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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
Resources Rules Amendment
Topic Started: Sep 8 2016, 11:44 AM (2,893 Views)
spiiike
Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Arrogant
Sep 21 2016, 09:39 AM
Brandon
Sep 20 2016, 11:53 PM
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.
.. 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?
But is that code posted anywhere on the forum? I think that's the key difference.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quozzo
Member Avatar
By the blood of Sanguinius!
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I've got to begrudgingly agree with Ferby. He still owns the code, retains the copyright and can do what he wants with it. He can leave it up or take it down. The reason is superfluous.

If displaying code on here would transfer the ownership then simply having the code fetch the actual script via AJAX would render that point moot. Just take the code down from the server and the AJAX request wont run anything. Circumvented in one line of code.
Heaven is a Halfpipe
Sep 20 2016, 01:14 PM
Codes don't have the same legal standing as a piece of music or writing might have,
Of course they do. The exact same. Its copyright.
I should also mention that any code posted without a licence is not in the public domain, its not even unlicenced. It literally has no licence and no-one therefor has a licence to use it.
Edited by Quozzo, Sep 22 2016, 02:42 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arrogant
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Heaven is a Halfpipe
Sep 22 2016, 09:46 AM
But is that code posted anywhere on the forum? I think that's the key difference.
It was uploaded to the ZetaBoards servers the second it was pasted in the wrappers and saved, so it'd still fall under the content section of the ToU.

That's how ZetaBoards can display your content. Anything you give them to display, you're also granting them the right to display. HTML, CSS, and JavaScript are all posted to the service when you add them to your wrappers, and then displayed by the service when they're sent to the browser to be rendered.
Edited by Arrogant, Sep 22 2016, 04:54 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cory
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Brandon
Sep 20 2016, 11:53 PM
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.
Yes, a rule that re-affirms or supersedes it seems necessary and should be appended to the 'Resource Rules' found on the Board Rules page, and probably the Submission Guidelines pinned topic found in the Codes & Modifications forum's.

It is still unclear whether staff have the legal right to restore copyrighted material that was intentionally removed by the author. There is the conflict between ZetaBoards Terms of Use and the DMCA.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spiiike
Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Arrogant
Sep 22 2016, 04:50 PM
Heaven is a Halfpipe
Sep 22 2016, 09:46 AM
But is that code posted anywhere on the forum? I think that's the key difference.
It was uploaded to the ZetaBoards servers the second it was pasted in the wrappers and saved, so it'd still fall under the content section of the ToU.

That's how ZetaBoards can display your content. Anything you give them to display, you're also granting them the right to display. HTML, CSS, and JavaScript are all posted to the service when you add them to your wrappers, and then displayed by the service when they're sent to the browser to be rendered.
I think what Brandon is saying is if you post a code here on this support forum, the Terms of Use he quoted applies, ie: you grant ZB the right to restore any codes if they need to, makes sense for the reasons he said. I don't know how you're making a leap from that to "so we can copy any code from any forum" kind of logic, if I make a code exclusively for my forum and don't post it here, then someone else copying and using it would be a breach, there's a huge difference.
Edited by spiiike, Sep 23 2016, 11:16 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arrogant
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Heaven is a Halfpipe
Sep 23 2016, 11:10 AM
I think what Brandon is saying is if you post a code here on this support forum, the Terms of Use he quoted applies, ie: you grant ZB the right to restore any codes if they need to, makes sense for the reasons he said. I don't know how you're making a leap from that to "so we can copy any code from any forum" kind of logic, if I make a code exclusively for my forum and don't post it here, then someone else copying and using it would be a breach, there's a huge difference.
The issue is with the wording. It doesn't mention threads or posts, just content. Any content that is uploaded or posted to ZetaBoards.

When you paste a code into your wrappers, you're posting/uploading that code to the ZetaBoards servers, and the ZetaBoards servers are sending your code to the browser to be displayed. There's no difference between posting a code in a thread and posting a code in your wrappers with the wording of the Terms of Use -- and that's on purpose. They need to grant themselves the right to display any and all content uploaded to their servers.

The Terms of Use doesn't distinguish between boards. It only mentions "ZetaBoards", not any specific board. So if you upload your code to ZetaBoards, subjecting it to the Terms of Use, ZetaBoards retains the right to display that code on ZetaBoards. And since my board is ZetaBoards, shouldn't that mean I can have it on my board too? My board doesn't belong to me and your board doesn't belong to you. They both belong to ZetaBoards, and if ZetaBoards has the right to display content from both boards, shouldn't it follow that either board can display the other board's content?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quozzo
Member Avatar
By the blood of Sanguinius!
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Arrogant
Sep 23 2016, 11:54 AM
Heaven is a Halfpipe
Sep 23 2016, 11:10 AM
I think what Brandon is saying is if you post a code here on this support forum, the Terms of Use he quoted applies, ie: you grant ZB the right to restore any codes if they need to, makes sense for the reasons he said. I don't know how you're making a leap from that to "so we can copy any code from any forum" kind of logic, if I make a code exclusively for my forum and don't post it here, then someone else copying and using it would be a breach, there's a huge difference.
The issue is with the wording. It doesn't mention threads or posts, just content. Any content that is uploaded or posted to ZetaBoards.

When you paste a code into your wrappers, you're posting/uploading that code to the ZetaBoards servers, and the ZetaBoards servers are sending your code to the browser to be displayed. There's no difference between posting a code in a thread and posting a code in your wrappers with the wording of the Terms of Use -- and that's on purpose. They need to grant themselves the right to display any and all content uploaded to their servers.

The Terms of Use doesn't distinguish between boards. It only mentions "ZetaBoards", not any specific board. So if you upload your code to ZetaBoards, subjecting it to the Terms of Use, ZetaBoards retains the right to display that code on ZetaBoards. And since my board is ZetaBoards, shouldn't that mean I can have it on my board too? My board doesn't belong to me and your board doesn't belong to you. They both belong to ZetaBoards, and if ZetaBoards has the right to display content from both boards, shouldn't it follow that either board can display the other board's content?
The have the right to display and store the content, but if you then revoke them of that content, do they still have that right?

Although they arguably can restore any content. They do not own it or have the right to use it, nor does anyone else on the service. So while they could arguably restore the content, anyone else won't be able to use it, only marvel at it's awesomeness in a post, not the wrapper because they don't have a licence to use it. Makes me wonder why they even bothered to restore it in the first place.

One could argue that displaying scripts that have been taken down, and that no one has a licence to use is advocating copyright theft, but I'l leave that for the lawyers to decide.
Edited by Quozzo, Sep 25 2016, 07:36 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arrogant
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quozzo
Sep 25 2016, 07:32 AM
The have the right to display and store the content, but if you then revoke them of that content, do they still have that right?

Although they arguably can restore any content. They do not own it or have the right to use it, nor does anyone else on the service. So while they could arguably restore the content, anyone else won't be able to use it, only marvel at it's awesomeness in a post, not the wrapper because they don't have a licence to use it. Makes me wonder why they even bothered to restore it in the first place.

One could argue that displaying scripts that have been taken down, and that no one has a licence to use is advocating copyright theft, but I'l leave that for the lawyers to decide.
The issue is who is "they"? The Terms of Use uses the word ZetaBoards in multiple instances, and not all of them seem to be referring to the same thing.

If the ability to display content is granted to ZetaBoards, the service, doesn't that mean I can take someone else's code, paste it in my wrappers, and rely on ZetaBoards, the service, having the right to display it for me? Simply pasting it in my wrappers isn't displaying it, the service is taking what I pasted and is both saving it to their servers (which it has the right to do thanks to the Terms of Use) and displaying it (which it also has the right to do thanks to the Terms of Use).
Edited by Arrogant, Sep 25 2016, 06:05 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ferby
Member Avatar
Developer
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Brandon
Sep 20 2016, 11:53 PM
Cory
Sep 15 2016, 02:04 AM
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.
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?
Ferby
Sep 20 2016, 12:02 PM
Without going into too much detail, I protested against the slow progress of Zeta.
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.

Ferby
 
I haven't removed any codes I wrote for requests
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.

Ferby
 
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.
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.

Ferby
 
Myself and other contributors have always been very passionate about the progress of ZetaBoards,
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.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt in most of this because you've played the innocent card here. I don't entirely blame you for this particular situation but progress of ZB is undeniably linked to you.

And you know what, I'm okay with codes related to requests have been restored despite it being legally troublesome. But what pisses me off is the wording used by a specific staff member in a PM about it all...
Quote:
 
...the codes. I'll tell you now by the way, that I backed up all your codes some time ago anticipating just such an eventuality. Whether they get put back or not depends on the outcome of this conversation.


The whole situation was awfully handled. I protested (which is not against any rules but I understand that - as a private company - that you have the right to tell me otherwise), I was censored, my account restricted, and then forcefully told that my codes have been backed up and may be restored against my will. It's reassuring that the community seems to understand my legal right here (even if they don't agree). As far as I'm concerned at this stage, my time working with the community here is over and the only reason I work with it anymore is just for personal development. Contributors have come and gone and now they're mostly gone. There's not enough done to protect and encourage them, and it's only made ZB's progress worse. I believe the management here only has themselves to blame, although I respect that staff members have been passionate about fighting for progress like many of us have been in the past.
Also I forgot to talk about Dynamo.

The issue is that user IDs are now recycled so they're no longer unique. Dynamo worked with those IDs being unique so it's slowly been degrading and breaking with IDs being used on boards unrecognised to Dynamo. It's now at a stage where it's practically unusable. Viral has been working to fix it but I think development has practically halted, and I don't blame him. I've resigned as support for Dynamo now (although I don't think he's read the email yet) so I'm not involved with it anymore. My suggestion would be to reach out to him about it.
Edited by Ferby, Sep 26 2016, 06:16 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quozzo
Member Avatar
By the blood of Sanguinius!
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Arrogant
Sep 25 2016, 06:02 PM
Quozzo
Sep 25 2016, 07:32 AM
The have the right to display and store the content, but if you then revoke them of that content, do they still have that right?

Although they arguably can restore any content. They do not own it or have the right to use it, nor does anyone else on the service. So while they could arguably restore the content, anyone else won't be able to use it, only marvel at it's awesomeness in a post, not the wrapper because they don't have a licence to use it. Makes me wonder why they even bothered to restore it in the first place.

One could argue that displaying scripts that have been taken down, and that no one has a licence to use is advocating copyright theft, but I'l leave that for the lawyers to decide.
The issue is who is "they"? The Terms of Use uses the word ZetaBoards in multiple instances, and not all of them seem to be referring to the same thing.

If the ability to display content is granted to ZetaBoards, the service, doesn't that mean I can take someone else's code, paste it in my wrappers, and rely on ZetaBoards, the service, having the right to display it for me? Simply pasting it in my wrappers isn't displaying it, the service is taking what I pasted and is both saving it to their servers (which it has the right to do thanks to the Terms of Use) and displaying it (which it also has the right to do thanks to the Terms of Use).
I know what you mean. You could (arguably) display it in a post on your forum because the ToS specifies the service. What i'm saying is you cannot put it in your wrapper because you would then be using the code, for which you have no licence.

Thats why I mentioned above that although ZB (arguably) can restore posts with scripts or codes or other copyrighted material, it cannot be used. Therefor ZB is contributing to copyright theft. They are actively going out of their way to restore content that allows people to use codes that have no licence. Similar to piratebay who dont use the content, they just makes it available for others to steal. The big difference is that piratebay dont have that content on their servers, but ZB do, and it even appears that they have a backup.
Edited by Quozzo, Sep 26 2016, 07:02 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stephen
Member Avatar
Twilight is upon me, and soon night must fall.

There seems to be a very clear part of this topic that stems from miscommunication. First of all, while Ferby's codes were backed up, his return was never predicated on the restoration of his codes. In point of fact, exactly two topics were restored-both were restored because they were codes made to fulfill requests on this board. Any codes that Ferby removed which he contributed that did not fulfill requests were left removed.

Since Ferby has shared a portion of the PM, here is what came after that explains exactly what he would need to do for the restriction to be lifted:

Quote:
 
You feel the images were appropriate within the rules. I and other staff felt that beyond being inflammatory and rude to the staff, it bordered on slanderous/libel and copyright infringement since it was an unauthorized use of the trademarked logo. No matter how it was judged, under any of those reasons, I removed it. And that is my right as Administrator. You argue censorship- and you may be correct. But this has never been a free speech area and signatures aren't bumper stickers for your latest cause. The rules state clearly that staff may alter or remove content with no explanation given. Those are the rules you agreed to along with the rule against inflammatory and rude behavior. I very well can and will dictate what is and isn't allowed in your signature if I feel that is required. If you truly believe I have a desire to constantly watch your signature for any change- I think you know I have better things to do.

So I will give you one more chance here- I will remove the profile restriction if you leave the images out. If you want to discuss this in topics and keep your tone free of the inflammatory and rude behavior toward the support and community team then we'll be fine. But if you are going to continue to feel you are justified in this behavior, understand I will simply leave you in this group. I don't wish to. You are supposed to be a role model to future users. But that also means you get held to a higher standard. If you flaunt the rules openly, you force action to be taken against you.

As to your criticism of the layout. If you can't figure out that is rude and inflammatory behavior, then I invite you to look at it from my side. I decided to look at it as if you were coming to me in person. And I asked myself if I would help a customer who spoke to me in that manner. And I realized that no I would not. Especially given I am a volunteer. Nor will I tolerate any of my team being treated that way. And if you can't realize why that is not ok, then we do have a problem going forward. All you had to do was look at how everyone else replied to see that your post was not ok in tone regardless of how valid or not your criticism was. Had you treated us with a modicum of respect in that topic, we would have engaged you in a meaningful dialogue and explained both sides. And again that is what I've offered you twice now in this conversation. I could for instance have explained the thoughts behind the layout change, the reason why it was done and looked at possible compromises with you. However, if I had responded in that way, it would signal that it is ok to act the way you did and I won't abide that ever. You will find you don't go very far in conversations when you insult people. It tends to make them less likely to work with you.

And that's the irony of your situation ultimately. You seem to think we disagree with your positions- we don't. And there are several staff, myself among them, willing to have that dialogue if it's kept civil and both sides are treated with respect. But you need to realize that while insulting people and threatening may work for some people, it won't work here.

So really this remains up to you. You can be removed from the restriction, you can have an open dialogue. But first you need to start treating the volunteers with a lot more respect


Brandon has it 100% correct. The restriction came about because you chose to put an image in your signature that was not appropriate. This was in fact your second warning for rude and inflammatory behavior against members and staff. The first was the verbal one I gave you in a topic in this forum. So your profile was restricted until I could speak with you later that evening. In that time, you removed the codes. Let's also be clear, both what you quoted and what I quoted above were the second PM that responded in detail to the PM you sent me.

This was the first PM that I sent you:

Quote:
 
I don't much care what you think of the service. Hate it, like it, that's fine.

I also don't mind constructive criticism.

But what you have done for the past few weeks is throw a tantrum and play a passive aggressive game. I don't tolerate that from anyone who works under me nor do I allow it from people who know better and I won't engage in it with members. However when you continue to act out, you force me to act. And because the server upgrade has led to some bugs, the only way to act this time was a group change for you- not what I wanted to do but what was the option available.

I'll also freely admit that that was done at 7am this morning when I was half asleep and I had planned to contact you this evening when I had time about taking you off if you would stop with this passive aggressive behavior.

Instead, I see you've decided to take your ball and go home. I have no desire to censor you, but you have not been following the board rules here so you force me to act when I don't wish to. Rude and inflammatory behavior is the rule. You don't think your posts qualify? You don't think the lack of respect you've shown to the support and community team is rude or inflammatory? Fine if you have issues with development, fine if you disagree with a decision, but I know you know how to appropriately convey these disagreements and you are choosing to be inflammatory in your responses instead.

I'm willing to remove the profile restriction and move on, but you need to learn to express your opinions respectfully and stop playing games.

If you want to have a proper dialogue about development and you can be respectful, happy to discuss it. But I know that's not what you want. I'm fairly certain you just want to leave. So if that is your choice, I wish you best of luck. If I'm mistaken however and you wish to engage in a real dialogue about improving the service and can do so respectfully, then let me know.

Thank you for all your contributions to the service and best of luck to you.

- Stephen


You will notice that in both instances, the terms for your profile restriction to be lifted called for you to treat members and staff with more respect and to leave out the image. Those were my only terms. You told me directly if the profile restricted was lifted, the image was going back. You did also mention the codes were staying removed. You interpreted the codes line how you wished but you also never contacted me further. Did it ever occur to you that I simply meant we would restore your codes if you asked? Or that we would remove the topics? Instead, you'll note we simply left them as is for members to see your behavior for themselves. I backed those codes up, as I've done with others, in the event you later regretted it. But those backups remain on my hard drive. They were never brought over to this board nor uploaded anywhere. I simply assumed you weren't interested in talking any longer because you never responded further. Had you asked me what I meant, I would have told you.

You have, for several months, pushed this appearance of being oppressed. You haven't been. You've been given several opportunities to simply have this lifted and move on. You went the martyr route. As is, this is the last I will address this matter. If you wish to contact me further, you know how to reach me.




Now that that portion is cleared up, perhaps everyone can return to answering Brandon's questions as they specifically impact the development of ZB going forward. And since that was Ferby's number one reason for his behavior and the original point of Cory's topic, I would think that answering Brandon would therefore be a priority.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arrogant
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quozzo
Sep 26 2016, 06:58 AM
I know what you mean. You could (arguably) display it in a post on your forum because the ToS specifies the service. What i'm saying is you cannot put it in your wrapper because you would then be using the code, for which you have no licence.

Thats why I mentioned above that although ZB (arguably) can restore posts with scripts or codes or other copyrighted material, it cannot be used. Therefor ZB is contributing to copyright theft. They are actively going out of their way to restore content that allows people to use codes that have no licence. Similar to piratebay who dont use the content, they just makes it available for others to steal. The big difference is that piratebay dont have that content on their servers, but ZB do, and it even appears that they have a backup.
The Terms of Use doesn't specifically mention posts. It can't, since it also needs the right to host that content on their servers as well. That's why it's worded the way it is.

Any content that is posted to ZetaBoards, either through posts, the board wrappers, or some other way, is content that ZetaBoards reserves the right to display -- not just in posts, but anywhere. That means board wrappers and page source.

If I write a code, and I post it to my board wrappers, I am granting ZetaBoards the right to display my code. Since the Terms of Use doesn't go into detail as to who or what ZetaBoards refers to, an interpretation of it can mean that the right to display my code is propagated to all boards, since all boards belong to ZetaBoards, are hosted by ZetaBoards, and bear the name ZetaBoards.

That means any board can display my code. The board owner is granted the right to display it through the service, since the service has the right to display it and the service owns all the boards.
Edited by Arrogant, Sep 26 2016, 02:47 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nicolas
Member Avatar
"PLES RING IF AN RNSER IS REQIRD."

Arrogant
Sep 26 2016, 02:45 PM
That means any board can display my code. The board owner is granted the right to display it through the service, since the service has the right to display it and the service owns all the boards.
This is where you make the incorrect leap.
You grant the service certain rights. You do not grant all people who use the service those rights.
ZetaBoards (as the entity) has the right to display your content. This is important, because if you inserted it... we need to be able to show it, otherwise the service couldn't work.
However, you are not putting it into the public domain, or granting other users the right to use your content in ways you don't specify on other boards. For example, we enforce that themes may not be ripped - custom themes may only be used by the board they were made for. We have closed boards for stealing themes from other boards. Nicola classically restricted how her themes could be modified. The rights you grant to ZetaBoards are held by ZetaBoards and its agents - its agents are not all board owners. Those are its users.

Now, please stop going down this rabbit hole of your own making. As Stephen has identified: please focus on Brandon's questions to be able to help move forward on these questions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arrogant
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Nicolas
Sep 26 2016, 03:05 PM
This is where you make the incorrect leap.
You grant the service certain rights. You do not grant all people who use the service those rights.
ZetaBoards (as the entity) has the right to display your content. This is important, because if you inserted it... we need to be able to show it, otherwise the service couldn't work.
However, you are not putting it into the public domain, or granting other users the right to use your content in ways you don't specify on other boards. For example, we enforce that themes may not be ripped - custom themes may only be used by the board they were made for. We have closed boards for stealing themes from other boards. Nicola classically restricted how her themes could be modified. The rights you grant to ZetaBoards are held by ZetaBoards and its agents - its agents are not all board owners. Those are its users.

Now, please stop going down this rabbit hole of your own making. As Stephen has identified: please focus on Brandon's questions to be able to help move forward on these questions.
Brandon didn't create this thread, Cory did. And the subject of this thread is resource rights, so my side discussion is still in line with the point of the thread.

The Terms of Use on content: "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."

Any content uploaded or posted to the service may be displayed on a forum by the service. You grant the service the right to display and store the content you provide.

Board owners don't own their boards. Those belong to the service, as it is the service that is both storing and displaying the content of those boards. For the service to be able to do that, it needs permission from the person uploading or posting that content -- that is what the Terms of Use is there for. By using the service, you're agreeing to its terms.

If I write a code and post it to the service, the service is granted the right to display that code. Not other board owners, but the service. However, other board owners aren't storing or displaying content. The service is doing that, and if the service has the right to display my code, any board should also have that right given that all boards belong to the service and the Terms of Use isn't specific enough to say that it retains the right to display content only on the board it was posted to.

Of course, you're right about themes.. but that doesn't change anything because of sections 5 and 6 in the Terms of Use (basically allowing the service to do whatever it wants for any reason, or even no reason at all). That's the crux of the issue though: by granting itself the right to do whatever it wants with content on its servers, ZetaBoards isn't fostering an environment where people like Cory of Ferby want to help the service as anything they contribute is then taken for granted, pushing them out of the picture entirely whenever the staff deem that necessary.

It's all well and good for the service to exercise it's rights when protecting copyrights, but we've clearly seen that it isn't above ignoring those copyrights when it so chooses, alienating the very people it relies on to create content (resources and the like that others use on their boards).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nicolas
Member Avatar
"PLES RING IF AN RNSER IS REQIRD."

Arrogant
Sep 26 2016, 09:04 PM
If I write a code and post it to the service, the service is granted the right to display that code. Not other board owners, but the service. However, other board owners aren't storing or displaying content. The service is doing that, and if the service has the right to display my code, any board should also have that right given that all boards belong to the service and the Terms of Use isn't specific enough to say that it retains the right to display content only on the board it was posted to.

Of course, you're right about themes.. but that doesn't change anything because of sections 5 and 6 in the Terms of Use (basically allowing the service to do whatever it wants for any reason, or even no reason at all). That's the crux of the issue though: by granting itself the right to do whatever it wants with content on its servers, ZetaBoards isn't fostering an environment where people like Cory of Ferby want to help the service as anything they contribute is then taken for granted, pushing them out of the picture entirely whenever the staff deem that necessary.
Once again, you've made the same leap in error.
You could use your same argument for themes. "ZetaBoards is still displaying/storing this theme, even though I ripped it to my board instead of the board it was made for."
"ZetaBoards is still displaying/storing this code/post/story/article, even though it was only posted on or used for this one specific board and I ripped it to my own."
No.
That's not how this works.
Those users don't have the right to insert that content to their ZetaBoards forums.

ZetaBoards, the entity, has the right to display that content. Stanley-the-board-owner doesn't have the right to take any content from one place on the software and put it in the place they want it without permission. That's different.

Section 5 & 6 of the Terms of Use are fairly standard, boilerplate, language that you would find on any similar service online.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Service Discussion and Feedback · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2