Who is Behind MADB?
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 5:45 pm
I recently received a very "hot" tip from one of my anonymous "informants." Over on the aptly named MADboard, a discussion arose concerning this rather Orwellian decree emanating from the Board Guidelines:
The poster called vikingz2000 raised an interesting question:
Yes, indeed! Some very poignant and interesting questions. A rather lengthy reply was made by the redoubtable Uncle Dale, stating that, in essence, MAD's claims to copyright are pretty much stupid, and are a rather hollow and vacuous attempt at even more iron-fisted control of everything. Here is vikingz2000's follow-up post:
Hmm. It raises the question: Why would anyone want to post on a board which is attempting to wield such dictatorial control over the intellectual content therein? Further, what does it say about a board---and its moderators/owners (more on this in a second)---that it feels the need to include this fascist 'copyright' clause???
A bit later, in an exchange between Tsuzuki and The Unk, we get this sparkling insight:
So, does this mean that the sole reason for this "copy right notice" was a kind of "threat" against MDB and all of its posters? It could be; it could be. Some have postulated that the demise of the old FAIRmessageboard came about primarily due to the administrators of FAIR being unable to stomach the kinds of criticism that were very legitimately being leveled against that old board.
In any case, later in the thread, we get some commentary from "Chaos":
What the...? So, am I to understand that the "board owner" is really worried about protecting Pahoran's endless rants? Or DCP's smears against Quinn? Or Kerry Shirts's "Wooooooooooo hooooooooooo!" posts?
Something, at any rate, seems amiss. Get ready to find out why:
Ah, yes! Indeed! Who is "MAD," exactly? If this is a legal entity, then we should be able to locate a public record or some sort, right? So, where is the record? Who is running the show at MAD? Or, have these legal threats merely been a bunch of vacuous nonsense? Either the legality of MAD's claims are legitimate, and we would be able to track down some public record concerning MAD's status as a legal entity, or, they are huffing and puffing, and terrified of being "outed", since they fear having their behavior as owners/administrators/moderators linked to their other posting personae.
You can bet that the panic shifted into high gear after peeps's post:
So, this topic merits commentary from not one, but two MADmoderators. How very interesting!
Peeps elaborates a bit further down:
Yes---an "unknown entity." This whole thing rather reminds me of Franz Kafka's great novel, The Trial, where the hapless Joseph K. is arrested suddenly one morning, and spends the entire rest of the book trying---unsuccessfully---to figure out what crime he's been charged with. Poor Joseph K.'s quest is thwarted in part by the mysterious, nameless bureaucracy which is secretly pulling the strings behind everything---a kind of cruel demiurge that refuses to show its face.
vikingz2000 senses all this, and follows up with this response to a post from Calmoriah:
Next, check out this paranoia-ridded post from MADmod "Nemesis":
You can probably imagine that this thread was doomed from the start:
I have to assume that vikingz2000 hasn't had much experience with TBM-run messageboards, because s/he immediately did the completely pointless thing of firing up a new thread to question why the old thread was closed. At least the post is pretty good:
Wow, this list of "cyber-manacles" placed on people over there is pretty ridiculous: suspensions, bannings, no PMs unless you've got 20 posts (what's the reason for that, I wonder?), shutting down threads, and this silly (and apparently hollow) threats concerning copyright.
vikingz2000 inches every closer to being banned with this next post:
LOL!!
The poster called "mudcat" chimes in with this useless post:
And, finally, to round out the trio of moderators involved with this (they must be really crapping themselves over this one), here's "Skylla" (juliann or Calmoriah, perhaps?)
So, a number of interesting questions were raised in this thread, I think. Chief among them is this: Who is "MAD"? Is it a real, legitimate organization of some kind? Why, at heart, are the MADmods so apparently terrified that they'll be "discovered"? Why aren't they willing to declare ownership of this messageboard? Further, what does this lack of accountability do to their claims concerning copyright, and legal legitimacy?
By posting on Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board you agree to the terms and conditions of this service, and assign the copyright and use right in the material posted to MA&D. Materials posted on the Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of MA&D and the materials' posters. Participation on these boards is at the sole discretion of MA&D administration and can be revoked at any time.
The poster called vikingz2000 raised an interesting question:
vikingz2000 wrote:Is is correct that whatever I post (my words, thoughts, etc.) become the ‘property’ of this web site? And if I want to publish these thoughts at some future time (an article, book, etc) that I have to get permission to do so? What if I post something that I have already had published, what are the copyright implications about that?
Hope someone can explain this to me.
I send an email to a 'host' or 'moderator' or something like that asking these questions, but have not received a reply, as of yet.
Yes, indeed! Some very poignant and interesting questions. A rather lengthy reply was made by the redoubtable Uncle Dale, stating that, in essence, MAD's claims to copyright are pretty much stupid, and are a rather hollow and vacuous attempt at even more iron-fisted control of everything. Here is vikingz2000's follow-up post:
vikingz2000 wrote:I do have intentions (in fact I am in the process now) of producing a book that I hope (although maybe a pipe-dream at this stage, but you still never know) to have published that would entail things that I would be posting here. I suppose that would place me in a precarious or complicated situation, wouldn’t it? When I go to sign a publisher’s contract, I am sure there will be something to the effect that none of the material I am submitting for publication has a copyright ‘hold’ on it, or something similar.
Mmmm… You know, I don’t feel comfortable posting here because of their ‘copyright’ usage ‘laws’ that I am agreeing to.
Any further thoughts on this?ruthie chan wrote:Does seem a bit extreme doesn't it?
Yes, it does. I don't feel comfortable about this.
Hmm. It raises the question: Why would anyone want to post on a board which is attempting to wield such dictatorial control over the intellectual content therein? Further, what does it say about a board---and its moderators/owners (more on this in a second)---that it feels the need to include this fascist 'copyright' clause???
A bit later, in an exchange between Tsuzuki and The Unk, we get this sparkling insight:
Uncle Dale wrote:Tsuzuki wrote:The little copyright notice doesn't negate the implied copyright for yourself of everything you create. You don't have to put a notice in your posts to be able to use them in any way you want. The copyright notice is so that MA&D can use your words without you suing them.
Basically, MA&D can use anything anyone's posted here without permission, while you can use anything you've posted here without permission. If you want to use anything someone else has posted here, you have to get the permission of either that person or MA&D.
Yes, you're probably right.
But, don't the board rules on this also serve to curtail cross-postings of original material from this
board, over to those "other" message boards? That is, regardless of enforceability of the implied threat.
So, does this mean that the sole reason for this "copy right notice" was a kind of "threat" against MDB and all of its posters? It could be; it could be. Some have postulated that the demise of the old FAIRmessageboard came about primarily due to the administrators of FAIR being unable to stomach the kinds of criticism that were very legitimately being leveled against that old board.
In any case, later in the thread, we get some commentary from "Chaos":
Chaos wrote:These statements should sum up the board owner intentions. It is enforceable with host companies and can sometimes be considered content theft which most hosts have a eula against. Very rarely will one of those "boards" have off shore hosts that would not fall under copyright laws and treaties. Lets also not forget who owns the database and hardware. It was only natural for the owners to want to protect that data. Hope that helps.
Chaos
What the...? So, am I to understand that the "board owner" is really worried about protecting Pahoran's endless rants? Or DCP's smears against Quinn? Or Kerry Shirts's "Wooooooooooo hooooooooooo!" posts?
Something, at any rate, seems amiss. Get ready to find out why:
(bold emphasis added)peeps wrote:I've long wondered about this. I actually assumed that the claim of copyright here was invalid, absent an actual signed transfer of copyright from an author to the owners of the site. The question sounded familiar, though, so I did a search, and found a discussion that touched on the topic back when Chris Smith was proposing a MAD papers project (see the thread here). So maybe there's a right to use, but no copyright.
Another question I had is who is "MA&D" to whom the copyright is assigned? Is that even a legal entity? If not, then who is claiming the copyright?
If there are any IP attorneys lurking about, an opinion would be most welcome.
Ah, yes! Indeed! Who is "MAD," exactly? If this is a legal entity, then we should be able to locate a public record or some sort, right? So, where is the record? Who is running the show at MAD? Or, have these legal threats merely been a bunch of vacuous nonsense? Either the legality of MAD's claims are legitimate, and we would be able to track down some public record concerning MAD's status as a legal entity, or, they are huffing and puffing, and terrified of being "outed", since they fear having their behavior as owners/administrators/moderators linked to their other posting personae.
You can bet that the panic shifted into high gear after peeps's post:
Nemesis wrote:It's all about data and content as Chaos stated and permission for us to use it. Its as valid as the terms of use are. You basically accept/digitally sign it every time you log in and post.
"The details of who MA&D are quite inconsequential.... "
So, this topic merits commentary from not one, but two MADmoderators. How very interesting!
Peeps elaborates a bit further down:
peeps wrote:Permission to use makes sense (and would seem to be necessary on a message board!). Assigning copyright by digital signature (is that possible with a presumably unverified account or login?) to an unknown entity is a bit more up in the air for me. But obviously I'm not too worried about it - I'm posting anyways. It's more of an interesting abstract legal question for me. I'd still be interested in an IP attorney's opinion.
Yes---an "unknown entity." This whole thing rather reminds me of Franz Kafka's great novel, The Trial, where the hapless Joseph K. is arrested suddenly one morning, and spends the entire rest of the book trying---unsuccessfully---to figure out what crime he's been charged with. Poor Joseph K.'s quest is thwarted in part by the mysterious, nameless bureaucracy which is secretly pulling the strings behind everything---a kind of cruel demiurge that refuses to show its face.
vikingz2000 senses all this, and follows up with this response to a post from Calmoriah:
vikingz2000 wrote:calmoriah wrote:I can give at least one reason, to allow mods to prevent posters from removing content if necessary.
On the board I moderated, we had a couple of posters that when they got mad would go through and delete all their recent comments rendering several conversations they had taken part in very difficult to understand. This is, in my opinion, an insult and unnecessary 'hardship' to those who took the time to respond to their comments. In these cases we ended up banning the poster thus preventing him or her from accessing their account and editing their posts. The board's ownership of the content of the board made this a legal action
If I recall correctly, another threatened to sue if we didn't remove content so we did check this out.
That’s interesting and you presented some good points.
Still, I would like to know who is, or who owns MADB? How and why did this discussion board come to be?
Also, in thinking about this a little more, I am becoming more of the opinion that there is an ‘ego factor’ to consider along with financial repercussions perhaps. If I have some good thoughts that are creative and would consider original, then by posting them on *any* internet site, even with a copyright notice, how I am to know if someone ends up stealing my ideas by really using them by really ending up in publishing a book? And even if I did find out, it doesn’t seem likely that I would hire a lawyer at great expense and sue this person considering the case preparations in submitting my *documented* proofs for the suit, etc.
So, in conclusion, if I am going to *really* publish a book, then why would I take the risk of someone jumping the gun before me?
Like someone on this thread said to the effect that his or her postings are ‘lazy’ or something like that and who would want them anyway. And that’s a good point, but not if I want to submit some well thought out and crafted entries. It’s like every time I post I am *giving away* my so-called unpublished *book* for free, OR even worse, I am shooting myself in the foot and preventing myself from ever publishing a book because I posted it on the Internet or on MADB.
All this leaves me with an uneasy feeling. Is this ego or selfishness? What’s my point and consternation?
Next, check out this paranoia-ridded post from MADmod "Nemesis":
Nemesis wrote:vikingz2000 wrote:Still, I would like to know who is, or who owns MADB? How and why did this discussion board come to be?
A lot of people would like to know also. In fact there are a few feeble attempts and theories out there to try to figure it out.
You can probably imagine that this thread was doomed from the start:
Chaos wrote:mocnarf wrote:What if all your comments on this board where contained in quotes that also included your copyright notice, such as:
Someone would first have to actually contribute something profound for it to be effective. Anyways time to close this thread. Its been answered. Content Content Content.
Chaos
I have to assume that vikingz2000 hasn't had much experience with TBM-run messageboards, because s/he immediately did the completely pointless thing of firing up a new thread to question why the old thread was closed. At least the post is pretty good:
vikingz2000 wrote:I started and was enjoying my thread on copyright issues. Then a message gets posted from someone called Chaos who *decides* to close the tread because it was becoming too tedious for him or her.
What’s that all about???
Maybe Chaos had enough of it; okay, then don’t access it; go onto some other one. But if I started a thread then I take great exception in this abuse of power (it would seem to me) for someone to decide that I have had ‘enough to eat’ and you’re sending me to my room.
Is this how this site works?
Whoa!
The people who run this place may want to ponder the fact that, like it or not, this site is somewhat representative of the official LDS church, i.e., people will judge or make assessments of the LDS church based somewhat on the way this site operates even though it is in actuality NOT an official LDS church site (but for all we know the LDS church may be behind the curtain here).
People -- LDS and those not of our faith, come here for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons might be to receive comfort by way of a place to ‘talk it ALL out.’ If there are those who are willing to listen then why would someone here like ‘Chaos’ prevent that from happening? Would the people who control this site prefer that I and others go somewhere that reflects *less* of a caring and tolerant LDS attitude? Or is this site promoting the idea that the LDS church is really like this, i.e., into power and control -- deciding not only who can speak, and what they can say (which has merits in some cases), but now also how long they should speak. In other words, Big Brother (or sister) can just shut you down anytime it pleases.
This is bizarre. I have never come across anything like this before on a discussion board, and I’ve been on quite a few.
I would like a response regarding this from an official person attached to this site. When (or if) you respond, please state in what capacity your authority is based upon.
Thank you.
P.S. I just received a private message from someone wanting to continue the conversation on copyright, but they had to send my a private message. And I can't respond to that because I haven't posted 20 messages yet. Terrific.
Wow, this list of "cyber-manacles" placed on people over there is pretty ridiculous: suspensions, bannings, no PMs unless you've got 20 posts (what's the reason for that, I wonder?), shutting down threads, and this silly (and apparently hollow) threats concerning copyright.
vikingz2000 inches every closer to being banned with this next post:
vikingz2000 wrote:QUOTE(Mola Ram Suda Ram @ Mar 20 2008, 09:17 PM) *
I hope you realise that you are a guest here just like everybody else. You wouldn't go inot somebodies house and then complain about thier rules would you?
If I am a *guest* here then:
1. I would like to know who the host (or hostess) is. I don’t have any idea of whose *house* I am visiting, and they are not telling.
2. While visiting someone’s house as a quest I expect tolerance and courtesy from the host or hostess. I don’t think that while in the midst of a conversation with other quests that the host or hostess should come along and say, “Okay you two (or three, or four, etc.) I am not going to allow you to continue with your conversation. I don’t care how civil and interesting it is to all of you. The fact of the matter is *I* don’t think it’s interesting, and after all this is MY house! So change the topic or get out of MY house.”
LOL!!
The poster called "mudcat" chimes in with this useless post:
mudcat wrote:Would you like some cheese with that?
And, finally, to round out the trio of moderators involved with this (they must be really crapping themselves over this one), here's "Skylla" (juliann or Calmoriah, perhaps?)
Skylla wrote:This board is for LDS issues. Thread closed.
Skylla
So, a number of interesting questions were raised in this thread, I think. Chief among them is this: Who is "MAD"? Is it a real, legitimate organization of some kind? Why, at heart, are the MADmods so apparently terrified that they'll be "discovered"? Why aren't they willing to declare ownership of this messageboard? Further, what does this lack of accountability do to their claims concerning copyright, and legal legitimacy?