Please vote in our "What do you think about the On Mumsnet This Week column in the Daily Mail?" poll

[JustineMumsnet]

Hello all,
So am back in Blighty and have caught up on everything posted and all the ongoing correspondence with the DM that's gone on while I've been away. (Sorry very poor communications on hols so haven't really been in the loop but Carrie and team have filled me in now.)
Thanks all for the input as ever.

There are a few things you've raised that we need to address and clarify. So, as ever, apologies in advance for the long post.

The first I think is MNHQ's attitude towards this column and why we didn't try and put a stop to it earlier, i.e. the moment we found out about it. (Recap for those who may have missed: we didn't know in advance that it was going to happen, the first we knew about it was when we saw the first column being discussed on MN and initially we didn't think we had any legal grounds to contest the DM's use of MN quotes. We subsequently established some time after column 2 that the DM is, in fact, most likely infringing MN copyright).

As I said early on, a weekly column in the DM is not something we'd have sought. We share many Mumsnetters' misgivings about the views and general tone of the paper - particularly it's attitudes towards working women, immigrants etc. And as I've also said we've as yet detected no noticeable increase in visitors on Thursdays when the column is published (or on any other days for that matter). Nor is it a column that fills us with pride because it adequately represents the joy and wonder that is Mumsnet. So why - as some have understandably wondered - are we not banging our fists about stopping the darned thing and have we not fired off a barrage of legal threats? Why instead do we at HQ seem a bit ambivalent about whether the column exists or not?

The main answer is this. Like it or not, the Daily Mail is a very influential beast, probably one of the most politically influential institutions in the UK. So, irrespective of the content of these columns, the very fact that the Daily Mail have decided that Mumsnet is prominent and interesting enough to base a weekly column around increases our clout. Clout when it comes to asking government ministers to consider things like our miscarriage campaign, clout when we try to persuade Gok Wan's PR that he ought to pay us a visit, or when the Tories are thinking about environment policy or what they're going to do to increase breastfeeding rates.

We also have a distinct reluctance to "go legal" with anyone after our experience of GF going legal with us - the legal system and lawyers (particularly opposing lawyers) have a way of eating up all your resources, not to mention your will to live. And call us lily-livered if you like, we'd rather not be at the top the DM's hit list if there's a way of avoiding it.

Plus, from the correspondence Carrie's had with the mail in the last couple of weeks, it's clear that they would are prepared to take steps to minimise the privacy risks.

That said, we accept many of the reservations argued well here and in previous threads about the imperfect nature of the association.

In short, those of you who've accused us of residing on the fence are probably right - we are a bit and tbh it's not very comfortable!
So where next?

We think perhaps it would be best both to help us get off the fence and, if it comes to it, to lay the column to rest, to put the matter to the vote. We recognise that it's not a perfect solution but there have been a number of objections raised about this and we'd like to see exactly what it is that folks are objecting to - MN in the Daily Mail per se. MN in the Daily Mail without MN control over content. MN in the Daily Mail in its current guise/format - for example would it be OK if it were it a funny weekly column written by someone like MorningPaper (they'd never have she's far too rude of course)? Or perhaps you don't object at all (and you have an aversion to posting on this thread ).

Hopefully they'll be a clear conclusion and we promise to abide by it and to do our darnedest to put it into action as quickly as possible.

We're sorry this has dragged on a bit - it is a bit tricky to conduct this type of negotiation in public, particularly when there's a whiff of the legals about - and as we all know (if we didn't already) MN is a very public board, open for all to see and easily searchable etc. At some points we do sometimes have to just hope that you trust that we are not the bad guys who are trying to manipulate, exploit and mislead you all for our own ends (many thanks to those who have said as much). If you think that we are then there's nowt much we can say I suspect to ever sway you otherwise - but you're welcome on MN all the same because it's not really about us, after all.

It also doesn't help that it all kicked off in holiday season which is how it always is (GF the same) - sod's law and all that. Anyway humble apologies for not being a bit more accessible/on the ball in the last few weeks. We are almost all back at full strength now and generally at your disposal .

So here's our very quick poll - please fill it in (just the once please). It won't gain you entry in any competitions to win a family holiday outside of school holidays but it will most certainly influence what we do next.

Many thanks.

I do see that there are legal issues here. I wouldn't say that copyright, fair usage and brand protection are things that I personally give a fig about, no. I also accept MNHQ's explanations about the need to wait for sound legal advice, and unwillingness to stake MN's entire future - not to mention, probably, MN founders' personal assets - on a bitchfight with Associated Newspapers.

I also have the following query, to anyone who thinks that MNHQ have deliberately connived with the Mail, or are secretly delighted by this whole affair: if you think MNHQ is staffed by venal liars, why are you still here? I sure as hell wouldn't be.

Hobnob, It's Gina Ford.

PW - I have asked mnhq (earlier in thread) if they would have any objection to my dh writing such a piece for a DM rival publication.

Thanks, BeanieB - must have been before my time!

I look forward to reading it Bibbity - am amazed the Media Guardian has not yet got on to it...

Having posed a bad-tempered rhetorical question I shall now attempt to withdraw semi-gracefully and clean my kitchen floor.

Duh, I have never said that sort of nonsense, but there is certainly a case for saying no action amounts to complicity. by default. I would not have liked to have been in their shoes at the start of this, but I like to think I would have at least have protested the use of my intellectual property.

And it is precisely because I don't think they are venal liars that I am still here.

But I do think, as a business and marketing professional, that is has been very badly handled, and that they have not protected their own Interests.

So, shoot me for actually giving a damn.

MD, I don't mean to imply that people who do care about this are weird - just that I personally don't get it. Just like some people don't get SAHM/WOHM debates.

I certainly don't think MNHQ is staffed by venal liars. But one of the earliest MNHQ comments was something to the effect that most talk sites like theirs would give their right arm to have this kind of coverage for free in a major paper and I imagine that that was their intitial preponderant reaction at least, despite their also having also a range of misgivings. That would be an entirely reasonable and unsurprising reaction for MNHQ to have to the coverage, wouldn't it?

who's calling them Liars ?

PolicyW, its not a debate such as SAHM, WOHM mums. Its encompasses a lot of issues 1) we hand copyright in the tcs and cs over to MN, therefore they own the content. If this content is abrogated by a third party, it is infringement of copyright. Now this might not mean a lot to you, but

1. to all the writers/musicians/filmmakers etc out there, it means a fuck of a lot. If you cannot collect royalties on your work, you cannot earn your living at your profession.

2. the DM is not a natural bedmate for MN. It has a particular worldview which espouses values directly in opposition to those of MN.

3. People are understandably unhappy at being cut and pasted to promote some mad DM agenda. And possibly expose themselves in the DM, which is not what they signed up to.

Thready, I suppose my interpretation of that was not so much 'we're cock-a-hoop that the Mail is doing this' as 'it was a reasonable assumption on the Mail's part that MN would feel like this'.

I interpret most of MNHQ's actions as having been motivated by the desire to resolve this in a cordial way - hence the failure to run screaming to the lawyer's office on the very first day.

You know, I think what is very apparent is that MNHQ would be more than happy to be associated with the DM. That has become apparent. Just bloody well tell us that you are fine with it! At least then we could make up our minds about using MN, instead of using a poxy 'MN poll" to pretend you will be guided by the MN majority.

This sort of coy prevarication stinks. You want us to make up your minds for you? About your business? ffs!

In fact policy, several very mild ways of dealing with this were suggested over the last couple of weeks, including a letter just asking for them to hold the column while they discussed it. Instead we were just told that nothing could be done while everyone was on holiday. Sorry. not my idea of doing business while someone harvests my product.

PW... when you say 'resolve this' what do you mean? What is the this?
is it the original 'this' or the resulting 'this'?

They didn't really do anything about the original 'this' except suggest that all journalists would bite off an arm to get this kind of gig, and to suggest that it might be a good thing for mumsnet.

MD - as someone who has spent hundreds of hours getting embroiled in SAHM/WOHM threads, I must insist that they too encompass many important issues

1. Fair enough.
2. I think this is one of the points I don't really get. Anyone who comes on here with a pure DM line on working mothers or immigration gets shot down very quickly (quite rightly). I don't understand why people think that having MN material reproduced in the DM would produce some sort of reverse-contamination in which we'd all start talking bollocks about latchkey kids and how horrified we are by Judy Finnigan's thighs. Conversely, there are also plenty of posters on here who have very DM-style views about selective and private schooling, state benefits and Gordon Brown's government, and we seem to be able to rub along with them. The Daily Mail isn't a disease from which we need to be quarantined.
3. To repeat what's already been posted lots of times - we're in public. You have to post with the full knowledge that your posts could be reproduced or read by anyone, any time, any where. I really think this episode has done some good in making some people wake up to this. As for the DM agenda - people's posts can't be twisted to suit a DM agenda. They either do support the DM's agenda (lots do) or they don't.

I agree PW. I don't have much truck with the 'oh but I only posted on MN" thing. Its out there, and can be cannabilised at any time.

The difference in this case, for me, is the DM are flagging a relationship with MN that has been forced, and that MN, who own the copyright for the content, have been strong armed into not fighting it.

And the fact that The DM is not above the law, especially as they are reproducing MN content (with copyright attached) in their print versions of their paper, means that they have absolutely trampled over MN's copyright. And can be held to account over it, By doing nothing MNHQ has just added to the overweaning power of the DM to do exactly what they want.

And at no point did Mn say to us that they had said to the Dm "stop it". That is what is puzzling so many of us. Saying stop it does not engage you in a big legal battle, it just draws a line in the sand.

which makes me think that they personally would have welcomed the publicity and exposure, because they don't actually share the feeling that the Dm is the work of the devil.

Fine! Just tell us! Then we know where we stand!

Okay, now I'm mad. I come on here and write stuff to entertain you lot - not the cretins who write and read the fucking Daily Mail. I don't like being quoted extensively by a rag which frankly I wouldn't wipe my bum on.

If it's open season to take anything from here and publish it so long as it aids the MN publicity engine I intend to pinch Expat's blowjob tips (anonymously naturally, I'm scared of her ), and sell them to Knave magazine (if it still exists, if not I'll find another). I'll be sure to link back in so you get some new registrants on Dadsnet and maybe it'll liven up Friday nights too!

I'll then nick entire threads of suffering, blend them together as one person's tragedy and sell it to the trashy weekly tabloids and hey hum for good measure, use Mumsnet to 'plant' a few rumours which I'll then quote widely as true online to see how far we get. I have a few cool leads based partly on fact that would run and run - and I know you lot will jump all over them because I know you can't resist replying to certain thread titles.

But that's okay right? Because it'd be fair use.

Is this the sort of publicity MNHQ is after?

whomovedmychocolate..

In the words of David Cassidy (fair usage) 'I think I love you"

Well, as I understand it, MNHQ only established the copyright position to their own satisfaction quite recently. It's great that so many people were prepared to post their professional opinions on here (I don't mean that sarcastically, I happily take legal advice from anon MN posters) but MNHQ wanted their own advice from their own lawyers. It is their business, and their responsibility. I think it's unrealistic to expect them to take advice from nameless internet sprites whose legal qualifications might consist of framed certificates from the Institute of Crazy, OH.

As to how delighted they are or are not with the DM association - you are kind of calling them liars, aren't you? I think Justine's OP puts it perfectly clearly: 'a weekly column in the DM is not something we'd have sought. We share many Mumsnetters' misgivings about the views and general tone of the paper... Nor is it a column that fills us with pride because it adequately represents the joy and wonder that is Mumsnet. So why - as some have understandably wondered - are we not banging our fists about stopping the darned thing and have we not fired off a barrage of legal threats? Why instead do we at HQ seem a bit ambivalent about whether the column exists or not? The main answer is this. Like it or not, the Daily Mail is a very influential beast, probably one of the most politically influential institutions in the UK. So, irrespective of the content of these columns, the very fact that the Daily Mail have decided that Mumsnet is prominent and interesting enough to base a weekly column around increases our clout.'

So they are ambivalent about it. You might not (you obviously don't) agree with that position, but it's not one they're being coy about.

PW. How patronising. MNHQ got a lot of good advice from real professionals on here, any one which they could have called upon privately to back up their assertions.

Strip the shit. MNHQ are saying a) they don't want to take them on in court (noone ever said they had to, there are plenty of other options available) and b) that they think an alliance with the DM will improve their clout re issues.

Yeah, right.

Can't wait for the joint headline DM and MN campaign for improved support for single mothers/people of another country trying to build business in the UK

So, Like I said. Have the courage of your convictions.

And just tell us.

I do not understand the "clout" argument either. The DM just want cheap copy. Makes them look cheap and Mumsnet look mad, I fear.

I don't personally see where the ambivalence comes from,

forge an alliance with an entity who quite literally would spit on many of your core clients.

Or not.

Well I personally am quite mad bibbitybobbityhat but perhaps not in the way you meant

" As for the DM agenda - people's posts can't be twisted to suit a DM agenda. They either do support the DM's agenda (lots do) or they don't. "

Maybe not individual posts, but I would say that the school run article is presented in a way that supports the DM agenda of showing what a bunch of superficial, clothes obsessed fluff-heads women are, until the voice of reason (A Dad - of course!) comes in at the end.