The MN Mail Column - what we think, and what we plan to do next... part 3

[carriemumsnet]

Part 1 and Part 2 have reached capacity but at least one poster - you know who you are bibbitybobbityhat - was wanting to continue chatting so we thought we'd start another thread so you can continue to tell us your thoughts on the matter.

It may be tomorrow though before we respond -some of us at MN towers a tad worn out after a hectic, but very enjoyable eve, watching Angelina Ballerina ballet in Holland Park with a few of the MNHQ dds - highly recommended (the ballet, that is, not the dds.... though actually they weren't too bad either).

Night all

Justabout - my mother doesn't read the DM, but she sits in hairdressers where people may well discuss Mn threads, there have been so many threads where people have talked about overhearing or recognising a MN anecdote.

I can understand why people feel uneasy - actually once, LH DID use an incident from my life in one of her articles, once, that I had posted on MN..(she asked me first) - and I was crossing my fingers that one of the protagonists did not recognise it, and giving myself a sharp reminder that I needed to be v careful when making any reference to anyone else. I understand why people feel uneasy, but I don't think the answer is attempting to ban any journalist from repeating stuf that is already public.

And, no - nothing to do with moldies, it was an ancient incident involving another journalist writing an article about MN and a range of 'alpha posters'. And there have been plenty of minor incidents over the years when people have said 'oi, i said that!' or 'why didn't they include what I said???' in response to reproductions of Mn quotes in the press.

I think the difference Blu, is that you were asked. It does not appear that other MN's are going to be afforded the same luxury

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/mumsnetrsquos-messageboards-a-snapshot -of-modern-family-life-1712088.html

Is this not the same thing? There are lots of posters names revealed and a number of topics covered or maybe I am missing something

I agree with Blu and paranoid about the fact that very similar things have happened many times before - the only difference now is that this is a weekly column (although I doubt that will be the case for long if they're all as jaw-flappingly inane as the one about sandwiches). We can all think of loads of instances of newspaper stories constructed around 'posters on the parenting site Mumsnet...'

And surely (although I'm no lawyer) the fact that this has happened so many times before without MNHQ wheeling out the legal cannons is one of the reasons why their legal position now is pretty tenuous. How would the argument go? 'We never objected before because the publicity was good for the site, but lots of our members hate the Mail so now we're going to vigorously assert our copyright.' Would that fly?

"people were outraged not to have been quoted" some people, I didn't give a toss

SURELY the independent one was written by MNHQ? I had assumed that at the time?

I'm no lawyer either but from my limited experience of working in copyright would have thought that the odd extracts that have appeared in various rags would certainly fall under fair use. I can't believe this could possibly be the case for a weekly column made up entirely of extracts from threads, which must surely constitute commercial use (such as is explicitly prohibited in MNHQ's copyright statement). If the copyright statement has any meaning at all then MNHQ could - if they had wanted to - have sent the DM a letter asking them to cease and desist or some such (which in itself would not be particularly expensive or complicated). But I can see that it would make far more sense commercially to allow the column to continue.

As you say though, if it continues to be as startlingly dull as the lunchbox one, it's hard to see any future for it.

This week's column

Another dynamic read...

Fair Use/Fair Dealing is use of copyright material in a wider context. This isn't Fair Use as the Mumsnet copyrighted text is the piece. There is no wider context.

The Daily Mail aren't above the law, no matter how much money and power they have.

I see this week's column sits on the website next to this headline from Fay Weldon: 'Women would find life easier if they picked up men's socks and cleaned the loo'

I really resent this Daily Mail intrusion. MNHQ's failure to act has resulted in what appears to the outside world to be a happy association.

The thing that bothers me (apart from personal dislike of the DM!) is that the columms - at least so far - fail totally to encapsulate what MN is all about. (Apologies to those whose posts were used).

Where is the humour and intelligence (not to say the sharp retorts and bite backs!) that make this the place that it is?

Does Leah Hardy even get what we're about here?

when exactly was that thread about holidays? I can't find it.

oh hang on - there's part of it here in this thread from April.

oh - which funnily enough was bumped in August so I guess that makes it 'this week on mumsnet'?

And Mumsnet appear on the same DailyMail webpage as "The courts took my children away from me because I'm a working Mother" Gah.

NOt sure why was bumped in August?

Badgersarse obviously not LH - perhaps a friend?

Yes, quite, swedes about fair use (hello by the way)

And agree with BIWI - that is what I find particularly annoying too.

And yes, beanieb, that April thread being bumped in time for the column struck me as a bit fishy too.

I agree with everyone today.

Has it been taken down from the DM website, I can't find it and the link above is broken.

It was taken down a few minutes ago when I looked for it.

I had just posted a comment asking why this dull drivel was being printed.

Not just bumped once but twice. Weird.
Is someone trying to make Mumsnetters have conversations?

Stripeysuit, what are you on about? It was just the one thread from April, bumped rather randomly last week by BadgersArse with a comment about importing cheddar into France. Which then appeared with various other banalities from the thread in this weeks column of yawns.

I mean week's

It has deffo gone!

Doesn't show up in the searches either!

It was dull.

Feeling embarrassed to be associated