| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Resources Rules Amendment | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 8 2016, 11:44 AM (2,892 Views) | |
| Cory | Sep 8 2016, 11:44 AM Post #1 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Due to the recent mass code removal that Ferby committed to, and I too have committed to in the past, I think the resource rules need amending. Apparently if you remove work you originally created it will only be restored by a staff member. I know this from past experience and one of Ferby's codes being recently restored. Some rule needs to be put into place about the removal of resources. Of course, it's usually only done when someone is ticked off at the network and feels their time was wasted or continuing to be apart of the network is a waste of time, or when the user plans to permanently leave and doesn't want their work posted on the network in fear of ripping or the simple fact that they won't be around to support it and don't want other people supporting their codes without their eyes on them. In terms of staff restoring removed resources, do they have the full right to do that? The point I'm trying to express is by restoring removed resources that the original author intentionally removed, it would seem to me that this essentially means that the staff have ownership over the content posted on the forum. This needs clarification. I think the rule amendment should be something like this: That's just a general idea. |
![]() |
|
| spiiike | Sep 8 2016, 12:45 PM Post #2 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think if you offer resources in the public domain, you shouldn't then be able to rip them away later for the hell of it when communities rely on them. In my view once you've posted them here, they should be here for as long as they're compatible with ZB. |
![]() |
|
| Nemomon | Sep 8 2016, 01:07 PM Post #3 |
![]()
My dad's a soldier blue I'll be a soldier too
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
My personal view on this is that users should be unable to remove their work. While I never did a code, I submitted some other work to "public domain" and I would never think about removing that because of a whim. Even if some people would make me angry. Since deleting stuff always hurts the community and innocent people, doing this should be prohibited. About editing the code by some other people, I think in the rules this actually should be allowed. It is not that some greens are editing it. Plus, the codes usually have the copyrights, so nobody will claim it. Plus2 we don't have many coders around, so only known people will be editing the codes. What happened to Ferby? |
![]() |
|
| Cory | Sep 10 2016, 02:42 AM Post #4 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
See his 'My Codes' link on his profile. Whether an original author should be able to remove their resources or not is subject of conflict. When you start getting into the subject of actual copyright, it seems the original author should be able to remove their resources at their own will, being the original sole creator of said resources. Think of it this way: Is the ROOT administrator of a board allowed to delete the board? Yes they are, and in doing so they are removing content posted by a plethora of users. This is the matter of ownership. When it comes to ethics, removing resources over network/staff-related disputes is indeed a poor decision to make. In the long run, there is always a balance in life. If I spent endless years of dedication and hard work to fulfill the needs of others when people just kept taking away from me in the long run, it would be difficult for me to not feel some type of vengeance. Of course, it may not be 100% related to the actions of others online, offline happenings in ones life can contribute to the acts of online destructive behaviors. Nemomon: Editing another persons work without their permission really applies to the internet overall, because it is a breach of copyright. People can still claim your codes with the copyright attached to it, because all they have to do is remove it. I've seen users rip codes on boards the original author posted the code on them self, and on boards where the code wasn't originally posted. As vast as the network is, I'm sure my codes have been ripped on other boards, or people are using my codes on their board and they removed the copyright. Overall, I'm not even really here to argue whether resources can be removed by the original author or not, I just think there needs to be a rule set into place to specify what you are allowed to do when it comes to the removal of resources. |
![]() |
|
| Pete B | Sep 10 2016, 12:09 PM Post #5 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
People should not be so childish as to ragequit and remove all their content. Staff should respect the wishes of people who want their content taken down, and not restore it against their wishes. |
![]() |
|
| Cory | Sep 12 2016, 04:20 AM Post #6 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'd like to know what you think is an acceptable and an unacceptable reasoning for the removal of ones resources. |
![]() |
|
| Brandon | Sep 13 2016, 12:28 AM Post #7 |
![]()
|
There are far too many reasons to list for removing or keeping a code. Trying to craft a rule to cover all the possible reasons will not create an optimal code environment that benefits boards and authors. Modifications distributed through the Resource DB will have by far the most flexibility. Rather than a set of rules, a submission to the Resource DB can have a variety of rights restricted or offered by the author. I think the best area of discussion is what rights can be granted or withheld. Editing a code is a separate issue. The code author would have to grant the right to edit the code. Personally I see a posted code as a gift to help boards that can benefit from it. You don't have to support it but it can still be of great use to someone. |
![]() |
|
| Cory | Sep 15 2016, 02:04 AM Post #8 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There's apparently only 20 themes and 0 codes in the RDB in accordance to the forum. So the question is, when are we going to start seeing some updates in this area? If it's not anytime soon, then the staff may need to consider implementing these 'rights' on the forum first. I know resource removal is not a major issue, but I think it's still something that should either a.) be allowed, b.) be not allowed, or c.) be allowed with a staff members approval. You may keep facing similar ordeals in the future if there are not some ground rules put into place concerning it. Removing resources is essentially allowed right now because there is no rule stating otherwise, but the fact that staff members restore removed resources is hinting out that it shouldn't be allowed. |
![]() |
|
| Pete B | Sep 17 2016, 11:06 AM Post #9 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
For whatever reason. I don't think people necessarily should and I can't think of a good reason right now why someone might choose to, but if they do, their decision should be respected. I think it's pretty cynical to use moderation powers to restore content if the author, who actually put the time into it, no longer wants it public. Edited by Pete B, Sep 17 2016, 11:07 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ferby | Sep 20 2016, 12:02 PM Post #10 |
![]()
Developer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I feel like I should voice my opinion here. Without going into too much detail, I protested against the slow progress of Zeta. A staff member stepped in and restricted my voice, so I took away my contribution to the network as I was no longer wanted. There are only a select few of my codes which were under the public domain. At no point did I give full license of my creations to Zeta and if this wasn't stated from the beginning and something which Zeta is only enforcing now then I would say that's a license breach and could qualify for a lawsuit, something I have been considering deeply recently. What Cory is essentially suggesting is that a clear license agreement be established to avoid this happening in the future. I believe it's essential and needs to be added. My contributions being restored is not justified if there was no license agreement in the first place. Even appended to my signature now is a license I wrote that applies to all my codes, which clearly states that...
Restoring my codes without permission falls under that category and entitles me to file a civil lawsuit against Zathyus. I didn't rage quit, I left and took my contributions with me because my account was restricted and I was told that if I wanted my account unrestricted, I was not to protest against Zathyus management or remove my codes. That is something I cannot agree to and haven't. I stand by my actions and condemn the awful decisions made here. I will be considering my next steps very carefully over the coming weeks. |
![]() |
|
| spiiike | Sep 20 2016, 01:14 PM Post #11 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So because you got a bee in your bonnet with ZB staff you attempted to screw over the innocents in the equation, countless communities who rely on your codes? Sounds to me like you DID rage quit. I doubt you'd have much of a case as far as legal proceedings go, I could put in my signature that anybody who reads my posts must pay $100 for the privilege but it doesn't make it law. You chose to put your codes in the public domain and once something is in the public domain, it's not as easy as throwing your toys out of the pram to take it back, and this goes for pretty much anything on the Internet. Codes don't have the same legal standing as a piece of music or writing might have, if they did, people would own all sorts of bizarre exclusive web rights...rights to white pages, rights to certain size banners etc... not to mention formal legal action is very expensive and I feel like you are very young, those two don't usually go hand in hand. Most people seem to agree that ZB updates aren't as frequent as we'd like but that's what makes the coding part of the software great and splendiferously useful to your average Joe user like me who wouldn't know where to begin in creating all these cool new features we can add on. |
![]() |
|
| Ferby | Sep 20 2016, 05:17 PM Post #12 |
![]()
Developer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Myself and other contributors have always been very passionate about the progress of ZetaBoards, and its failure to grow and expand as well as we'd like it to is the very reason why many of the content creators you see now have left ZetaBoards altogether. Dynamo is now on its way out after a recent unnecessary ZB update has crippled it and Viral is finding it incredibly difficult to fix it. Whether it hurt the regular Joe User or not, my codes are my own property and were licensed under my own ToU located in my signature. There was no agreement to begin with that all of my creations were in the public domain. There is simply no license there. So restoring my creations is illegal. Some of my codes are massive ones. Although my biggest creations are located on Gravity, my biggest here on Zeta is easily 20k lines. We're not talking about small modifications, I'm referring to the huge ones that essentially add features to forums. My advanced theme selector, my badge script, my API system, etc. These are all licensed by myself and not by Zathyus. If there had been some sort of license in place from the beginning that states that each modification posted was under the public domain then we wouldn't be in the mess. Zathyus could restore my codes and I could do nothing about it. Instead my creations are being distributed against my will and I do not give permission for them to do so, and am currently considering a small claims court lawsuit against Zathyus regarding it. I've made my contributions to this community and stood by decisions made in this community for the many years I've been here. I haven't removed any codes I wrote for requests nor ones I've posted elsewhere like Atrium or Dynamo. There are things here I could say that I won't because it's essentially starting a heated argument. I disagree with the course being taken, I protested in a peaceful and non-offensive/insulting way, had my account restricted as a precaution, and decided to leave along with my creations by legal right. I'm here only now to explain that. I only hope Zathyus can learn from this mistake and enforce a license agreement that states that each creation is posted under CC v3.0 license. In my eyes, the only reason they've done this is because Zeta does not have these features built in, and then you must ask yourself why it doesn't and why they feel illegally stealing creations from creators is a necessary step they feel they must take. |
![]() |
|
| Brandon | Sep 20 2016, 11:53 PM Post #13 |
![]()
|
I am reworking the RDB to get it ready for full time use, but your point about bringing the rights to this forum first might work out as well. The whole point of making codes available in the first place is to help others. Allowing removal: damages the usefulness of the code sections if a code goes missing. New board owners would be frustrated. Not allowing removal: could easily be overly restrictive to the code author. Allowed with a staff members approval: what would the expectation be? What situations would justify granting or denying an approval? I believe the issue was that you were protesting in a signature rather than by making topic, PM or post. I welcome any constructive feedback and would do my best to reply to it and implement any necessary changes where/when possible. Both codes that were restored were codes for requests. A staff member restored them when a user asked about them. The staff restored those two topics based on the Terms of Use (section 3.4). "Any content uploaded or posted to ZetaBoards may be displayed on a forum by ZetaBoards. You grant ZetaBoards the right to display and store the Content you provide." As I understand it, Cory is proposing a rule that either re-affirms this, or offers another alternative rule that supersedes this. I am not aware of any bug reports regarding this nor any PMs to me. Any updates to ZB are designed to avoid harming various modifications and scripts. I'd be happy to look into any problems with Dynamo. That passion is very important and helps many board owners. The long-awaited full RDB should help spread that passion and allow contributions that help the most boards possible. The recent server move was a vital part needed to get a fully functional RDB released. |
![]() |
|
| Arrogant | Sep 21 2016, 09:39 AM Post #14 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
.. so is ZetaBoards referring to the board, the service, or the management of the service? It looks like anything uploaded to any ZetaBoards board is then freely available to be displayed on any other ZetaBoards board since it is the service, ZetaBoards, displaying it, and the Terms of Use grants the service that right. Doesn't that mean even content that is sold by users of the service can be used freely by others once it is initially uploaded to a ZetaBoards board? And that copyrights on scripts are essentially unenforceable? Lets take a look at a script hosted on this forum: http://z1.ifrm.com/0/1/0/p407512/ticketmonster.js?c=0.2 The copyright at the top states that it exclusive to this board, and that others must ask permission to use it on their boards.. but it's hosted on ZetaBoards, so it's now subject to the Terms of Use. Doesn't that mean all ZetaBoards boards have the right to display or store it? The Terms of Use grants the service that right, and since it's the service that is hosting all ZetaBoards boards, then all ZetaBoards boards should be able to use it.. yes? Or no? |
![]() |
|
| ElementalAlchemist | Sep 21 2016, 11:23 PM Post #15 |
![]()
|
Hi, I am codesman. I'm not going to make any attempt to interpret the ZB ToS in this post. Brandon is active in this topic and can speak much better than me to the intent behind it. (I could try to lawyer it here, but I see no need to do so.) Thus, I'm not going to talk about that comment from a ToS perspective. I initially put that there because that code runs some AJAX, which hits a fair number of pages on each page load. At the time, it was enough that we probably didn't want to release it to ensure everything is fine. Even if we were to release it now, we might not want it to go out to everyone (i.e. just like here, only release it to boards that will restrict it to a small group of people, perhaps staff). I believe there are actually one or two boards other than this one running the ticket monster. At one time (maybe still now?), the limits for getting pages from a server were fairly low before you would be blocked from the server for hitting it too hard, to that was also a concern. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Service Discussion and Feedback · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
3:09 PM Jul 11
|



![]](http://b1.ifrm.com/0/1/0/p601690/pipright.png)







3:09 PM Jul 11