To think it's time MN becomes a closed forum?

[minipie]

So:

The bastard Daily Mail cuts and pastes very personal stories from MN, discouraging others from opening up and seeking support.

Trolls come on and waste everyone's time, increasing our cynicism in genuine cases and discouraging others from giving support.

Spammers jump on any related (or unrelated) thread and post a link to their crappy product, wasting MNHQ's time in weeding them out.

Hairy handed truckers come and get their weirdo jollies from MNers seeking sexual or physical advice.

Isn't it time we became a closed forum?

I appreciate that wouldn't completely solve all these problems - but it would surely reduce them.

Otherwise, I'm worried the site is going to die, or become limited to the most bland and anodyne threads (lentil recipes and so on).

This is a genuine AIBU - I am not at all techie so there may be downsides I haven't thought of.

Open to debate...

I wondered if they could stop the Mail?
Funny,there is such a absolute disgust of the paper amongst posters - and yet we are constantly being handed to them on a plate! I must be naive.

What about needing a phone number to confirm account?
I don't actually have a mobile phone and I don't give out my home phone number.

This is going to sound stupid but I hate talking on the phone and I hate the sound of it ringing so my parents, son, his school, my neighbour and my doctors are the only people who have my number.

MN has copyright of every single post here. So unless the DM is paying them shedloads in out of court settlements, for copyright breaches, MN must be a) turning a blind eye or b) coming to an arrangement which is mutually beneficial re. business.

No journo can 'lift' a story or a single quote from MN without asking permission - or do so at their peril- and you will note that MN say you are forbidden from sending PMs to posters to ask them to talk to you if you are a journo; there is a media forum with a fee for that.

It's very hard to close a public forum to selected members nowadays. Even if they collect IP addresses of trolls etc, all someone has to do is use a public computer, a different pc, create a fake email account and away they go.

Some smaller forums have much more zealous moderating but MN is a business and often the outrageous threads bring in loads of hits for ads.

They'd find it impossible to police 4 million members.

It's the responsibility of posters to self regulate as I see it. This forum is run for the benefit of MN and for revenue.

Dame I looked up copyright law after that deleted thread and I think the copyright still belongs to the poster - but obviously few posters are going to have the time/energy/means to battle the DM. And they have to have c&p'd a lot of the posts to have breached copyright, my guess is they stay just in the grey area legally. I don't know if MN could do it legally.

Pacific I've only seen one or two DMrudeword user names. I guess if you were going to post something personal then would be the time to NC to a DMrudeword name, but you'd have to be a pretty established user to know that - and even then, the DM could still use your posts without referring to your username, they just couldn't screenshot. PS it's Guinea Pig (I had a couple a loooong time ago).

Trying to find a solution that doesn't exit

exist

mini no, copyright belongs to MN. I think if you look at the small print of your registration you will find that MN says they own anything posted.
This is in common with almost ALL online magazines. Whether you are a member of the public, or even a journo in many instances, you will find that once the writing is online, the copyright is with the site owners. Known as 'All rights' - which means they can do what they wish with it.

PS it's Guinea Pig - thank you, that was bugging me

I dunno about the copyright thing (disclaimer: not a lawyer): all the books ("MN Guide to Whatever") use direct quotes from users with their NN and I am not aware that anybody was asked whether they could be quoted or received any kind of royalties for their words of wisdom/funniness.

I agree it is very unfair to expect any new or vulnerable poster to know about the strategic subtleties of putting lazy journos off, but I think that is the nature of the interweb: blessing and curse in equal measure.

I was contacted by a different news paper to ask for permission, if they didn't need permission why bother asking? I reckon Daily Mail have some kind of deal with MN.

Emmeline, did they use your RL name? How did they contact you? Presumable by PM on MN?? Otherwise that would be seriously creepy….

Other forums I frequent (sorry) have closed sections that require a minimum post count (so you have to have commented 100 times) or you have to be registered for a time period (say 6 months) before you can access it.

The post count idea may lead to more spammy things but the time limit would at least mean trolls would have to play the long game

Nothing will stop the DM though, they do this shit because they have the money to waste on lawyers whereas Mumsnet doesn't. Money/power trumps justice

If you don't know about copyright and MN I suggest you go to your Account, click on the Privacy Policy link at the bottom of the registration page, then a little way down, click on the Terms and Conditions link to the right hand side .

You will then find Terms of Use.

I suggest you read, and you will perhaps be shocked, because MN own every single thing you post.

I haven't agreed to it yet I don't think I will anyway. It was via PM and they gave me an email

No.

It wouldn't make a difference.

It could still be abused.

How would you stop journalists doing the same thing, just because the forum was closed?
How would assess that people were real and not a troll anymore than now?

The good thing about MN is it is NOT an 'echo chamber' to the degree that other social media has become.

Mumsnet needs to earn money and what we say on the forum belongs to mumsnet to copy to facebook or allow the media to take its stories by signing up to mumsnet you sold your soul

That's not quite rig PollyPerky. While MN does own the copyright, the DM can quite legitimately use quotes under copyright law's fair-dealing rule. I think the DM does push the use of this law a bit, but it's a grey area so I doubt it's one that MN would bother to pursue through the courts.

The most important paragraph is 'By Submitting User Content to us, ....you automatically,.......[hand over your rights forever, for us to use your posts in whichever way we choose...] My paraphrasing.

Yes of course mumsnet has a deal with the Dm its obvious

The daily mail is no more public than MN. Reality is that if you are posting your private business all over a public website then you have already made it public. It makes no difference then whether someone reads it on MN or the DM.

IMO MN have an agreement with the tabloids because it gains them revenue. They're not actually interested in the support side, they're interested in the clicks, so even if the DM means that people stop posting, the clicks will still happen, and there will always be new posters to replace them.

And the best way to minimise trolls would be to ban name changing, or at the very least make name changing something which needs to be approved first. Nobody needs to name change so urgently that they can't wait for a few hours to be approved to do so.

Becky have you read the T&Cs and what MN owns and what they can do with content created by you /us? I don't see your point.

WhatsBecky is a fair dealing rule? No one can use anything from another publication or site unless they are part of a syndicate.

Peggy, PBP = Previously Banned Poster. But I really wish it was "puffing billy posse".

This is the law re Fair Dealing.

"Fair dealing
Certain exceptions only apply if the use of the work is a ‘fair dealing’. For example, the exceptions relating to research and private study, criticism or review, or news reporting.

‘Fair dealing’ is a legal term used to establish whether a use of copyright material is lawful or whether it infringes copyright. There is no statutory definition of fair dealing - it will always be a matter of fact, degree and impression in each case. The question to be asked is: how would a fair-minded and honest person have dealt with the work?

Factors that have been identified by the courts as relevant in determining whether a particular dealing with a work is fair include:

does using the work affect the market for the original work? If a use of a work acts as a substitute for it, causing the owner to lose revenue, then it is not likely to be fair
is the amount of the work taken reasonable and appropriate? Was it necessary to use the amount that was taken? Usually only part of a work may be used
The relative importance of any one factor will vary according to the case in hand and the type of dealing in question."

From the Gov website.

Any other ideas for stopping the bloody DM screen grab tactics?

only by reserving the copyright on what you post - the DM plays a dangerous game in terms of copyright - if lifting content from here, that might not be news reporting but theft of copyright...

similarly by suing the DM for character defamation by including your content / you in their paper - but might be difficult to prove...

Basically, anyone including DM is within its legal rights to quote the odd sentence or two from a post and giving the gist of a thread. Quoting an entire thread or a very long post would in breach of copyright.

Even if the DM or another paper occasionally push this, it is far more than MN's time and money is worth to pursue it. And every DM story brings MN revenue in terms of new site users/views that appeal to advertisers

I agree MN has a lot of dodgy stuff on it these days, but it couldn't survive if it were a closed forum.