvious that it is Fair Use (indeed that’s the whole reason the concept bloody well exists). Reprinting reams of correspondence is rather evidently not the same thing as a select and juicy quote from a letter (etc).
And the last 20,000 of Lib’s posts are all about Liberal, too. What’s your point?
More in depth than a sidewalk puddle, you mean?
Fine. First thing is that 100 posts about Lib or complaining about the management since March is fewer than one per day, on average. The horror. Really, I shudder to think of it.
Also, your count on how many of those 100 posts were about Lib or the management is a bit off. Unless poking Stoid with a stick, making fun of dishonest fundamentalists, offering data points on a technical board issue, wondering how the guy who wrote the documentation Stoid was bitching about found the thread so fast, good natured ribbing of Giraffe, strategy for Wipeout, top ten reasons to be a Doper and audio jacks count as whinging about Lib or the management.
So what, did you think no one was going to check your oh-so-precise tally? I might add that I didn’t include the posts about the t-shirt or anything from a thread title that might include complaining. So the number of non-Lib non-management posts in the last 100 is more than 3. If you ignore the posts that are direct back and forth with Liberal himself the number goes down even farther. (Since the posts that are all-about-Lib don’t count against Lib, I don’t see why they should count against anybody else, but I’ll give them to you. I’m a generous son of a bitch.)
ISTR that a discussion was made on DoMeBo regarding the issue of “keeping private messages private” although I don’t remember the ultimate decision.
We really do need a clarification of this from an admin.
Somehow, my name has gotten dragged into this — I guess because Seven razzed me in a couple of threads. All I really want to say is that I can take it. I thought I took pretty good care of it as it was going on.
He pitted me when I first returned here, and I mean he tore me a new asshole. But that was to be expected, at least from his point of view. I had left this whole melodramatic allegory about a new home, which it turned out that I didn’t like after the arrival there of people I didn’t get along with. I tried out Giraffe’s board, and people rightfully chewed me out for a very weasely apology. (I loved his blog feature, though, and had good feedback from it.)
So, when I returned here, Seven unleashed his rage. He carried it on a bit too far, but nothing I couldn’t either handle myself or ignore. Now, I’m not going to jump on the “mods are idiots” bandwagon, but I did want to say that if part of Seven’s banning was because of anything he said to or about me on this board, please — please — reconsider your decision.
People have been banned before, and have returned after cooling down a bit. I would hope that, at the very least, the administration will entertain his reinstatement. Anyway, all I basically wanted to say was please don’t make me a part of the reason he was banned. I took no offense at his outrage. At least not enough that I thought he should be permanently kicked out (even though he mods at a splinter board, and it’s not like he has no place to post.) I’m just talking about things he might have said here or at the Snark Board. That board is so idiotic anyway that nobody takes it seriously.
And that’s all I have to say about that.
Correction - we needed clarification on this prior to it being used as a ban stick.
Clarity? From an Admin? Here?
BWA-HA-HA-HA!!
I thought Marley’s posts were pretty transparent…
I think this is like the 5th time I’ve posted in as many years, but since this place has been my online home for nigh on 10 years I thought I’d weigh in.
I don’t think I’ve ever posted anything about the administration/running of this board in the entire time I’ve been here. Never been warned, and I used to be what I’d consider prolific here. I don’t post here anymore because it feels like you have to be a board historian to know what the rules are so that you don’t break them, or cross any invisible lines in the sand.
I have no feelings positive or negitave toward Seven, but I think this banning is wrong.
I’m logging back out, deleting my cookies, taking my ball and goin’ away. This place is no fun anymore.
Honest question then? What was Seven’s recourse with regards to the nastiness that was in that PM, precisely? If I get a nasty PM from another member, I can forwards it to a moderator, and/or block that member and the problem is taken care of. But what do you do if it is an Admin being nasty to you and bullying you in a PM? Would you other mods and admins have taken her to task for being unprofessional, and made her stay away from Seven since she had shown she couldn’t be unbiased? This troubles me. 
sigh I’m not sure why I bother responding when people don’t read what I wrote in context.
(a) I am not “the mods in general.” I’m just me.
(b) I’m not backpedaling. I never addressed the banning. I specifically said I wasn’t part of it. I never said whether I supported it or not. I just answered a question to the best of my knowledge, and admitted that I was wrong in so many words when I couldn’t find the written rule.
Of course it is. Where were you raised?
Of course it’s legal (and ethical) to forward work-related emails to someone’s boss. The mods reports to the admins, and the admins report to Ed.
Liberal - Thank you for your support against this insane banning.
Copyright. Copyright? Huh?
The primary purpose of copyright law is not so much to protect the interests of the authors/creators, but rather to promote the progress of science and the useful arts—that is—knowledge. To accomplish this purpose, copyright ownership encourages authors/creators in their efforts by granting them a temporary monopoly, or ownership of exclusive rights for a specified length of time. However, this monopoly is somewhat limited when it conflicts with an overriding public interest, such as encouraging new creative and intellectual works, or the necessity for some members of the public to make a single copy of a work for non profit, educational purposes.
…and that’s before the whole fair-use thing kicks in.
ETA:
Invisible Wombat - please do not take this personally - I (us perhaps) actually appreciate that you take the time to respond.
But still, copyright as an excuse is incredibly retarded…
Copyright is an incredibly silly defence to this banning. Really. It is utter utter utter utter silly. Stupid as well (stupid as in uninformed).
Please try again.