Who is Behind MADB?

[_John Larsen]

I would hope that someday MAD will try to enforce a copyright claim in court. That would be a fun circus to watch. They are just blowing smoke.

[_Mister Scratch]

I would hope that someday MAD will try to enforce a copyright claim in court. That would be a fun circus to watch. They are just blowing smoke.

What's so hilarious is the rather amazing dance routine that all the mods engaged in. Honestly, what are they so afraid of? The Church, or the SCMC? Why aren't any of these supposedly brave, stalwart TBMs willing to step forward and lay claim to the "bastion of righteousness" that is MAD?

[_TrashcanMan79]

Here is the URL Address to the first Discussion Thread, started by vikingz2000:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=34131


Here is the URL Address to the second Discussion Thread, started by vikingz2000:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=34163


The statue of vikingz2000 on the MA&D Message Board is now Members Ltd.

Brackite is referring, of course, to that Discussing Thread, over there.

Sorry. Couldn't help myself.

[_Brackite]

Here is the URL Address to the first Discussion Thread, started by vikingz2000:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=34131


Here is the URL Address to the second Discussion Thread, started by vikingz2000:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=34163


The statue of vikingz2000 on the MA&D Message Board is now Members Ltd.

Brackite is referring, of course, to that Discussing Thread, over there.

Sorry. Couldn't help myself.

LOL!

[_TrashcanMan79]

Dang it. Was supposed to call it a "discussion thread," not "discussing." Well, I've already been quoted with the mistake - no point in fixing it now.

[_Nightingale]

This topic came up on MAD (or was it pre-MAD, on FAIR?) and subsequently we continued the discussion here about it, If I recall correctly. CK had an idea for publishing some discussions from MAD in a separate forum. It could have been just when MAD emerged from FAIR and the question of copyright did come up. I got involved in the discussion because I'm very interested in that subject, especially in the relatively new area of Internet "publishing". I remember feeling a bit awkward after-the-fact in case I really muddied the waters, complicating matters perhaps, but still I think it was good to point out that there are important legal issues that need to be considered that people may not always be aware of. Shortly after that, Chris seemed to go cold on the idea and it didn't ever pan out. The mods there seemed to be very interested in the concept but somewhere along the line things soured. I think it would have been a lot of work and in the end maybe it's harder than first thought for LDS to work with non-LDS? Not sure on that.

Anyway, there should be an old thread here on the topic of copyright and one over there too (oops, I said "over there"!) :)

Someone posted a good summary of the basic reality as I know it (Tarski perhaps?) in that the author of a piece automatically owns copyright, that permission must be sought to use someone else's work and that litigation is prohibitively expensive. I did wonder at the time how it was possible for FAIR/MAD to claim copyright over an individual's post, especially copyright ownership such that the author would lose it. I would be interested to see if they do believe they have that right and interested to see what the law is on that. From the little research I have done, I think they cannot claim copyright even though people make posts on a board "they" own. I believe you can claim copyright of the board as in the body of posts and how they appear but not over the content of individual posts.

In any case, the issue is quite a bit more complicated than one may think, especially in the realm of the Net where new territory is being forged as we speak. There is also the consideration of the laws of other countries (i.e., Canadian law differs from US law in some respects on these issues, as does that of other countries) and perhaps international law. I would guess that the laws apply from the jurisdiction in which the property (board) is owned? All I know is, it would be good to be clued in about it if you should be. I have to say I wasn't surprised that Chris had second thoughts about his proposed venture. Even preliminary research on it was very time-consuming.

[_Infymus]

What a bunch of freaking crap. You digitally sign your posts simply by logging in?

Absolutely not, it's crap, and I'll tell you why.

Back in 2005, Susan I/S from RFM demanded that I take down every single article I had culled from RFM, stating that RFM had an "express copyright" over all of the material. Intrigued by this, I actually visited my attorney and we looked over "express copyright" on website forums.

According to the US Copyright Act (title 17, U.S. Code), articles posted on online forums cannot be considered copyright unless specifically copyrighted by the individual that has composed the article including the date and real name. Articles cannot be listed as "publications", unless specifically detailed as such.

While no publication or registration or other "action" is required in the Copyright Office to secure a copyright, each work MUST be labeled as COPYRIGHT by the individual who writes a publication.

Therefore, every person who writes a message on the forums MUST place a copyright with their full name and date of copyright at the top or bottom of the message. This of course would expose all of the MADB poster’s “real names”.

MADB doesn't have a legal leg to stand on when it comes to copyrighted material posted by anonymous users and aliased users. Using a blanket statement on their website copyrighting all material will not stand up in court. As stated above, EACH person must copyright their own personal work by stating so in each message the write - using the current date and their real name.

Many of the posts on MADB cull their information from LDS Books and other websites without regard to Section 107 of the 1976 "Fair Use" Copyright Act - pulling more information from those copyrighted works than is allowable by law. Web search portals such as Google search and archive most of the site on a weekly basis. You can find complete "cached" articles on Google and go back several years. It would be interesting to read the response from Google when you demand they remove any and all MADB articles posted by users as "Copyrighted Material."

Even if they DID somehow manage to find and secure (by means of filing a copyright notice for each individual post), regardless, you will always be able to pull posts off MADB and post them anywhere by means of the "Fair Use," which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act.

Until every user copyrights their work with their full name and date, none of the articles posted by registered and unregistered users of MADB site are considered copyrighted – regardless of what the owners or operators of MADB state.

The Cult spends millions of dollars a year copyrighting every tiny thing they produce. Even their half-a$$ed "Please Come Back to The Cult, We Need Your Cash" pamphlet is copyrighted and I warn people NOT to post it in full. The only time the Cult ever fires off TAKE DOWN notices is when the post made (be it forum message, website or video) is not faith promoting.

[_christopher]

So, a number of interesting questions were raised in this thread, I think. Chief among them is this: Who is "MAD"?

It seems then that "MAD"is anonymous and perhaps Bob Crockett should be brought in for consult as he appears to me to be the board expert on anonymity.

Chris <><

[_solomarineris]

To me it was no brainer from getgo that "Intelllectual Properties inc." had owned @ financed the site.
Although, (not) in-directly.

[_Bond...James Bond]

I would hope that someday MAD will try to enforce a copyright claim in court. That would be a fun circus to watch. They are just blowing smoke.

What's so hilarious is the rather amazing dance routine that all the mods engaged in. Honestly, what are they so afraid of? The Church, or the SCMC? Why aren't any of these supposedly brave, stalwart TBMs willing to step forward and lay claim to the "bastion of righteousness" that is MAD?

That question can be answered with a simple fill in the blank exam. What word (possibly slightly modified for plurization) fills all these blanks?

The MAD Mods, by their very nature as double anonymity sockpuppet masters, are _________.

The American ________ willow is a willow native to the Northern USA.

The _______cat Dolls are an American pop and R&B quintet.

_____ Galore was the famous pilot Bondgirl from Goldfinger who double-cross the villian from which the movie title was derived.



(I will withhold on calling Smac/Rhad a pussy cause he owns up to being a mod. Seriously...being a mod isn't that big of a deal (well on this board anyway). They make it a big deal with the whole anonymous sockpuppet routine. That manufactures quite a bit of the problem. If they were to come clean they'd still have issues of favoritism of apologists, but at least they wouldn't be big ole anonymous hypocrites. Only regular hypocrites.)