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...

Yes Polly, exactly. The DM (and any other publication) can legitimately use quotes fro websites and forums for the purposes of news reporting. If a thread is attracting thousands of comments, they can say that they are reporting news. This is how they would represent themselves in court should they be sued for breach of copyright. Which is unlikely,

i don't personally think that they are acting within the spirit of 'fair dealing', but it wouldn't be for me to decide. It would be for a judge to decide and I don't think MN would want to take the fight to court.

Tbh for me the DM is a minor irritation, as is the The Wright Show etc (they did quote me once ).
I don't read or watch either one of them, so water off a duck's back.
Copyright/other legal avenues will never stop other media harvesting MN for stories because we are just TOO fascinating

It's the vulnerable posters that worry me - I am unsure what kind of 'duty of care' for lack of a better phrase a forum host like MNHQ has?

MN has copyright of every single post here. Not true. I have looked at this before actually and I'm sure it used to say that they did so maybe they changed the terms recently to absolve themselves of responsibility or perhaps I'm wrong (sorry MN if so!). If you look at the terms of use it states that you give them an irrevocable license to use your content in any way they wish for all time however copyright belongs to you. These words I'm writing here are mine but MN has a right to use them. I'm sure they'll be straight off to get them printed on cushions

From Gov.uk
"You automatically get copyright protection when you create:...original non-literary written work, eg software, web content and databases"

"Copyright prevents people from:

copying your work
distributing copies of it, whether free of charge or for sale
renting or lending copies of your work
performing, showing or playing your work in public
making an adaptation of your work
putting it on the internet"

You can take your case to the Copyright Tribunal. One person complaining about their post being scraped by the DM may not have impact, however a lot of people submitting a big complaint...

Posters changing their names to put the Mail off won't work as they would just credit "A poster" when they steal stuff. I think Mumsnet needs to change it's name to MumsFUCKOFFDAILYHEILNAZICUNTSnet.

Crediting does not make copyright infringement OK, it just acknowledges who you stole content from.

It is the news angle that is the greyest area. They could argue that it is news and in the public interest, although most of the stuff they take really isn't newsworthy or in the public interest

Meanwhile on Lady Rothermere's porn sidebar...

Boobs
Celebrity talks about new baby, and loved ones death
Boobs
Hunky personal trainer
Bikini
Pert behind in tiny hotpants
etc

I'd just like them to stop sharing threads on fucking Facebook penis beaker

The sheer arrogance of the OP! Set up your own forum and make it 'closed'.

We could do lots of things to make the site better, ie. refrain from posting Daily Mail articles (but we don't). Stopping troll-hunting by just pressing 'report' (but we don't).

People supposedly aren't stupid but they do love a troll however much they protest. They can't stop feeding them and joining in the 'witty' discussions. That being the case, there is nothing that MNHQ could ever do to protect posters from themselves.

I'm fed up with the whinging. It's just another excuse to bleat on and on about what MNHQ should be doing rather than taking any responsibility for what we're doing.

I love posting here but I would never own up to it in RL because people would think I'm nuts!

"It's the vulnerable posters that worry me - I am unsure what kind of 'duty of care' for lack of a better phrase a forum host like MNHQ has?" none what so ever, because people sign up here of their own accord. It is not for anyone else to decide who may or may not be vulnerable. If you are posting your personal life on public internet sites then you are the one making the choice to do so.

Having 'rude word - Daily Mail' in usernames does not stop them being quoted.

They just put "Another Mumsnet member said blah blah blah'"

Yes, have checked- that's right- posters retain copyright BUT MN still have the right/ licence to use the posts and content in any way they want. Your copyright(s) is only of any value if you want to use the material you have posted elsewhere. This is unlike when you sign over all rights which means you cannot use that identical copy, created by you, elsewhere.

Copyright exists so that the author, musician etc can continue to obtain fees for their work and it' s not passed-off as being by someone else. No one is going to take the Mail to court for using their posts on that basis.

It's not just the Mail though- even the broadsheets lift quotes from this site , or ideas.

Have you never seen posts asking for opinions then seen the feature off the back of them a week later? Happens all the time.

Interesting discussion

At the end of the day I acknowledge IABU and closed forum isn't the answer.

I was pretty shocked by that particular DM rip off story and was trying to think of some way of stopping it

I intensely dislike the idea that MN may have a deal with the DM. Makes me feel... icky. Perhaps MNHQ would like to comment?

I completely agree Lying

People do need to take personal responsibility.

Also, I don't think I've ever come across an internet forum where so many people are obsessed with the Daily Mail.

Any publicity for MN whether in DM or Times is going to send potential members to the site. This is what they want. So I suspect, being cynical, that as MN is owned by former journos, they know the game and it's in their interests to keep calm and carry on, either turning a blind eye or being hand in glove with DM and other journos whose work helps publicise the site.

MN is not the Samaritans, or a counselling service, so although people use it as such and have genuine issues, they ought to be aware it's a business and that profit lies at its heart.

minipie... in very few words: Stop talking about the Daily Mail here and stop clicking on links. Deprive them of the oxygen of publicity. Works for trolls too.

You sound very high-handed indeed. Why the hell should MNHQ have to comment on what is really just the silly/foolish/self-inflicted behaviour of its membership?

This is the law re Fair Dealing
I just shuddered as I read this I recently completed an OU module called "Technologies for Digital Media" and this was one of the questions in one of my assignments.

I'd prefer for MN to be closed.

I shudder at the thought of my idle chitchat / wise owl advice being published in a newspaper.

Jeez Lying I never said they had to comment, just said perhaps they would like to comment on an accusation that's being made about them.

Re the DM, I'm not bothered about the click links etc. I'm thinking of posters who have put up personal and sensitive details in order to get or give support and then find it's quoted in the papers. You say no one should give away anything personal online, ever. But then MN would be a very different (and less useful, and less successful) place.

I am wondering if there could be a solution. Perhaps the answer is, unfortunately there is no solution. But I don't think it's "high handed" to note the problem and wonder if it could be solved. It's not high handed to make suggestions.

Mini- there are some forums that have a 'private' section accessed only by members and which are highly moderated. This doesn't stop 90% of their forums being visible to Joe Public, but it does stop very sensitive posts being seen by lurkers. And of course, trolls and DM or whoever can sign up as members.

The problem with MN is its huge- latest stats show 19m hits in a month. That's equivalent to 1:3 of the population looking at it (though of course 1:3 won't be.)

The vast A-Z of forums would make this impossible.

The only answer is for people using this forum or any to be aware they are not in a bubble contained within their pc or phone screen, but their words are out there on the WWW forever.

There's a sense of 'ownership' of MN by posters which I've never really understood.

Talk of it being a 'community' or a 'safe place' and posters wanting or demanding certain things from MNHQ - banning of certain topics or terms, further information wanted on deleted threads or posters, further 'protection' from e.g the daily mail or protection from trolls or PBP when logistically, that is near impossible.

It's a free to use Internet forum on the Internet. It is not a 'safe place'; nowhere on the Internet is. No - one has to be a member, it is completely voluntary and you can de-register at any time.

Don't put stuff on the Internet that could identify you. It is visible to millions of people and can be reproduced in other media.

I could not agree more that it is every poster's personal responsibility to assess the risk of posting on a public forum.
I don't particularly think that MNHQ or any other host of a forum should have a duty of care, I was just wondering whether there was some such legal obligation - clearly not.

LyingWitch, your approach to MN sounds a bit like mine

minipie... you're questioning MNHQ's advertising strategy, no? None of our business whether it makes you feel 'icky' or not.

And yes, you were being high-handed. Look at the title of this thread for goodness sakes?

Post, don't post. I doubt that MNHQ gives a monkeys. Unless you're a prolific or amusing poster the chances are that you're not going to be remembered beyond a day or two. Who cares?

You posted this in AIBU because of the traffic and you want lots of posts when really it's a site stuff issue or, heaven forfend, a polite note to MNHQ themselves, but no...

It's not just you but I don't like these 'rallying cries' and demands that keep popping up. Not in my bloody name they're not. I take responsibility for what I post because I know that MNHQ has no duty of care here beyond provision of a venue. You forget that at your peril and there's just no legislating stupid.

Rant over. As you were.

PacificDogwood, possibly. It's my 'guilty secret. Fewer calories than sausages too!