Another case of contents stolen from ATS

it's cool. we're still friends, and I'm not bitter. I just strongly oppose your views on this matter. Lucky for you, this is your site

you make it clear - you would rather not allow anyone at all to post content "original to ATS" elsewhere without giving credit, even if that means less people will ultimately get a chance to see the aforementioned content.

I understand your reasonings why as well - in case they are distorted, or taken out of context. If everyone was worried about those two things all the time, we'd all be mute, and just copy and paste from wikipedia all the time!

agree to disagree. I still think the slap on the wrist was a bit of an emotional outburst on your part, but like I said, we're still friends.

I don't understand the objections of some people.

All ATS is trying to do is make sure that the hard work and research our members put into their contributions doesn't get pilfered by people without any ethics. No one is saying "What's on ATS can never be used", what we're saying is "If you're going to use things that ATS members put together, please give the proper credit."

Can someone PLEASE tell me what is wrong with that? We're looking out for our members and asking that people respect the work that they do.

[edit on 1/10/2008 by Djarums]

reply to post by Djarums

---

theres nothing wrong with that. taking legal action against people is not the same as saying "please." That is obvious by the actions of all sites ATS is contacting. Instead of giving credit, they pull the info down.

reply to post by scientist

---

Perhaps it's a case of the guilty sites overreacting to the situation.

Rather than simply giving credit where credit is due, they yank all the "offending" material so as to avoid any appearance of malfeasance.

A message to their offending member, as it were...

BTW, just playing devil's advocate here....

That's their choice.

Maybe you should be harping on them?

ATS follows quite a progressive stance with respect to intellectual property law. The creative commons license is not used by any mainstream media outlet that I know of and you would be hard-pressed to get them to adopt it.

Besides, if you don't agree with the terms and conditions, maybe you should simply leave and find a place with policies you do agree with. Then everybody would be happy.
.

reply to post by Gools

---

Now now, no need to be hso aggressive.

scientist understands and accepts the current stance taken by ATS staff and admins when its comes to this issue. He just had a difference in opinion and offered it as such. He feels he was slapped with a warning unjustly so he also offerred that opinion.

I hardly see scientists comments as worthy of such hostilities and comments.

Aggressive?

If you are referring to the last line in my post it's the unvarnished truth and applies to all the bellyachers around here who have a history of run-ins with the staff.

Word of advice: if I were you, I'd be careful about rushing to speak on somebody else's behalf without knowing the whole situation.

If you find that "aggressive" well... sorry.
.

[edit on 1/10/2008 by Gools]

Wow. That's a pretty good idea, and one I'd never even thought to do.
Thanks SO. If one of our PS gurus wants to post a watermarking tutorial that incorporates PS and a couple of the common "free" apps like MS Paint, post the link in this thread. It'd be greatly appreciated by a lot of members here, and probably something that'd go in real nice in Zedd's user manual.

heh, no worries. check my sig, it's not the first time I've been the target of Gools' subtle cheapshots like that before.

Looks like you got a little threat of your own!




Welcome to the club

Like I said, apparently this is a hot-button issue that appears to have emotions riled up. I've said my piece, and I'll retire from posting unless a question is directed at me.

[edit on 10-1-2008 by scientist]

Thats the one and I can see why you would say it applies to all the "bellyachers" around here. But no matter how you slice it, scientist was offering his/her opinion, nothing wrong with that...



Well, what do I have to worry about really? (outside of being on the wrong side)

Either way, I understood both sides of the argument (as best I could) and felt scientist was offering opinion on a subject that comes up constantly. If members are so important to this site, so must our opinions be important. If board policy is not open to debate, maybe it should be stated as such and threads like these should be closed before they get to this level of debate?


I found it off-colour as scientist had already pretty much conceded his/her position, thats all.

No hostilities ment on my side either.


[edit on 10-1-2008 by InSpiteOf]

But his opinion is just plain wrong.

No matter what you think, it's wrong to take someone else's work and use it elsewhere without any credit. And in many cases, it's clearly illegal.

No matter what you think, using someone else's work without credit or attribution is selfish and demonstrates ideals and ethics that are counterproductive to collaborative information sharing and learning.

Refusal to provide attribution or credit for someone else's work demonstrates a lack of ethics, and reveals motivations that have nothing to do with the sharing of information.

While the legality of these issues are governed by varying degrees of severity and intent, using intellectual property in a manner contrary to posted guidelines (our linked creative commons deed) is illegal and easily defensible.

Our motivations for defending the content provided by our members is to preserve the all-important context of the dynamic discussion that surrounds any and all content on our sites... and to ensure that credit is given where credit is due. Anyone who is genuinely concerned about the free and open exchange of ideas and information would never have an issue with this.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

---

You'll get no argument from me on the points you made there, I happen to agree with you and the admin team on issues of copywrite. I just disagreed with the way certain things were handled on the last page of this thread.

Anyways, I think Ill do as scientist did and leave this thread alone, as the core issue is being dealt with.

Did you take lessons from the likes of Karl Rove?

Thank goodness the ATS membership is smarter than you give them credit for.
.

thelibra just informed me that a thread of mine was plagiarized by a member at "Godlike Productions". Not that I mind personally in this case, but I fully agree that ATS should be referenced. I have some other material here that would really $%# me off to see stolen without credit.
I posted a little message on their forum to let them know, politely of course. Heh! you cannot even type the words "Above Top Secret" there or link to ATS, it keeps coming back as "Deal or no Deal".

R.Desilva was from Sedona at one point in his life this much I know...

If he thinks that he can just come through and take credit for others work, well he knows better.

It is much more admirable for him to simply use others work and take credit for it being part of his research into the study.

The point I would like to make is that Rhon, you need to know that the internet is a very small world and we here at ATS have been surfing it from every corner of the globe.

This is pure ego gratification and will serve you no good purpose or outcome.

Now you know me and my affiliations so here now I remind you of a little gal that showed up in Sedona back in the 80's wearing a flight jumpsuit and was in the business of denying ignorance way back then.

My suggestion is for you to make a public apology and clarify this mess you have made for your self and let it be a lesson.

Rishu, Shakuras Daughter...

reply to post by squiz

---

Seems like someone who visits "Godlike Productions" likes to visit ATS and steal members posts via text cut n paste, which IMO is plagiarism, as in the case of this ATS thread started on 12/31/07 found here www.abovetopsecret.com and then was made into a new thread on 1/1/08 at "Godlike Productions" with out any mention of the 'text' being from an ATS member. This ATS member clearly wasn't the one who started the thread at the other forum.



Hopefully this kind of activity will not become the 'norm' as time goes on and 'Alternitive topic' forums become more and more common and abundant. Unless it is 'free-use photos/videos' I like to hope that what "I" text post at ATS stays at ATS unless "I" decide otherwise.

Sorry to hear your 'text' got stolen too squiz
Bzzzzzzz

squiz! Welcome to the club! Some here on this thread just don't seem to get it. Only the wearer knows where the shoe pinches.

Here's a guy who spends the better part of the day and working late into the night looking for and annotating anomalies, analyzing them and putting it all together, only to find it ripped off word to word by a 'researcher' on another web site CLAIMING IT TO BE HIS OWN WORK.

And that sucks!! PERIOD!!

[edit on 11-1-2008 by mikesingh]

Hello,
I just joined, came over from C2C. Something strange happened while I was looking for this site I ran into the other ATS site they have alot of the same exact threads this site does so I was just wondering if you guys knew about them or not or if they have special permission to use the same name and material?
www.abovetopsecret.info...

Intriguing!! And did you notice this written at the bottom of that web site? Here it is:

Most of our stories were outright stolen from abovetopsecret.com

Now what the heck is all this about??

[edit on 12-1-2008 by mikesingh]

reply to post by SpectTater

---

Well, this is a pretty easy one to track down.

Whois gives an email address for the registerant as darkheartrising2008@yahoo.com.

And on ATS, there's a member darkheartrising who's a friend of slackerwire, which happens to be the name "running for president in 2016" on abovetopsecret.info. The only thread not stolen from here.

Edit: Ah, didn't notice that darkheartrising is twice banned. Explains a lot.

[edit on 1/12/2008 by eaglewingz]