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 Their argument was that they had changed T&Cs and my complaint was therefore no longer valid.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!

they may have been selected alphabetically, hence why opened so close to each other.

either way, we shan't all agree, but the issue is possibly a very real one.

BUT MNHQ have said (hopefully truthfully on both their side and the DM's) that "we can pretty much guarantee that they won't be resurrecting threads from before the column started "

I think a complete guarantee that the DM are willing to forego MN history would settle a lot of fears.

So if MN had sent a letter to DM saying they did not give permission for the column to be run and wanted it stopped, could the DM still have carried on running the column anyway?

The thing I am most annoyed about is this comment made by Justine:

"We would not have gone to the DM and said why don't you run a column about what's hot on MN. Or the Sun, NoW, Mirror, Express. We agree such an association doesn't sit well with our ethos and it isn't one we would have sought out.

But hand on heart would we like to see such a thing in the Guardian/ Times/ Indy/ S Times/ Observer/ Standard? Yes we would. (And even Mothercare for that matter)"

Yet now MNHQ seem to be loving the publicity that the DM is giving them despite saying they wouldn't want to be associated with them.

When newspapers have lifted whole threads before I've not had a problem with it because it's been a one off thing. The fact that it is going to be a weekly thing is going to make a lot of posters wary about what they write on here now.

30 seconds apart? Curiouser and curiouser, still I suppose you do what you have to to get your story right?

VeeEsss, I must admit the statement you c&p from HQ regarding bumping old threads is one of the ones that has me worried - to me it reads like politician speak for "we will so as we please but we will try to make sure you don't notice it for as long as possible".

HQ maybe DM would be interested in having a regular post in media requests, especially if it meant what they printed made sense! Possibly wouldn't get so many comments to their articles either.

I said, right at the very beginning of this thread, about 4 days ago, why doesn't MNHQ just put a great big disclaimer on the site warning saying anything you say is likely to be reproduced in the Daily Mail. That should make it clear enough presumably. Will probably lose them quite a lot of posters though.

I, too, am aware many posters are merrily posting away blissfully unaware their posts may be screaming back at them in next week's Mail.

So perhaps MNHQ could just let them know.

The demise of Mumsnet has been predicted many times. I remember when the introduction of chat was seen as the beginning of the end (and the topic was called _chat so that "the majority" of MN could avoid it in searches).

Hmm. I note that 'we will discuss what's going to happen when everyone's back from holidays' has turned into 'we think we can get DM to agree to this/that for the future'.

So clearly no question of MN even trying to contest it. Wish you'd just said so from the beginning.

nooka;

i wasn't go to post on here again, no one is saying anything new or interesting, but you have mentioned me in your post..so if you don't mind, i will reply to you.

firstly, i doubt i'm the only DM reader on MN, i'm just the only one who admits it, you are talking to DM readers everyday on here..you're just unaware of it..

i honestly wouldn't worry too much about all this, just wait for the dust to settle, i promise you wont notice any difference to the feel of MN, although i personally welcome change and diversity....

as for DM readers being bland and humourless, i couldn't possibly comment on that as i haven't met them all, but i think being bland and humourless has it's moments....you don't get hysterical about situations like this for one...

your post was screaming "nimby"...(hope you know what that means)....

it made me laugh....

I nearly posted something on a b'feeding/bottlefeeding thread last night, and then imagined it appearing in a newspaper (any newspaper, not just the DM, would be horrible really). It wasn't particularly identifying and probably wouldn't be that big a deal to anyone else, but it means a lot to me. I know the potential has always been there for posts to be reproduced, but I (stupidly!) assumed, because media requests have been made previously for people opinions, that this was the 'moral' way of doing things.

I have posted previously about having a molar pregnancy, because it is rare and I think it is good for people to feel as though they are not the only ones when something like that happens. I refused to 'tell my story' to a magazine because I didn't like the magazine that put the request in and hated the angle they took on medical stories ("woman gives birth to 15 stone MAN!!!!!!!! etc), the thought that one of my posts on what happened to me could be used without someone asking makes me feel a bit sick TBH.

I will stick around for this thread and then I think I'll be off, which makes me very sad as Mumsnet has been a huge support to me and a great place to argue, laugh and talk about mindless trivia.

Ladymuck, it was called _chat so that it appeared at the end of the list of topics - because they used to be done alphabetically. There was a lot of fuss though - I also remember the time when Cod nearly turned inside out and combusted at the suggestion of "Only Joking" becoming a topic

People seem to say approximately once a year "it is the end of MN as we know it, it will never be the same" then things calm down and carry on - but each time MN does change, it is the end of MN as it was and a slightly different MN continues. Maybe the changes are not that huge but the effect is cumulative - the MN 6 years ago is barely recognisable as the MN we have now. Wether that is a good or bad thing is up to the individual though.

I doubt very much MN will end over this - it may change just enough this time that it is no longer the place for me but it may become just the place for other people. Everything evolves, I have no problem with that, it just doesn't always evolve into something you like!

I am not talking about the demise of MN.

I'm sure it will grow and grow.

I'm talking about the fact that it is wide open for any papaer or publications to take anyhting without the poster's or MNHQ's knowledge or constent.

Carrie has said earlier that they feel that they are unable to stop this. Because there is no law that seesm to be enforceable on the net at this point and they don't have the energy for a test case- I presume. (and the £££)

It's really not about limiting how much the DM can and can't take and the feeling "safe" again.

Next wek it could be NOW, SUN, Mirror, Nuts, Loaded, Penthouse,,, fuck knows.
LH and her agreement with the DM and MNHQ sounds great..... but how the hell can MN prevent other papers from doing the same?

Kingcnut- yes.
X posts, but yes.

I wasn't here 6 years ago so can't comment on how MN has changed for the good or bad in that time, but I do know from being on other forums that it's true - when a forum gets bigger and more popular, change will come whether you like it or not. I sympathise with long-term posters because I know what it's like when things change. Perhaps it no longer feels like a load of mates chatting, giving advice and meeting up occassionally.

I found mumsnet by accident because it was just one of the forums I joined when I started TTC. It's the only one I have stuck with because it's the only one which gave decent advice and help along with entertaining conversation and fun.

I can totally understand, thoug, why people might want to leave of modify their posting since the DM became involved.

I have a question. If the DM say they won't be using old threads then why was their fake tan' piece, and the quotes they lifted from it, a thread from January? here

sorry if this has been asked already.

beanieb,
as i've said before, it's not about the DM< it's about the fact that MN are powerless to prevent the DM and any other publication to take whatever they want from here. FROM ANY THREAD.

Dm has an agreement in place, but only because MN knoew they'd taken stuff and were laerted.

Next time anyone cna take huge swathes and print it anywhere.... and MN is till powerless.

and thus far any vague warning is in the T and Cs which don't make alot of sense to the average Jo.

People need it spelling out to them in very easy to understand languge,
not copyright language.

IE "Anything you post or have posted can be taeken by anyone for publication anwyhere- so pleaae realsie this before you post!

But Oops, what about someone who comes on mumsnet in the same way I did... looking for help for something like TTC or bad relationships or divorce or any of those things you might just jump in and post about without reading T&C's?

Unless they have a disclaimer like that on every thread/forum, in big bold red letters flashing at you from the screen, I think a lot of people can be forgiven for using this place to seek help without any expectation that their own personal saga might end up in the daily mail or any other paper a week later.

IMO they certainly shouldn't be dismissed as not being careful enough if it happens, people in need of help don't even consider it may be a possibility.

yes, beanib, this is the point i am making.

off to sort out kids just now...

It's a difficult one to know what to so with the old posts....

I don't know if I'm going to dereg or not - don't know if I can overcome the addiction! - but I'm going to try to go cold turkey for a while.

I agree about change being inevitable even if you don't like it, but this has changed my perception of this site. Sorry MNHQ, but I feel the way you've handled this has been misleading (e.g. saying you'll think about contesting when obv never intended to), and a bit inept (claiming you've made a gentleman's agreement with the most unethical paper in Britain - yep, bet that'll work).

The feeling that it is actually a social enterprise has gone.

I must admit, much as I hate all of this I do feel really sorry for HQ - it being my belief that they did not know about this in advance and that they truly feel there is little the law will support them in doing.

If you take a step back from it, this is the THe Daily Mail we are talking about - a tiny part of an even more enourmous group. Not only that but the Law as it stands gives very little protection to enterprises like MN and the protection that is available is ambiguous and full of loop holes. Asking HQ to go into battle with DM is akin to expecting your local corner shop to take on Nestle over some obscure point that may or may not be illegal depending on how you look at it.

It does not matter how strongly you feel that does not pay for the legal advice required or give the extra 36hrs per day needed to be able to properly take on someone like this. THe internet has been around for what..15 or 20 years now yet we are only just seeing test cases come through where things like infringment of copright are challenged. THe reason for that is simple - cost, nothing more or less. Being able to prove infringment given the woolyness of the law obviously does not make things any easier.

I don't like what is going on, I am not happy about the response to it or the ignoring of attempts to protect ourselves going forward but I do need to say I feel for HQ. Asking them to take on somehting like this is basically like asking them to invite SWMNBN back to do her worst - and then multiplying it by a lot!

KingCnutBoredOfDMButWontL... I agree totally with your post,especially as the Daily Mail is represented by the same lawyer as SWMNBN. It would be a nightmare for mumsnet.

Cnut, I do actually agree with you - I just wish they'd said at the start 'look, we don't think we'll get any support, we haven't the money to fight it and anyway we want the publicity'.

I wouldn't have liked that, but I would have respected the honesty. Now I just feel they've spent several days stringing us complainers along in the hope the heat would die down. I resent that.

i profoundly disagree, kingcanute. to have a legal case erupt the daily mail would have had to plough in to defend their right to lift the stuff. i don't believe for a second that they would have.

that case will be defended for a news story, something of importance, not for the right to publish daft wifies' opinions on fake tan and ham sandwiches.

if a legal letter had landed on the femail ed's desk asking them to stop as it isn't Fair Use, she'd most likely have ditched the idea in a millisecond. it's just a bit of furniture for them, no biggie.

"this is the THe Daily Mail we are talking about"

True, though if a regular mumsnetter hadn't gone to the daily mail and pitched the idea in the first place perhaps it wouldn't be an issue?