to not understand how it is legal for the Daily Mail to pull stories from Mumsnet?

[CopperHandle]

Surely its breaching some kind of privacy law? I couldn't copy someone's post and put it on a blog and reversing the situation, if I were to promote my own blog/writing on here it would be taken down so how is it possible for the Fail to repeatedly get away with taking information off here and using it?
And blatantly linking to the site too! Using people's usernames etc etc.

I know that they are scumbags anyway, but I can't understand how they get away with it?

F5 for ringle insights.

I read an article yesterday on the BBC that had lifted a thread and posters names from MN. I was a little but then thought, actually the BBC has been slipping into the same abyss as the DM for some time now so maybe I shouldn't be so surprised.

OP did you really think there was a law governing this or is it more that you find it morally odd?

anyway, read the Ts&Cs of posting. I realise you might not post a total secret but I'd say be very careful indeed what you post.

So, I am the owner of copyright in this post (but not this thread...hmm... or this site... that's still niggling me - we put that aside for a mo).

What, I wonder, is the consequence of me being said owner of said copyright?

Well, it gives me the right to ask a court to make an order to stop anyone else from "copying" the whole or a substantial part of the literary work in which I own copyright.

It has to be copying. coincidence is a complete defence
And it has to be a substantial part of whichever literary work I identified.

GET ON WITH IT RINGLE!!!

This is no time to be preening

The paper has some excellent journalists. Richard Littlejohn is hilarious in his take on modern life.

Are you kidding? He is a racist, homophobic tosser who trots out the same shit week after week. Elf n safety gone mad, asylum seekers, lesbian muslim mothers are taking over our green and pleasant lands etc. He is absolutely vile and should not even be called a journalist.

(There's a few of us - most are CPAs)

Carry on. FOs only do very little copyright as part of our qualifying exams. Lots of us do a chunk of contracts/assignment/ licensing though!

but two doctrines are going to come in and weaken my prima donna control of my copyright in whatever-ever-the-literary-work-is.

Because I do not write it in my diary. I write it on mumsnet.

We ask the woman on the Clapham Omnibus whether that means mumsnet is in breach of my copyright in consequence of me publishing this post. And she answers: "of course not!".

Why not?

Two reasons (and we haven't got to the ts and cs yet).

Firstly, I clearly permitted the publication of my copyright work. In copyright jargon, there is an implied licence over it in mumsnet's favour. The terms of this implied licence go no further than is absolutely necessary. Thus, under an implied licence, it's likely that I can terminate on reasonable notice, and it's most unlikely that mumsnet can sub-license to the DM.

Secondly, even without the online Ts and Cs, there appears to be a contract between me and mumsnet under which I provide content and they publish it broadly in accordance with mutual expectations.

It is annoying and weird OP, but not illegal.

It is lazy journalism though. Hardly surprising really; from this newspaper; the one that would leave more shit on your arse than when you started, if you used it as loo roll.

Enter the terms and conditions.

which ones?

The ones when I signed up.

Let's ignore that (something we would not do in real life)

Where are the current ones?

It is lazy journalism though. Hardly surprising really; from this newspaper; the one that would leave more shit on your arse than when you started, if you used it as loo roll.

I guess you've missed the posts that have said a few times it isn't just the DM?

"GET ON WITH IT RINGLE!!!

This is no time to be preening"

look, I can't do funny threads about sexy men removing my earwax so I have to take attention where I can briefly find it.

Where are they?? Where???

It isn't just the DM. I've seen threads being discussed on The Wright Stuff, This Morning and Loose Women recently

(the Ts & Cs - not the waxy-eared men)

HERE!

I HAVE FOUND THE (ALLEGED) LAW!

[https://www.mumsnet.com/info/terms-of-use]

It's lazy journalism that sums up the whole DM ethos. They're clearly employing slack, work shy asshats who patrol these threads with their copy and paste button poised because it's an easier route than engaging their brains.

Exactly!

www.mumsnet.com/info/terms-of-use

And it's cute as a kitten.

www.mumsnet.com/info/terms-of-use

so, what mumsnet do in their terms is this.

Instead of the teeny-tiny little implied licence I gave them by implication. I'm now giving them this:

aaaarrrghhhhh!!! cross-post phenomenon again