Information About the AboveTopSecret.com Creative Commons Content Deed.

reply to post by Pamie


glp is godlikeproductions .com

I got banned for doing a thread on tavistock institute. I used to really like the site but it started to feel weird, like all these major sites it's mainly a data mining/meme creation project.

You can find some interesting things out about it's origins on the interweb.

Originally posted by Implosion
How do I know If I upload a podcast, I wont hear my hard work on some BS advert ten years down the line, and not be entitled to a damn thing for it?

Because the creative commons prevents it.

Because you provide a place to host my thoughts, or my work, does not entitle you part ownership, in my eyes.

We never claimed "part ownership" of member contributions in any way, ever.

What we claim is non-exclusive rights to publish the contributions... a very, very different concept than "ownership."


Where did this assumption of ownership come from?

Originally posted by depth om

You can find some interesting things out about it's origins on the interweb.

Same goes for this site, so I do not see the point.

It seems like GLP is much less moderated than ATS, and that´s all I will say about it.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlordWhat we claim is non-exclusive rights to publish the contributions... a very, very different concept than "ownership."

Is that not a form of ownership?

After all, you would have appropriated something which has originated from myself, for your own use.

If you were to make a profit, say for example, someones post appears in a book you charge for, would you be obliged to offer them a cut?

reply to post by Truth4hire


Not really a point to it, ATS supposedly banned members for asking wrong questions, rumors of federal eyes cordially invited to snoop here, I have points against both sites, neither are perfect.

I was just pissed at glp when I was banned for saying a truth.

Originally posted by Implosion
Is that not a form of ownership?

No.

Does the broadcast network own the show, "Big Bang Theory?" No... the network is the publishers (broadcaster), not the owner.

After all, you would have appropriated something which has originated from myself, for your own use.

No. You (our members) voluntarily posted content, presumably with the understanding laid-forth in the terms & conditions. When you voluntarily post, we assume you agree to the simple concept that we have non-exclusive publication rights.

Originally posted by depth om
rumors of federal eyes cordially invited to snoop here

What?

Where have you hear that? Please, tell me.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


You know, one of those late night rabbit hole sessions.

Originally posted by depth om
rumors of federal eyes cordially invited to snoop here

Lol..some things never change.

Rumours are rumours, padawan...gawd it is good to be home

[edit on Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:49:55 -0500 by MemoryShock]

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Implosion
Is that not a form of ownership?

No.

Does the broadcast network own the show, "Big Bang Theory?" No... the network is the publishers (broadcaster), not the owner.

The difference here is that the network pays for the right.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

After all, you would have appropriated something which has originated from myself, for your own use.

No. You (our members) voluntarily posted content, presumably with the understanding laid-forth in the terms & conditions. When you voluntarily post, we assume you agree to the simple concept that we have non-exclusive publication rights.

I understand that by posting implies consent of the T&C.

What I am trying to ascertain, is what you can do with those rights.

You may not OWN the content provided by your membership, but exactly what rights do you have?

Could you sell a podcast as a soundtrack to an advert?

Could you include posts in a publication, for sale?

In either of the above hypothetical situations, would you be obliged to share any profit made with the creator of said material?

As I see it, if the answer to any of the above is yes, then the whole "ownership" issue is merely quibbling over semantics.


[edit on 14/7/09 by Implosion]

reply to post by Implosion


Have you ever read the fine print behind the ticket when you have visited an amusement park?

If you get photographed, they may use your physical image in an advert without any further interaction with you. In that case, a human is paying the amusement park money for the potential oppurtunity of being used in an advertisement.

No further interaction.

Here at ATS...you have that capacity for interaction and an ownership that is designing its' rules to protect its' memberships' right to interact...

Originally posted by MemoryShock
reply to post by Implosion

 

Have you ever read the fine print behind the ticket when you have visited an amusement park?

If you get photographed, they may use your physical image in an advert without any further interaction with you. In that case, a human is paying the amusement park money for the potential oppurtunity of being used in an advertisement.

No further interaction.

Here at ATS...you have that capacity for interaction and an ownership that is designing its' rules to protect its' memberships' right to interact...

All well and good, but not an answer to any question I have posed.

Originally posted by depth om
You know, one of those late night rabbit hole sessions.

Being obtuse is wearing thin.

Don't spread rumors and lies.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I'm not lying, I'm not spreading rumors, I addressed one. Also I can be as obtuse as I want. I'm not toying with you or your site. I was talking to another poster who believed I was just bad mouthing glp, so I wanted to show I'm not sucking up to anyone or any website.

Originally posted by depth om
Also I can be as obtuse as I want.

You most certainly can.

But do you think that successful communication is ever based on obsequissity?

Originally posted by depth om
I'm not lying

Yes, you indeed are. You're fabricating and spreading lies about us in the comment of yours that I quoted.

Are members consulted before their content is published? In say, a book.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by depth om
I'm not lying

Yes, you indeed are. You're fabricating and spreading lies about us in the comment of yours that I quoted.

I read something that may or may not be true on the internet, I let you know what that something was. The comment itself may be untrue but in presenting the comment as a piece of information I have read, I did not lie.

All this fuss over the ownership of pixels on a screen?

And to think, someone on here told ME I needed to get a life.

Actually I have a life, fighting to stay alive long enough to accomplish something real.

ATS is a pass-time, a place to discuss a lot of interesting, entertaining and even important topics.... Really, what is there to own?

reply to post by Walkswithfish


Everything can be sold these days.