Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

"on MN this week" in the Daily Mail

1001 replies

StealthBearWipesBumOnDailyMail · 14/08/2009 11:13

Thread no 2

OP posts:
vonsudenfedhatespauldacre · 14/08/2009 19:49

I am well out of my very shallow knowledge of copyright law here, but here goes anyway.

Surely one of the advantages of a private board (ie ungooglable) is that any posts are not deemed to have been 'published' on the interweb*. So we would retain more copyright, and the right, among other things, to tell the daily mail where to stick its marrow.

However, this does rather blow the MN business model (of making the books pay for the website, as Justine seemed tp imply) out of the water. Although if we did subscribe to the private site, for real money, that might not be a problem.

You then have a two-tier MN. Outer MN: as now, trawled by journos for comments on the news, with chat about babies and food which can be put into books. Inner MN, where more serious issues can go, and greater detail be discussed without the fear of disclosure- because there is no copyright issue and we can sue the pants off anyone who steals from there. Sure journos come and trawl for ideas, but they can't quote without getting dunfer - and would have to disguise the quotes anyway.

*I send my emails but still have copyright in them, I imagine it is much like this.

AitchTwoOh · 14/08/2009 19:50

oh yeeeeees, that would explain it. i am generally a bit baffled by mis-attributions but that would make sense.

IOnlyReadtheDailyMailinCafes · 14/08/2009 19:52

If the daily mail has to do an apology can we have a photocall. I would like the photo to include fat lesbians breastfeeding while filling in their benefit application forms

I am very proud that Alerted MNHQ, my finest hour.

I will now get back to my picnic, the highlight of which is lemon drizzle cake

IOnlyReadtheDailyMailinCafes · 14/08/2009 19:55

In the middle of our mumsnet models can we also have daftpunk, giving us all a good time.

I would pay for a substiption , due to my regular flounces I do usually pay double cat fees anyway

sarah293 · 14/08/2009 20:05

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

frazzledgirl · 14/08/2009 20:13

What bothers me about this is not the security stuff so much as where our words end up.

Justine, in advance of you consulting MN on what they think of a regular MN column in Femail, here's my 2p-worth:

I don't have qualms, I have total f**king nausea. Despite the possibility that anything I write will ever be considered interesting enough to end up in the Mail being vanishingly remote, I would have to dereg anyway.

I simply cannot stomach the idea of belonging to an organisation that is committed - in ANY WAY AT ALL - to supporting that sexist,homophobic bag of sh*t's circulation figures.

I doubt I'm the only one.

LIZS · 14/08/2009 20:14

lol Riven

BitOfFun · 14/08/2009 20:19

Aitch, and anyone, if you need a break from the exhaustion of copyright law etc, do come over to chat and have a birthday drink with me - you should spot it easily enough!

I don't mind if you keep popping out to argue debate about this...

daftpunk · 14/08/2009 20:22

frazzlegirl...it's the Daily Mail...not Mein Kampf.

AitchTwoOh · 14/08/2009 20:23

oh yes, meant to say happy birthday last night bof. are you having a lovely time?

if the fucking thread has bumsex in the title i'm not coming. so to speak.

StealthBearWipesBumOnDailyMail · 14/08/2009 20:23

Justine
I'd be happy with something along the lines of the following

  • DM identifies the doomed thread
  • General CAT to everyone on thread to notify them it's happening and that they may be quoted - asks them to register any concern
  • Sticky at top of active conversations along the same lines (48 hours in advance, or is that far too long??)
  • Someone at MNHQ (or longstanding MNer, I'm thinking of morningpaper for obvious reasons) has a read through the final thing before it gets published.

Obviously the DM are in a tight spot if we come back saying no...not sure what to suggest.
Anyway, i think this is some sort of compromise - do you think they'd go for that? I'd also want reassurance that this process was going to happen every time and the agreement would last the lifetime of the column.

OP posts:
frazzledgirl · 14/08/2009 20:24

Yep, thanks DP, I know. I'd noticed. Not being written in German was a clue.

But tis still a racist sexist homophobic bag of shite and I hate it with a passion. In case you hadn't noticed.

AitchTwoOh · 14/08/2009 20:25

oh. it does. gross.

Quattrocento · 14/08/2009 20:29

You're all a bunch of namby pamby liberals. You absolutely know that the only solution is to ban all journalists from joining ...

Riven - why not try somefucker?

daftpunk · 14/08/2009 20:29

frazzle....no, can't say i had noticed..you must be like me..diplomatic and reserved..

i only read the DM on fridays.....couldn't handle it 7 days...

EachPeachPearMum · 14/08/2009 20:31

Justine- this is illegal. It is direct copyright violation. You could also approach the press complaints commission. The first column probably couldn't be classed as copyright, but this week's certainly would. LH is not adding anything to the posts, just quoting them directly.

Btw- all other fora have the copyright thing the other way round... ie posts owned by posters... would have prevented the SWMNBN debacle- she would have had to sue the individual concerned.

BitOfFun · 14/08/2009 20:33

Aitch , but I am quoting you in it!

Shafted · 14/08/2009 20:34

It's all very clear now.

DM (and Times) owned by Associated News.

MN cannot sue Associated News.

Why not?

MN's lawyer, Mark Stephens, also represents the DM:

here

tvaerialmagpiebin · 14/08/2009 20:39

Well here's my tuppence worth. Although I have been a member since 2006 I have only recently started posting, I was a member of another site where the community was a group of mums whose babies were born the same month as yours. There wasn't the same huge variety of topics on that board, but I got a lot of support from it when I was pg and when my ds was small, because of my tit xp's behaviour. But he eventually worked out my username and read all my posts, it was awful as I had posted lots of things about him which were personal and there were lots of not-very-nice remarks about him (all justified of course!)

So I had to leave that site, with regret, because I had a back story, which was recognisable to him, even if I re-registered or namechanged.

With Mumsnet I am starting from a different place. I haven't needed the same kind of support (although there are ongoing issues with xp some of which I have posted about).

I have taken on board all the views here and of course we all know that the internet is a global village type thingy. But I think my main annoyance is that the DM is going to use our stories, our hurts, our experiences, without MNHQ's actual approval, and without much regard for the trouble it might cause to individuals. And of course the DM is a hate-fuelled bastion of nastiness.

I'm hoping people won't leave and that things blow over, but I will feel more cautious about what I post. And I will think back to the days of ds's babyhood when I was so desperate for help that I blurted out details of my personal life without thinking that the site was Google-able, or might end up in a tabloid. I needed help, not a namecheck for the nation's amusement.

I do appreciate Justine being honest though, and keeping us informed. It makes the whole thing easier to bear, in some funny way.

fishie · 14/08/2009 20:40

this is just such a disappointing episode.

some journalists really don't give a fuck do they.

theyoungvisiter · 14/08/2009 20:40

Eachpeach - I don't think that is correct (that copyright resting with posters would have prevented teh SWMNBN debacle).

You can be sued for publishing or repeating a libel regardless of whether it's your own words or not.

CF book publishers - the author retains the copyright but the publisher can be sued.

Nancy66 · 14/08/2009 20:41

The Times is not owned by Associated. Mark Stephens is a well known media lawyer - he'll work for whoever pays his bills.

LIZS · 14/08/2009 20:41

eek ! Shafted. No possible conflict of interest there then, but maybe it could smooth things over .

theyoungvisiter · 14/08/2009 20:42

I thought News International owned the Times?

DailyMailCanLickMyBalls · 14/08/2009 20:43

The Times is part of NewsCorp or News International or whatever it's called, not AN. Both equally unsavoury though!

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.