Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: Terms of participation unethical and against the l

Posted by alexandra_k on August 14, 2018, at 6:27:40

In reply to Terms of participation unethical and against the l, posted by ert on August 13, 2018, at 22:32:44

> By the sentence Submitting a message gives me permission to use it as I wish. the host claims illegal ownership.

I don't see how - but I'm certainly not familiar with the nuances of American (or any other) system of laws.

In academic contexts you can quote whatever has appeared in print without asking for permissions. You can quote it - and of course you then cite it so people can find where you found it from. You don't pass the contents off as your own.

I thought that that was what Bob was saying. That we were giving him permission to quote our posts etc in conferences and the like. At a couple of points in the history of the site people expressed concern about this and so he started particular threads for people who didn't mind saying stuff that was more particularly likely to be sited in research.

This can be contrasted with stuff where you need to ask specific permissions. To reporoduce a text box or a figure or a song. I have recently learned you can't just quote and reference such things, you need to seek permissions from the publisher (not typically the actual author lolz) in advance.

> It is the same as if someone goes to a doctor (maybe the only one in the village) and the doctor demands that participation requires the permission of given personal data to be stored and used as he wishes on his public database. It equals blackmail, violates property and data protection laws.

lolz - welcome to the New Zealand health system!!! That's exactly what we have going on here!! I just love it how they hand all our data over to (people who I know, actually) all non-anonymised so they can trawl through the 'public record' and correct this, that, and the other thing, that they don't approve of. Recoding people's ethnicities and the like.

> For example a revision could signify that participants give the host of the public database the permission to use their intellectual property as the owner wishes, the participants profile or parts of it, but only as long as the participants give their approvals. The public part of the database could be online for up to two years until it gets cleared or the participants is given the option to delete their posts themselves. The non public database as a whole containing all posts can be used by the host for research as long as the participant gives his or her permission.

It could be... I don't think Dr Bob is active here, anymore, really. I think he only leaves things up as a courtesy to those of us who still insist on coming here... I don't think he has an eye to future development. But I could be wrong. He said something about 'more to come' or whatever a while back... About making a will... About something something I don' tknow.

> Personally, I am ok of deleting parts, thus sentences or words at best right away. But it does not mean that others are ok too, and that they possess the means and power to defend themselves. Hereby, I do not question a potential therapeutical value of a public database but only the terms and how it should be operated.

How do you mean 'public database'. Do you mean the posts in the archives?




Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:alexandra_k thread:1100306