The MN Mail Column - what we think, and what we plan to do next... part 2

[whataboutthisone]

Firstly, I am a regular but have created a new name for this.

My thoughts about what I know so far:

1. In a much earlier post there was a discussion about a change in T&Cs and whether they are valid or not. Several years ago I took a company to court for a breach of their T&Cs. Their argument was that they had changed T&Cs and my complaint was therefore no longer valid. However, the judge said that because I had not specifically been asked to accept the new T&Cs, I was entitled to rely on the ones I had accepted and therefore I won my case.

1. I choose to post on MN in the knowledge that the details I give are probably just obscure enough to anyone I may know in RL who also posts, so that what I say still effectively remains private. However, that doesn't mean that the same could be said of, for instance, my mother, who reads the DM (!) There is probably just enough about my circumstances that would enable her to put 2+2 together. I would like the option to choose whether or not I let my Mum ( or anyone else in RL) in on certain areas of my life, and there is a real possibility that this hack, has taken that choice away from me.

1. I have never ( and now will never) post asking for advice, but I will also be very careful about offering advice in the future. I, along with many others, occasionally use examples from my life to explain where I am coming from. If I continue to do that, as I said earlier, it is possible that some people would be able to work out who I am. Now, I am not so big-headed as to believe that any advice I offer is worth taking, however, there are many fantastic posters on here who do give amazing and insightful advice based on their own experiences. It would be a real shame if that was to stop because they, like me, do not want to share some of those experiences with the folk they are close to in RL. It would also be a real tragedy if others were prevented from asking for help for the same reasons.

I am very disappointed that any MNer would feel it is acceptable to violate the trust we place in each other on this forum. I do not know who she is. I do not want to know who she is. But I hope she is hanging her head in shame for breaching the trust that has been placed in her by everyone whose words she has stolen to make a few bucks!

MNHQ has a moral duty to its members. If ongoing distress is brought to its attention, I find it difficult to see any justification for not taking steps to put things right by deleting the posting history or making the posts anon. And if that's too much of a fag for them, they simply must allow MNers to edit or delete their own posts.

Whataboutthis one - that's interesting. I'm really curious to know what the case was now! I've always believed that when a newspaper publishes something libellous they bear the responsibility not the writer, regardless of whether they are staff or freelance.

Oh FGS. Of course MN is a business suggesting that as a result they would deliberately choose to lie is pretty ridiculous. I am not sure I have seen anything in the past 6 years to suggest that Justine & co do not act with integrity. Whether they get it right all the time is another matter, but generally they put their hands up if not.

Difficult furious because there are quite a number of things that HQ have used to put in place of the deleted post over the years.

I think MPs case made it quite clear that libel lies with both the creator and the publisher.

Shrinkie and the chances of being exposed in the DM before Justine gets back from holiday are even lower.

I'd estimated that at .000000001% risk

Am I helping?

I think though, for MNHQ deleteding posts only for those who claim larger emtional stress than others, would be a dodgy policy which would have us all forging our sick notes to them before you could say 'CBT'.

They will need something more consistent and transparent than that and a bit of time to think it through and agree it.

Yes, i totally agree and i've asked MN to delete these posts as I suppose it isn't helping anyone.

It's sad, and I have only my less mentally stable self to blame.

I was silly and posted more than I should.

And MN is busy and can't decide what to do yet, I'd just like to be able to wave a magic wand and all of this stuff in the archievs disappear.

Like burning an old diary
I know the risk is low, but I also have a tend to obsessive paranioa .

Maybe we needed to have taken mental health tests before we started posting?

I wouldn't expect MN to allow me a mass deletion of my posts. Whatever unclarity there has been in the T&C, it has always been clear that my posts were out there in the public domain, that MN had a right to keep them there, and that they are subject to reproduction at MNHQ's will.

The site and its archive would be a bit of a nonsense if deletions of a poster's entire posting history were allowed other than in special cases.

I would however be devastated if any of my posts concerning personal issues appeared in the press (unlikely I know) and I would make use of whatever power (if any) my shared copyright gives me. Is the shared copyright retrospectively applicable -- i.e. to posts made before the alteration of the copyright statement was finally made?

I would feel more than slightly betrayed by MNHQ if personal posts of mine appeard in the press. The T&C always made it clear that reproduction (other than within the limits set by fair use) is only possible with MN's express permission. If MN was failing to monitor reproduction to the extent permitted by the laws of copyright (whatever that extent is), I would certainly feel that it was failing to protect the MN community -- ie killing the cash cow that laid the golden egg.

lol at competitive emotional stress

But threadie lots of quotes have appeared in the press over the past couple of years in several papers but mnhq haven't oked any of it have they?

The only time I've asked for deletion is for the birthday table threads which made me totally recognisable where I live. I'm fine with the rest staying, despite having over shared at every opportunity, but I would also be really unhappy with any of it in the press. But I suppose I feel that's so unlikely that it's not worth me needing deletion.

Boco, as mentioned earlier, "fair usage" allows quotes to be used without permission, if used to illustrate a point etc. Wholesale lifting of a thread is not fair usage, and if done without the permission of the copyright holder, constitutes infringment of copyright.

This is Mumsnet, not the Houses of Parliament. I am perfectly at liberty to choose whether or not I believe what someone here has written.

I don't care about what is or isn't 'unbecoming'. This 'Oh, are people upset? I hadn't noticed as I was baking. Hang on, I'll go and see what my husband thinks' stance is a bit suss.

Message taken up the anus by the Daily Mail.

I for one would appreciate the opportunity to look through my posts and delete anything that identifies me. A week of open house on this would be a good idea. ALthough I would need childcare to enable me to dedicate the hours needed
If mn are not happy to give posters the option to delete anything they like [of their own] perhaps the poster could select posts which mn would then consider deleting? So for example, I might be told I can't delete a post where I mention my MILs bunion op, but yes where I mention the town I live in? Whadyathink?

I do not meant to pretend this is mn's problem, it is my own fault for not realising that when they said this is an open forum, they meant it!

This is all boils down to the DM totaly lack of intergrity and respect for others. So can't fall over with surprise. The reporting may be lawful, but it is not 'cricket'.

Just noticed my posts got deleted. I didn't realise you could not mention LH's MN name.

Does anyone know if an apology is going to be made to Thunderduck by the DM or LH herself?

And how come LH flounced MN. I knew I had not seen her posting for a couple of years but just presumed she had name changed - I never realised there was a flounce.

Say LH had asked MNHQ for permission and they had said no, could she still have done the article anyway?

I know Boco. I've been in the press myself as an MNer, though without my posting name attached, and I know that there have been lots of uses of MN in the press. I don't altogether understand why this DM case has produced so much more discussion than other crappy press liftings of MN -- except of course that it threatens to be a regular feature.

The only thing that exercises me a little bit is MNHQ's severe vagueness about the whole notion of copyright. I would really like to think of them as being more on the ball, especially now that MN has a high media profile. The vagueness seems part of the myth that MN exists first-and-foremost to support its members, rather than as a business.

nappyaddict - it's a bit unrealistic to think that the DM would apologise to Thunderduck.

Nancy - is it realistic to think that LH would apologise to Thunderduck?

threadworm, the debate rages around the wholesale lifting of threads, with names attached, without the express permission of MNHQ, the copyright holders.

And to add insult to injury, lifted by the Daily Mail, a publication many find offensive.

Quotes from threads can be used under "fair usage". Whole swathes of threads reproduced is not fair usage.

If whole swathes of threads have been reproduced before, it would have been with the permission of MNHQ, who own the copyright.

If, previously, whole swathes of threads were lifted, without permission, it is more than possible that MNHQ made a pragmatic decision that it did not harm, either to posters, or the MN brand.

The DM brand values, however, are at odds with the brand values of MN, if not with all mnetters.

So the unhappiness is with the theft, as that is what it is, of MNHQ intellectual property, coincidently by a publication disliked intensely by many MNetters, and a realisation of how little control MNetters have over their posts.

I don't think anyone is being evil (apart from DM who know full well they should have asked permission). Its just a case of an incident which has highlighted areas of concern for Mnetters, and shows that MNHQ needs to address the whole copyright issue.

and as you point out, it is the idea of it being a regular feature that is so very different to a one off raid on the threads.

Rafi - I don't know. Unlikely I'd say but could be wrong.

I think Thunderduck was going to write to DM and complain.

I interepreted nappyaddict's post as meaning a printed apology but it could be she just meant a letter - it's feasible they may send a 'sorry for confusion' reply in reponse to hers.

i think if they were going to do something like this MP should write it. She knows what we like and who we are.

Uusally a lurker but have been following this thread.

Not on my own PC today - so googled to get Mumsent. the Dail Mail thread (can I be sacked for being pregnent) comes up fifth! Which shows a thread highlighted in the DM will get wider exposure than a 'naormal' one.

Mme Dafarge: Yes, whole swathes have been lifted before, as you say, and as I recall MNHQ weren't asked permission and didn't really object anyway, since it is all good publicity for them. The same is true now of the DM thing.

The only thing that annoys me is MNHQ's vagueness about copyright. It makes it seem like MNHQ want to claim that they are all heart and no head -- that MN is a community first and foremost and only reluctantly a business. I don't believe that claim is accurate. And at the same time the vagueness about copyright actually makes MNHQ less able/willing to disallow insensitive reproduction and thereby to protect the community's interest.