^ all of this. 2+2 can claim that a new creative work has been created based on the compilation of posts, but they cannot claim ownership over the individual posts, as is clearly spelled out in their very own terms of service.

If Druff (or anyone else, for that matter) was reproducing the entire thread, along with the 2+2 forums "chrome", then there would be something to discuss. That is not what is happening here, however.

Some individual posts—owned by the posters not 2+2—have been reproduced for the sake of commentary/discussion.

That's not even taking into consideration the "fair use" aspect of things.

did you miss his trump thread?

Things just got awkward

Raidalot
I meant to mention earlier that your original analysis is impressive. I don't know if you are an attorney but I always appreciate critical thinking and analysis. Others (myself included) posted similar and sometimes more in depth analysis but yours was the first and most concise post to address the TOS issue.


If you are an attorney let me know if you are ever looking for a job ;-)

Internet forums such as this one, where news is often discussed and reported before others, can be cited as a source so long as accreditation is given. But, honestly, there's a difference between citing 2+2 as a news source and outright lifting threads from the forum and reposting them in their entirety.

I have no dog in this fight, but it's pretty difficult to see or understand why Todd would do this other than as a means to inflame, irritate and intimidate Mason. Can anyone elucidate a more concrete reason for me? I don't honestly know and that's why I'm asking. Is there some valid fair use for whatever Todd is lifting and reposting?

Looking at the links posted in the OP, it doesn't seem like Witteles has infringed on anything 2+2 has ownership of. He has only copied words written by a single 3rd party author. Given that under the 2+2 TOS, this author has not given ownership of these words over to 2+2, merely a non-exclusive license, I don't see how 2+2 could have standing to sue over this issue.

lol, he's a billionaire hedge fund manager, I doubt you could afford him.

Hi Everyone:

We're expecting our attorney to post soon in this thread, probably tomorrow, explaining exactly what is the status of the content that appears on our site.

Best wishes,
Mason

Just saw your edit - lol

Meh, all the good associate candidates are already billionaires.

Ah well, maybe he can give me a job

See my edit.

I look forward to seeing his/her analysis.
Do I sense a change to the TOS coming soon?

Thanks. That will be interesting. I can't see how he/she can argue the content belongs to anyone other than the user. Perhaps reference will instead be made to this section:

I'm not sure that makes much difference where 2+2 is not the copyright holder. Also it presumably has no effect on someone who doesn't register as a user (i.e. sign up to the ToS).

I would also be interested to hear how you/your lawyer squares your stance on other sites quoting 2+2 posts with the fact that 2+2 posts very often quote other sites. See for (random) example the first post of this recent thread: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...hests-1667675/

The quoted site is protected by the following: "Copyright © 2001-2017, PokerStars.com."

Based on the amount some financial lawyers charge I can almost believe that!

Hi raidalot:

First, I'm going to let our attorney address the content issue. But be assured that this issue has been well discussed between Two Plus Two Management and our attorneys.

As for your linking to the post that is copying a PokerStars announcement, I agree with you and have edited it to what is acceptable.

Best wishes,
Mason

I'm looking forward to Mason's attorneys view on this, but one issue we haven't got around to discussing is the 'fair usage' element, if 2+2 were to have 'control' of the individual posts (which I'm almost positive they don't) - or if individual posters decided to assert their copyright against PFA's use of their posts.

From Stanford University's site: 'In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an infringement.'

Would it be the entire thread the fair use element would affect, or each individual post? For example, a 60 page thread on Alec Torelli might possibly allow a sizeable amount of that to be reproduced (with or without attribution, and attribution itself is not a defence it should be pointed out). There is no set percentage and there are a lot of factors which get taken into account when deciding if copyright has been infringed.

It's a very difficult field and I don't know of any 'forum copyright' cases which have been through the courts.

As a writer I try to use very limited quotes or portions of others' works, and I always attribute the source. If I quoted a 2+2 poster/post in an article and that person complained I would simply agree to not use it unless it was at the core of the article (for example, Alec Torelli posting screeds of 'screw you guys, I angle-shot and I'm proud of it' posts).

If 2+2/Mason complained about usage I would try to come to an understanding of some sort - forums such as 2+2 are a great source of interesting stories/ideas/information and as such I would like to continue using them, without abusing them.

Time for me to adjust my fee structure!

Is this a new addition to the TOS?
Section 9 Links

I don't remember seeing it before. Either way, I am interested to hear how this site can claim this right when it has a "non-exclusive" publication right.

In other words, if I (the user) own the content of my posts how can you (the site) claim the right to bar others from publishing that content?

It seems that in one section the site claims that the user owns and is responsible for (for safe harbor purposes) his/her posts. Yet, in another section the site is claiming an ownership right to that IP to bar others from using it.

Not to mention that non-members of the site are not parties to the TOS so how can it limit their publication rights without claiming an actual ownership interest in the IP (content of post)?

I find this to be troublesome and a bit illogical. I look forward to hearing from the site's attorney on this issue.

To clarify

To be clear, I am not taking sides in your dispute with PFA. However, as a user of the site I have concerns about the (new) TOS. Frankly, I find it to be disingenuous - When a user agrees to the TOS they are told that 2+2 only has non-exclusive publication rights to the content of the user's posts. However, in another section (aimed at 3rd parties) the site claims the right to block others from publishing that content - Which is , in reality, claiming an exclusive publication right. If the site wants to require an exclusive publication right to allow users to post that is your right. However, you should state that clearly so that users know what they are agreeing to rather than in a hidden manner as it is now.

It seems that 2+2 is trying to have it both ways by claiming that it does not "own" the content (for safe harbor purposes) while also claiming that it has an ownership right to bar others from publishing that content. Either you have an ownership interest or you don't - either you have an exclusive publication right or you don't. Which is it?

Again, I am not attacking 2+2 for attempting to protect itself. However, I find the way that you are trying to do so to be troublesome (as you are claiming rights to my intellectual property while claiming that you are not) and a bit illogical. As I said, I look forward to hearing from the site's attorney on this issue.

Not in last 24 hours at least.

However it is legal tosh. Apart from the fact that other sites don't sign up to the ToS, case law has clearly established that linking to pages of other public websites (without framing) causes no copyright issues. That's the whole basis for the www. 2+2 cannot impose conditions on websites that make such links.

I agree completely. I am interested to see how the site's attorney rationalizes this.

On another note, I would like to seek your permission to use the phrase "legal tosh" in court. As an american, I have never heard the phrase but love it. I know several judges that I could annoy the hell out of with its use.

Haha! A very English phrase (although we use it quite a lot in Scotland too) which prompted me to check its etymology: "valuables collected from drains," 1852, London slang, of unknown origin', according to etymonline.com.

Anyway, I still agree with raidalot and pghduilaw - it's 'legal tosh' of the first order. Again, though, I have no problem with 2+2 trying to protect itself, but it's not easy and not possible by these means imo.

No. It's been there for many years.

I suspect there's a lot more in our T&C you haven't read. Since you're so interested in this issue, and claim "I am not taking sides in your dispute with PFA" you would probably find it of value to read the whole thing, especially "14. COPYRIGHTS & TRADEMARKS."

How about someone who has been banned from this site?

Mason

The last paragraph of my OP says the following:

Perhaps you didn't see this.

Mason

-videos posted
-images
-content of websites

I find forums a place to discuss topics. If the OP pastes part of a CNN article or an OP from a forum, what's the big deal providing they cite the author/site?

All forums are guilty of this, including the one I am reading/posting on right now.

02-21-2013, 09:20 AM
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...5&postcount=10

NVG Mods frequently deleted or edited violations of this even prior to this post.

I did see that but my post that you reference was in reply to pghduilaw when he quoted this part of your ToS:

This refers to use of links and it is that which I am saying is tosh as (1) the other sites don't sign-up to your ToS and (2) it is well established that links to public sites are not a breach of copyright.

I'm not opposed at all to you trying to maximise protection but that process might involve reviewing/updating ToS. I feel you should also bear in mind that 2+2 posters frequently quote text/images/video from other sites and everyone is better off if that is generally allowed except where there is a commercial impact (e.g. copy/pasting articles from online journals etc) or other objection from the rights-holder. There is a bit of pot/kettle/black if you seek to prevent others quoting from here while allowing posting of other sites/forums content here.

Personally I haven't seen anything from 2+2 clearly outside fair use on PFA (but I'm not a member or regular visitor). I wonder if your grievances with them might better be dealt with in different ways?