RSC back up!

RSC is back up!

> RSC is back up! woot! http://racesimcentral.com/ rms

"rms" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:tTaZl.19196$%[email hidden]... >> RSC is back up! > > woot! http://racesimcentral.com/ > > rms >And now the server is overloaded. A bit of a launch day rush no doubt.

"David Fisher's Left Testicle" <dfg.myass@aol> wrote in message news:bxbZl.56145$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > "rms" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:tTaZl.19196$%[email hidden]... >>> RSC is back up! >> >> woot! http://racesimcentral.com/ >> >> rms >> > And now the server is overloaded. A bit of a launch day rush no doubt.

As slow as ever. And do I seriously have to agree to the so-called "terms" every time I a new forum for the first time? I think that what took RSC so long to get back up is because they spent most of the time writing up these "terms." If RSC spent less time worrying about setting all these rules and let things go, they'd have less trouble. People tend to bicker and then forget about it. When going to RSC, I feel like I'm entering a war zone where I have to abide by some Geneva Convention. It's going to be the same old thing, only worse. (Yeah, I know what the typical response will be-- "if you don't like the place don't go to it.") Alan

>>> RSC is back up! > And now the server is overloaded. A bit of a launch day rush no doubt. Combined with people promoting it at various places such as RAS ... Who is David Fisher? I recall an incident with Dennis Leary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVyhXlPCI4Q&fmt=18

> And do I seriously have to agree to the so-called "terms" every time I'm at a new forum for the first time? < General rule #5: < All serious complaints about staff or users should not be < publically posted by members. So non serious complaints about staff are OK then? RSC is the only racing forum I know of that uses a public warning system, with their yellow and red card system, branding their members with the equivalent of a forum "Scarlet Letter" by having a warning icon avatar added to every post ever made by the victim member.

[email hidden] (jeffareid) wrote: > So non serious complaints about staff are OK then? I can't imagine ever complaining about any forum or its moderators unless I was paying for access and desperately wanted to stay. So that in itself is pretty trivial to me. On the whole the rules seems geared towards trying to keep on the right side of the law (always a potential problem for forum owners in these litigious times) and trying to impose some kind of behaviour limits. That seems fair enough even if when written down such rules tend to look overbearing. Anyway, I'm glad to see it back as a resource even though I'm not a big poster over there. I remain convinced that newsgroups are the best way to exchange information... I can't help it if 99.927%* of the rest of the planet prefer clunky forums with no form of OLR to access them smoothly. :-> Andrew McP *Approximately

Quoted text (8 lines)

> I can't imagine ever complaining about any forum or its moderators unless I was > paying for access and desperately wanted to stay. So that in itself is pretty > trivial to me. > > On the whole the rules seems geared towards trying to keep on the right side of the > law (always a potential problem for forum owners in these litigious times) and > trying to impose some kind of behaviour limits. That seems fair enough even if when > written down such rules tend to look overbearing.

I left RSC for getting a warning for this video of a demo qualifying run by David Coulthard made for some European TV station and one that had been available on several web sites for a few years before I mirrored it and posted the link at RSC: http://jeffareid.net/real/spaf1.wmv They claimed I violated a copyright, and put a yellow card warning on all my posts, and refused to give me the time to show that this particular video was in the public domain before adding the warining. They're view was that I was guilty until proven innocent, and that the yellow icon would remain attached to every post I ever made at RSC until I could prove the video was in public domain by getting Bernie Ecclestone, the owner of F1 racing, to send RSC a personal letter stating the video was in the public domain. At the time, there was nothing in the rules about their "infraction system". If I wasn't using my real name at RSC this wouldn't have been such a big deal, but as it was, I considered the guitly until proven innocent yellow flags on my posts to be a violation of their own rules since it was "false, abusive, defamatory, and harrasing": RSC forum rule: "2.1: Any content that is false, abusive, defamatory, or harassing is not permitted in posts, avatars, and signatures." A neighbor of mine at the time is a lawyer, and he stated that since I had used my real name instead of a persona at RSC, the yellow warning on all posts made with my real name, would be enough for a viable civil suit for defamation of character. Few forum moderators are willing to risk using such a public warning system as RSC does because of the legal risks associated with defamation of character. When I mentioned the defamation issue to RSC moderators, their response was to perma-ban me. Rather than start a civil suit, my neighbor suggested that I request RSC remove every post I ever made there, to eliminate any chance of further defamatory harm, which I did and RSC complied by removing all my posts. Another issue at the time was that RSC was the "official" support site for a few games, and any action limiting members access to that support could be in violation of any agreement between the game makers and RSC. Currently, I'm not aware of any game that uses an outside forum for support, so this issue has gone away. I occasionally browse RSC, but I don't ever plan on rejoining with their current infraction policy. RSC is the only racing game forum that feels they need to chastise it's members with a public warning system. All other forum simply delete unwanted content and handle these matter privately through pm's or emails.

"jeffareid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:egfZl.49230$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> And do I seriously have to agree to the so-called "terms" every time I'm >> at a new forum for the first time? > > < General rule #5: > < All serious complaints about staff or users should not be > < publically posted by members. > > So non serious complaints about staff are OK then? >

That's the sort of thing only a cunt would do.

"jeffareid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:h9kZl.9986$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (67 lines)

>> I can't imagine ever complaining about any forum or its moderators unless >> I was >> paying for access and desperately wanted to stay. So that in itself is >> pretty >> trivial to me. >> >> On the whole the rules seems geared towards trying to keep on the right >> side of the >> law (always a potential problem for forum owners in these litigious >> times) and >> trying to impose some kind of behaviour limits. That seems fair enough >> even if when >> written down such rules tend to look overbearing. > > I left RSC for getting a warning for this video of a demo qualifying run > by David Coulthard made for some European TV station and one that had > been available on several web sites for a few years before I mirrored > it and posted the link at RSC: > > http://jeffareid.net/real/spaf1.wmv > > They claimed I violated a copyright, and put a yellow card warning > on all my posts, and refused to give me the time to show that this > particular video was in the public domain before adding the warining. > > They're view was that I was guilty until proven innocent, and that > the yellow icon would remain attached to every post I ever made > at RSC until I could prove the video was in public domain by getting > Bernie Ecclestone, the owner of F1 racing, to send RSC a personal > letter stating the video was in the public domain. > > At the time, there was nothing in the rules about their "infraction > system". If I wasn't using my real name at RSC this wouldn't have been > such a big deal, but as it was, I considered the guitly until > proven innocent yellow flags on my posts to be a violation of their > own rules since it was "false, abusive, defamatory, and harrasing": > > RSC forum rule: > "2.1: Any content that is false, abusive, defamatory, or harassing > is not permitted in posts, avatars, and signatures." > > A neighbor of mine at the time is a lawyer, and he stated that since > I had used my real name instead of a persona at RSC, the yellow > warning on all posts made with my real name, would be enough for > a viable civil suit for defamation of character. Few forum moderators > are willing to risk using such a public warning system as RSC does > because of the legal risks associated with defamation of character. > > When I mentioned the defamation issue to RSC moderators, their > response was to perma-ban me. Rather than start a civil suit, my > neighbor suggested that I request RSC remove every post I ever > made there, to eliminate any chance of further defamatory harm, > which I did and RSC complied by removing all my posts. > > Another issue at the time was that RSC was the "official" support > site for a few games, and any action limiting members access > to that support could be in violation of any agreement between > the game makers and RSC. Currently, I'm not aware of any game > that uses an outside forum for support, so this issue has > gone away. > > I occasionally browse RSC, but I don't ever plan on rejoining > with their current infraction policy. RSC is the only racing game > forum that feels they need to chastise it's members with a public > warning system. All other forum simply delete unwanted content > and handle these matter privately through pm's or emails. >

Stop being an overly sensitive, little girl.

[email hidden] (jeffareid) wrote: > I left RSC for getting a warning for this video of a demo > qualifying run by David Coulthard made for some European > TV station and one that had been available on several web > sites for a few years before I mirrored it and posted the > link at RSC: I'll be honest and say that if I was a forum owner I'd probably be just as nervous about such material. Just because something is 'in the public domain', as you describe, does not mean it's legal. As for the rest of your post... I'll also be honest and say I'm not on your wavelength at all. I'd have just removed the clip when asked. Their forum, their choices, their rules. In exchange for a fairly useful source of sim news I choose to accept them. I appreciate why others would choose not to though. Andrew McP

"Andrew MacPherson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (23 lines)

> [email hidden] (jeffareid) wrote: > >> I left RSC for getting a warning for this video of a demo >> qualifying run by David Coulthard made for some European >> TV station and one that had been available on several web >> sites for a few years before I mirrored it and posted the >> link at RSC: > > I'll be honest and say that if I was a forum owner I'd probably be just as > nervous > about such material. Just because something is 'in the public domain', as > you > describe, does not mean it's legal. > > As for the rest of your post... I'll also be honest and say I'm not on > your > wavelength at all. I'd have just removed the clip when asked. Their forum, > their > choices, their rules. In exchange for a fairly useful source of sim news I > choose > to accept them. I appreciate why others would choose not to though. > > Andrew McP

I'd say that RSC is hopelessly gutless in that instance. If the rights owner of that content points out that there stuff is being made public via your site and request that you cease allowing it to be then THAT should be the end of it THERE. Is RSC used by undergrad lawyers for practice or something is it? I cant imagine fucking around with all that.

> I'll be honest and say that if I was a forum owner I'd probably be > just as nervous about such material. It's never been a problem for youtube, and youtube handles this in a private manner, doesn't publicly humiliate or otherwise punish its member. Youtube does a much better job of balancing due diligence by balancing the rights of it's members and copyright claim owners. RSC feels the need to publicly lable what it deems as offenders (even when no actual offense has occurred) with it's yellow and red card infraction system. > As for the rest of your post... I'll also be honest and say I'm not on your > wavelength at all. I'd have just removed the clip when asked. Which I would have done immediately on being told they were concerned, but they already removed it, but that wasn't enough for them. They felt they needed to punish me as well by having a yelow card avatar added to every post I had ever made at RSC (hundreds of these at the time, going back for years), not even just the offending post (which also would be bad). I got several pms and emails asking why I got the forum equivalent of a "scarlet letter" added to every one of my posts, since all but one of them were non-offending, even in RSC's viewpoint, the intent was to label me as a violator instead of the individual post. The people that pm'ed me were puzzled since all but one of the tagged posts were not the perceived issue by RSC moderators. > I appreciate why others would choose not to though. It's the concept of the publicly punishing a member by adding the yellow or red car flag as avatars to every post made by a member as opposed to just the offending post or handled privately via pm's or emails the way the rest of the world deals with this, combined with their attitude of guilty until proven innocent, and their own determination of copyright violation without receiving any actual claims. Going back to youtube as an example, the people running youtube appear to be much more informed these situations and handle these issues in a much different way, and is a good example how such issues should be handled, and in such a manner that youtube meets the legal requirements for due diligence while at the same time not abusing it's members. Youtube does not preemptively remove videos, except as noted below. Youtube does minimal or no screening of videos, relying on their viewers to report any issues with their videos. Posted videos remain on youtube unless a copyright infringement claim. However the video remains, and the poster is asked via private communication to either remove the video or to respond why the poster doesn't feel the video is infringing. If the poster doesn't respond within a reaonsable time the video is removed. If the poster does respond, then youtube will go back to the infrigment claimer to ask for some evidience that they actually own the copyright. This policy satifies the legal reqirement for due diligence as determined by prior court cases. A violation of the copyright policy at youtube counts as a "strike" against the poster, but this is done privately, unlike the public infraction system at RSC. 3 strikes and the account can be removed, depending on the circumstance, but there is no "perma-ban" and the poster can create a new account. If a specific infringing video becomes a problem, then youtube will pre-emptively remove videos based on catch phrases in the video description, as specified by the copyright owner. Sometimes this gets abused as Viacom, made such a pre-emptive claims against all videos with the terms "Underworld" "Trailer" (from a tomb raider game), even though they only have rights to one of the four versions. If a video is removed, the explanation is that the video was remove for "copyright claim". Youtube avoid defamation issues by not using the term "copy infringment", as only a court judgement could make this call. Youtube does not label it's members as violators to the rest of the public. RSC on the other hand, will issue an public infraction to a member for posting a video that they feel to be potentiallly infringing without ever receving any actual claims of infrigment from a supposed copyright owner. Then they punsish the victimized member by attaching a yellow or red avatar to every post ever made by the victim, not just the offending post. Imagine the reaction from youtube members if every video posted by the member included a yellow or red violator status attached to every video for an alledged perceived violation in one of those videos (now removed) even though no actual infringment claim had been made. One reason this isn't done is because of defamation of character laws. It's not legal to make negative accusations against others without susbstatial proof, and there's still the risk of a lawsuit where the proof of the accusation is required. The burden of proof in defamation (libel if written, slander if spoken), is on the person or company making the accusation, yet RSC was routinely doaling out public infraction avators (the forum equivalent of a scarlet letter) without any semblance of proof. I find RSC's public infraction system unacceptable, and my lawyer friend states, it's violated defamation laws, especially when the policy is to apply infractions when there is no evidence (no infringment claim) that any infraction actually occurred. Although the public infraction system is now noted in the rules, it wasn't at the time I joined RSC, so essentially RSC violated my member agreement at the time. In spite of the fact that RSC now notes the public infraction system, they could be held liable for a defamation lawsuit if they ever applied an infraction without substantial proof of the infraction. They should also suggest that members not use their real names because of the public infraction system.

>> So non serious complaints about staff are OK then? > That's the sort of thing only a cunt would do. So does this mean you'll be making non serious complaints about staff?

"jeffareid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:46wZl.49463$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

>>> So non serious complaints about staff are OK then? > >> That's the sort of thing only a cunt would do. > > So does this mean you'll be making non serious complaints > about staff? >

You really are a crybaby sometimes. So they gave little you a yellow flag, big deal! Get over it.

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 04:24 +0100 (BST), Andrew MacPherson wrote: > there. I remain convinced that newsgroups are the best way to exchange > information... I can't help it if 99.927%* of the rest of the planet prefer clunky > forums with no form of OLR to access them smoothly. :-> > hear hear! Usenet has no single point of failure and no pesky mods to shut you up if say something politically incorrect. Never mind RAS is way past its glory days.. ;-) Uwe

"Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (33 lines)

> "Andrew MacPherson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> [email hidden] (jeffareid) wrote: >> >>> I left RSC for getting a warning for this video of a demo >>> qualifying run by David Coulthard made for some European >>> TV station and one that had been available on several web >>> sites for a few years before I mirrored it and posted the >>> link at RSC: >> >> I'll be honest and say that if I was a forum owner I'd probably be just >> as nervous >> about such material. Just because something is 'in the public domain', as >> you >> describe, does not mean it's legal. >> >> As for the rest of your post... I'll also be honest and say I'm not on >> your >> wavelength at all. I'd have just removed the clip when asked. Their >> forum, their >> choices, their rules. In exchange for a fairly useful source of sim news >> I choose >> to accept them. I appreciate why others would choose not to though. >> >> Andrew McP > > I'd say that RSC is hopelessly gutless in that instance. If the rights > owner of that content points out that there stuff is being made public via > your site and request that you cease allowing it to be then THAT should be > the end of it THERE. > > Is RSC used by undergrad lawyers for practice or something is it? I > cant imagine fucking around with all that.

I think there is little doubt that because RSC needs to be so legal (the motivating factory, IMHO, being that they want to SEEM important), they are going to run into legal issues. What I mean to say is that because of RSC's pretentiousness, others are going to go out of their way to force lawsuits. I also predict, in the not-to-distant-future, that RSC will start charging for some of its services. I've written the site off, there being plenty of other forums for good race sim talk. Alan

My only argument Jeff is: Google has thousands of employees that can clean up youtube, the site generates revenue, if/when there is an issue someone gets paid to fix or gets fired. I bet that is Not so on RSC, sure some revenues probably but not full time people running the shit. if they asked you to remove and you didn't, then I want to seemingly say, bad on you to them. I mean least thing I want if I setup a website is to get suited because some dork posts stuff they didn't know would get everyone in trouble, and we have to nicely say dork, even though the person might have known better they claim they didn't, but has no bearing when suits are started... Now if I setup one that is profit-motivated, then yeah I could see hiring people to run that aspect/shit cleanup cover yer ass monitors etc. Everyone seems to think Internet = Free. It is NOT. you pay for access and I pay to host websites. I may not charge you directly for what you see, but I cant have a website if I don't make enough to pay for it, directly or indirectly... that is the bottom line. If I get lawsuits going, damn sure the website is probably going to die 1st because it doesn't generate a single dollar directly unless it is a shopping cart one. I know, that isn't how Government does it, but that is how I'd have to do it. "jeffareid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:PqrZl.3923$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (118 lines)

>> I'll be honest and say that if I was a forum owner I'd probably be >> just as nervous about such material. > > It's never been a problem for youtube, and youtube handles this > in a private manner, doesn't publicly humiliate or otherwise > punish its member. Youtube does a much better job of balancing > due diligence by balancing the rights of it's members and copyright > claim owners. RSC feels the need to publicly lable what it > deems as offenders (even when no actual offense has occurred) with > it's yellow and red card infraction system. > >> As for the rest of your post... I'll also be honest and say I'm not on >> your >> wavelength at all. I'd have just removed the clip when asked. > > Which I would have done immediately on being told they were concerned, > but they already removed it, but that wasn't enough for them. They felt > they > needed to punish me as well by having a yelow card avatar added to every > post > I had ever made at RSC (hundreds of these at the time, going back for > years), > not even just the offending post (which also would be bad). I got several > pms and emails asking why I got the forum equivalent of a "scarlet > letter" added to every one of my posts, since all but one of them were > non-offending, even in RSC's viewpoint, the intent was to label me > as a violator instead of the individual post. The people that pm'ed me > were puzzled since all but one of the tagged posts were not the perceived > issue by RSC moderators. > >> I appreciate why others would choose not to though. > > It's the concept of the publicly punishing a member by adding the yellow > or red car flag as avatars to every post made by a member as opposed to > just the offending post or handled privately via pm's or emails the > way the rest of the world deals with this, combined with their attitude > of guilty until proven innocent, and their own determination of > copyright violation without receiving any actual claims. > > Going back to youtube as an example, the people running youtube appear > to be much more informed these situations and handle these issues > in a much different way, and is a good example how such issues should > be handled, and in such a manner that youtube meets the legal > requirements for due diligence while at the same time not abusing > it's members. > > Youtube does not preemptively remove videos, except as noted below. > > Youtube does minimal or no screening of videos, relying on their > viewers to report any issues with their videos. Posted videos remain > on youtube unless a copyright infringement claim. However the video > remains, and the poster is asked via private communication to either > remove the video or to respond why the poster doesn't feel the video > is infringing. If the poster doesn't respond within a reaonsable time > the video is removed. If the poster does respond, then youtube > will go back to the infrigment claimer to ask for some evidience that > they actually own the copyright. This policy satifies the legal > reqirement for due diligence as determined by prior court cases. > > A violation of the copyright policy at youtube counts as a "strike" > against the poster, but this is done privately, unlike the public > infraction system at RSC. 3 strikes and the account can be removed, > depending on the circumstance, but there is no "perma-ban" and the > poster can create a new account. > > If a specific infringing video becomes a problem, then youtube will > pre-emptively remove videos based on catch phrases in the video > description, as specified by the copyright owner. Sometimes this > gets abused as Viacom, made such a pre-emptive claims against > all videos with the terms "Underworld" "Trailer" (from a tomb > raider game), even though they only have rights to one of the > four versions. > > If a video is removed, the explanation is that the video was remove > for "copyright claim". Youtube avoid defamation issues by not > using the term "copy infringment", as only a court judgement > could make this call. Youtube does not label it's members as > violators to the rest of the public. > > RSC on the other hand, will issue an public infraction to a member > for posting a video that they feel to be potentiallly infringing > without ever receving any actual claims of infrigment from a > supposed copyright owner. Then they punsish the victimized member > by attaching a yellow or red avatar to every post ever made by > the victim, not just the offending post. > > Imagine the reaction from youtube members if every video posted > by the member included a yellow or red violator status attached > to every video for an alledged perceived violation in one of > those videos (now removed) even though no actual infringment > claim had been made. > > One reason this isn't done is because of defamation of character > laws. It's not legal to make negative accusations against others > without susbstatial proof, and there's still the risk of a lawsuit > where the proof of the accusation is required. The burden of proof > in defamation (libel if written, slander if spoken), is on the > person or company making the accusation, yet RSC was routinely > doaling out public infraction avators (the forum equivalent > of a scarlet letter) without any semblance of proof. > > I find RSC's public infraction system unacceptable, and my lawyer > friend states, it's violated defamation laws, especially when > the policy is to apply infractions when there is no evidence > (no infringment claim) that any infraction actually occurred. > > Although the public infraction system is now noted in the rules, > it wasn't at the time I joined RSC, so essentially RSC violated > my member agreement at the time. In spite of the fact that > RSC now notes the public infraction system, they could be held > liable for a defamation lawsuit if they ever applied an infraction > without substantial proof of the infraction. They should also > suggest that members not use their real names because of the > public infraction system. > > > >

RAS/usnet is near DEATH. AT&T to stop access to ALL usenet, that is a pretty big group of people. Crickets... "hoover" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4a376686$0$3278$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 04:24 +0100 (BST), Andrew MacPherson wrote: > >> there. I remain convinced that newsgroups are the best way to exchange >> information... I can't help it if 99.927%* of the rest of the planet >> prefer clunky >> forums with no form of OLR to access them smoothly. :-> >> > > hear hear! Usenet has no single point of failure and no pesky mods to > shut you up if say something politically incorrect. Never mind RAS is > way past its glory days.. ;-) > > Uwe

> My only argument Jeff is: Google has thousands of employees that can clean up youtube, the site generates revenue, > if/when there is an issue someone gets paid to fix or gets fired. The number of submissions is too large for all them to get monitored, so youtube has to rely on feedback from other users, or to rely on key phrases in the titles or descriptions of the submissions, as suggested via claims from prior infringments. > RSC ... if they asked you to remove and you didn't, then I want to > seemingly say, bad on you to them. That's not what happened. If they had asked, I would have removed the video. Instead, they removed the video themselves, added the yellow violator avatar to all my posts, and then informed me about this after the fact. I was never given a chance to respond beforehand, and after I responded that I was fairly certain that the video wasn't an issue as it had been on other web sites for several years, their response is that my violator tag would remain until they got a personal letter from Bernie, the owner of F1 racing, which obviously wasn't going to happen, and that a letter from one of the other web sites stating that no infringment claims were being made for that video wouldn't be sufficient, only a letter from Bernie. > I mean least thing I want if I setup a website is to get suited because some dork posts stuff they didn't know would > get everyone in trouble That wasn't the case here. Someone at RSC decided for themselves that the video was copyright infringment, not the owner of the copyright. RSC never received a complaint about that video or similar videos, refused to accept a letter from other web sites stating they had persmission to host the video in question, ... This is my issue with RSC. I did not violate any rules, yet they falsely and publicly declared me to be a violator, and refused to accept reasonable proof that I was innocent of any claim of violation. , and we have to nicely say dork, even though the person might have

Quoted text (128 lines)

> known better they claim they didn't, but has no bearing when suits are started... > > Now if I setup one that is profit-motivated, then yeah I could see hiring people to run that aspect/shit cleanup cover > yer ass monitors etc. > Everyone seems to think Internet = Free. It is NOT. you pay for access and I pay to host websites. I may not charge > you directly for what you see, but I cant have a website if I don't make enough to pay for it, directly or > indirectly... that is the bottom line. If I get lawsuits going, damn sure the website is probably going to die 1st > because it doesn't generate a single dollar directly unless it is a shopping cart one. I know, that isn't how > Government does it, but that is how I'd have to do it. > > > "jeffareid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:PqrZl.3923$[email hidden]... >>> I'll be honest and say that if I was a forum owner I'd probably be >>> just as nervous about such material. >> >> It's never been a problem for youtube, and youtube handles this >> in a private manner, doesn't publicly humiliate or otherwise >> punish its member. Youtube does a much better job of balancing >> due diligence by balancing the rights of it's members and copyright >> claim owners. RSC feels the need to publicly lable what it >> deems as offenders (even when no actual offense has occurred) with >> it's yellow and red card infraction system. >> >>> As for the rest of your post... I'll also be honest and say I'm not on your >>> wavelength at all. I'd have just removed the clip when asked. >> >> Which I would have done immediately on being told they were concerned, >> but they already removed it, but that wasn't enough for them. They felt they >> needed to punish me as well by having a yelow card avatar added to every post >> I had ever made at RSC (hundreds of these at the time, going back for years), >> not even just the offending post (which also would be bad). I got several >> pms and emails asking why I got the forum equivalent of a "scarlet >> letter" added to every one of my posts, since all but one of them were >> non-offending, even in RSC's viewpoint, the intent was to label me >> as a violator instead of the individual post. The people that pm'ed me >> were puzzled since all but one of the tagged posts were not the perceived >> issue by RSC moderators. >> >>> I appreciate why others would choose not to though. >> >> It's the concept of the publicly punishing a member by adding the yellow >> or red car flag as avatars to every post made by a member as opposed to >> just the offending post or handled privately via pm's or emails the >> way the rest of the world deals with this, combined with their attitude >> of guilty until proven innocent, and their own determination of >> copyright violation without receiving any actual claims. >> >> Going back to youtube as an example, the people running youtube appear >> to be much more informed these situations and handle these issues >> in a much different way, and is a good example how such issues should >> be handled, and in such a manner that youtube meets the legal >> requirements for due diligence while at the same time not abusing >> it's members. >> >> Youtube does not preemptively remove videos, except as noted below. >> >> Youtube does minimal or no screening of videos, relying on their >> viewers to report any issues with their videos. Posted videos remain >> on youtube unless a copyright infringement claim. However the video >> remains, and the poster is asked via private communication to either >> remove the video or to respond why the poster doesn't feel the video >> is infringing. If the poster doesn't respond within a reaonsable time >> the video is removed. If the poster does respond, then youtube >> will go back to the infrigment claimer to ask for some evidience that >> they actually own the copyright. This policy satifies the legal >> reqirement for due diligence as determined by prior court cases. >> >> A violation of the copyright policy at youtube counts as a "strike" >> against the poster, but this is done privately, unlike the public >> infraction system at RSC. 3 strikes and the account can be removed, >> depending on the circumstance, but there is no "perma-ban" and the >> poster can create a new account. >> >> If a specific infringing video becomes a problem, then youtube will >> pre-emptively remove videos based on catch phrases in the video >> description, as specified by the copyright owner. Sometimes this >> gets abused as Viacom, made such a pre-emptive claims against >> all videos with the terms "Underworld" "Trailer" (from a tomb >> raider game), even though they only have rights to one of the >> four versions. >> >> If a video is removed, the explanation is that the video was remove >> for "copyright claim". Youtube avoid defamation issues by not >> using the term "copy infringment", as only a court judgement >> could make this call. Youtube does not label it's members as >> violators to the rest of the public. >> >> RSC on the other hand, will issue an public infraction to a member >> for posting a video that they feel to be potentiallly infringing >> without ever receving any actual claims of infrigment from a >> supposed copyright owner. Then they punsish the victimized member >> by attaching a yellow or red avatar to every post ever made by >> the victim, not just the offending post. >> >> Imagine the reaction from youtube members if every video posted >> by the member included a yellow or red violator status attached >> to every video for an alledged perceived violation in one of >> those videos (now removed) even though no actual infringment >> claim had been made. >> >> One reason this isn't done is because of defamation of character >> laws. It's not legal to make negative accusations against others >> without susbstatial proof, and there's still the risk of a lawsuit >> where the proof of the accusation is required. The burden of proof >> in defamation (libel if written, slander if spoken), is on the >> person or company making the accusation, yet RSC was routinely >> doaling out public infraction avators (the forum equivalent >> of a scarlet letter) without any semblance of proof. >> >> I find RSC's public infraction system unacceptable, and my lawyer >> friend states, it's violated defamation laws, especially when >> the policy is to apply infractions when there is no evidence >> (no infringment claim) that any infraction actually occurred. >> >> Although the public infraction system is now noted in the rules, >> it wasn't at the time I joined RSC, so essentially RSC violated >> my member agreement at the time. In spite of the fact that >> RSC now notes the public infraction system, they could be held >> liable for a defamation lawsuit if they ever applied an infraction >> without substantial proof of the infraction. They should also >> suggest that members not use their real names because of the >> public infraction system. >> >> >> >> > >

[email hidden] (jeffareid) wrote: > This is my issue with RSC. Step away from the soapbox and think about starving children, soldiers killed in stupid wars, and trillion dollar bailouts for Wall Street millionaires. Feel any better now? No, I didn't think you would. ;-) Andrew McP

>> This is my issue with RSC. > Step away from the soapbox and think about starving children, soldiers killed in > stupid wars, and trillion dollar bailouts for Wall Street millionaires. > Feel any better now? Obviously this isn't the greatest injustice ever inflicted on a person, but I can still complain. If you had seen all the email I received from RSC moderators, they were turning a molehill into a mountain, so I decided to return the favor. Yes, on a worldly scale, it's a minor injustice, but one that makes a bad world just a bit worse when people like those at RSC decide on their own to unfairly punish their own members. The existance of much greater wrongs doesn't justify a trivial wrong.

"Andrew MacPherson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> [email hidden] (jeffareid) wrote: > >> This is my issue with RSC. > > Step away from the soapbox and think about starving children, soldiers > killed in > stupid wars, and trillion dollar bailouts for Wall Street millionaires. > > Feel any better now? > > No, I didn't think you would. ;-) > > Andrew McP

But this is rec.autos.simulators correct? How about we get to the heart of this matter? Who is put out, hurt financially or in any other way by the posting of that movie? Who is making money from someone else's creation? The entire thing is a load of bullshit! Now if we want to go all big picture here, as you suggest, then I would think that applies monumentally more to the idiot moderator and anyone else who would think this to be any legal issue whatsoever. It just goes to show how fucked up the legal system and its application is that this discussion is even taking place.

"David Fisher's Left Testicle" <dfg.myass@aol> wrote in message news:N6mZl.18428$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > "jeffareid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:egfZl.49230$[email hidden]... >>> And do I seriously have to agree to the so-called "terms" every time I'm >>> at a new forum for the first time? >> >> < General rule #5: >> < All serious complaints about staff or users should not be >> < publically posted by members. >> >> So non serious complaints about staff are OK then? >> > That's the sort of thing only a cunt would do.

You have a serious problem. I wonder if you'd talk the same if face-to-face. I doubt it. It's nice and safe to talk like a bigshot when you have the Internet behind which to HIDE. Alan

"David Fisher's Left Testicle" <dfg.myass@aol> wrote in message news:uSyZl.16141$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > "jeffareid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:46wZl.49463$[email hidden]... >>>> So non serious complaints about staff are OK then? >> >>> That's the sort of thing only a cunt would do. >> >> So does this mean you'll be making non serious complaints >> about staff? >> > You really are a crybaby sometimes. So they gave little you a yellow flag, > big deal! Get over it.

Ah ha! He caught you with a little witty remark, and you covered yourself. Alan

> Now if we want to go all big picture here, as you suggest, then I would think that applies monumentally more to the > idiot moderator and anyone else who would think this to be any legal issue whatsoever. It was only a legal issue in the mind of a RSC moderator. In reality it's not a legal issue until the actual copyright owner makes an claim of ownership and states that the posting of the video is ok as is, or requests the video is ok, but wants it to include credits for the copyright owner (perhaps a link), or to have the video removed. This is how this situation is handled by youtube and other file hosting sites.

"Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2Xa_l.345611$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > "David Fisher's Left Testicle" <dfg.myass@aol> wrote in message > news:N6mZl.18428$[email hidden]... >> >> "jeffareid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:egfZl.49230$[email hidden]... >>>> And do I seriously have to agree to the so-called "terms" every time >>>> I'm at a new forum for the first time? >>> >>> < General rule #5: >>> < All serious complaints about staff or users should not be >>> < publically posted by members. >>> >>> So non serious complaints about staff are OK then? >>> >> That's the sort of thing only a cunt would do. > > You have a serious problem. I wonder if you'd talk the same if > face-to-face. > > I doubt it. It's nice and safe to talk like a bigshot when you have the > Internet behind which to HIDE. >

Let's meet up then. I'm in the UK. Where are you?

[email hidden] (Byron Forbes) wrote: > Who is put out, hurt financially or in any other way by the > posting of that movie? Who is making money from someone else's > creation? As someone 'pirating' music in the movies I've made, I partially agree with you. But what I've done is still illegal. Same goes, potentially, in this case. Andrew McP

> As someone 'pirating' music in the movies I've made, I partially agree with you. > But what I've done is still illegal. Same goes, potentially, in this case. Except in this case the video had been on several other web sites for years, and I asked if I could mirror the video from one of those web sites (which no longer exists and why I asked to mirror the video), and they responded it was OK. This is different than using some file sharing or torrent program to download music that was never intended to publicy available in the first place. Everyone involved in the original discussion, except for RSC, agreed that that no one was going to file an infrignement claim or ask for removal this particula video, since the video was old (at least 3 years at the time), and on several fan oriented web sites. Note that there's no requirement for pre-emptive prevention of such videos being posted, as demonstated by youtube. They aren't held responsible for uploaded content until contacted by an entity claiming to own the rights to the video. At this point, they are given reasonable time to contact the original uploader to see if he contests the copyright claim. The original uploader is given the chance to dispute the claim, in which case the video remains, or the uploader can delete the video. If the uploader doesn't respond, the video is removed. If repeated infringements occur, the copyright owner will ask youtube to pre-emptively remove uploads with certain key words in the desciptions. Youtube has no ability to screen the actual video content with some sort of AI viewer. The same video with out the key words will probably never get detected (but never seen by many either).

[email hidden] (jeffareid) wrote: > Youtube has no ability to screen the actual video content with some > sort of AI viewer. Perhaps not viewer, but there may be an AI listener. I've had movie soundtracks rejected twice within seconds of uploading. They either have a huge team of people monitoring things, or some kind of automated process to filter out at least some well known tracks with distinctive musical 'signatures'. Anyway, this is a side issue. The bottom line in all this is that forums are not democratic; they don't have to be 'fair' (whatever that means) and they must be a pain in the arse to run. I see people like yourself making that harder, not easier. That seems, at the very least, impolite given that it's a free service. Your dispute *may* have some kind of tenuous defamatory taint, but even if it did it was within the forum; they didn't stamp your internet passport marking you out as a potential troublemaker for all to see wherever you go. If they had I could understand the 'my mate the lawyer says' stuff (even though such statements are rarely a good sign). As it is... well, I'm just impressed anyone takes forum life so seriously. Anyone used to r.a.s over the years should have a thicker skin. :-> Andrew McP

> Perhaps not viewer, but there may be an AI listener. I've had movie soundtracks > rejected twice within seconds of uploading. They either have a huge team of people > monitoring things, or some kind of automated process to filter out at least some > well known tracks with distinctive musical 'signatures'. I wouldn't know. Usually it takes a few days before audio tracks are removed from videos (but the videos remain). Did your video have any clues to the audio track in the text that went with the uploaded video? If there is an AI, reencoding with a minor pitch or tempo change would probably circumvent it. If the text of your video includes something similar to the name of a famous musical group in the text of your video, it will get screened. > Anyway, this is a side issue. The bottom line in all this is that forums are not > democratic; they don't have to be 'fair' (whatever that means) Except in this case, RSC has a rule that includes not making false or defamatory statements about other members, and at the time no mention was made of the public violator avatars or recommended use of a false name because of those public violator avatars. > I see people like yourself making that harder, not easier. and yet I've never had an issue with any of the other 20 or so forums I particpate at. Have you ever read complaints about any forum other than RSC? > Your dispute *may* have some kind of tenuous defamatory taint Which was the point of my neighbor. > it was within the forum; they didn't stamp your internet passport marking > you out as a potential troublemaker for all to see wherever you go. The size of the audience, within reason (more than 1 or 2) doesn't matter in a defamatory case. I received numerours emails within and without the group about how unfair this seemed and that similar incidents had occurred in the past at RSC. Once again, I'm not aware of any other gaming forum that utilizes such a public violator scheme. > I could understand the 'my mate the lawyer says' stuff In this case, my neighbor/lawyer also happened to be a member of RSC, and he came to me, after I explained what happened. > As it is... well, I'm just impressed anyone takes forum life so seriously. There isn't much I can do about the big problems of the world, but here was a case where I could at least make a statement about unfair abuse from forum moderators. Yes it's small on the scale of injustices, but it doesn't justify bad behavior from forum moderators. If anything, they should be held to a higher standard.

"Andrew MacPherson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> [email hidden] (jeffareid) wrote: > >> Youtube has no ability to screen the actual video content with some >> sort of AI viewer. > > Perhaps not viewer, but there may be an AI listener. I've had movie > soundtracks > rejected twice within seconds of uploading. They either have a huge team > of people > monitoring things, or some kind of automated process to filter out at > least some > well known tracks with distinctive musical 'signatures'. > > Anyway, this is a side issue. The bottom line in all this is that forums > are not > democratic; they don't have to be 'fair' (whatever that means) and they > must be a > pain in the arse to run. I see people like yourself making that harder, > not easier. > That seems, at the very least, impolite given that it's a free service. >

They may not be fair or democratic, but they should be, only because that is best and easiest. Seriously, if it's easy and the best way to go, how can a person go wrong? As to the forums being a pain to run, you can't voluntarily decide to put up a forum, and then complain about what a hassle it is. People are oftentimes that way: they give something up voluntarily, and then expect some sort of return. To the "free service" thing, RSC will soon cost. They haven't gone through all this crap out of their heart's goodness. Within a year RSC will cost, period. If there is money to be made, all the spirit goes out of it. Alan

> The bottom line in all this is that forums are not democratic; > they don't have to be 'fair' (whatever that means) Probably not now, but at the time RSC was the official support site for a few games, and as part of the agreement for RSC to be the official support site for those games, the behavior of the RSC moderators would have to hold up to a high standard as would be required of any support forum. Can you think of any other forum that has a yellow or red card infraction system such as RSC? In the case of forums where legal or medical advice is given, then higher standards for the posters are required, but even in these cases, bad posters are simply censored (posts modified and/or deleted, with repeat offenders posts removed.

"Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:U9w_l.355611$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (40 lines)

> > "Andrew MacPherson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> [email hidden] (jeffareid) wrote: >> >>> Youtube has no ability to screen the actual video content with some >>> sort of AI viewer. >> >> Perhaps not viewer, but there may be an AI listener. I've had movie >> soundtracks >> rejected twice within seconds of uploading. They either have a huge team >> of people >> monitoring things, or some kind of automated process to filter out at >> least some >> well known tracks with distinctive musical 'signatures'. >> >> Anyway, this is a side issue. The bottom line in all this is that forums >> are not >> democratic; they don't have to be 'fair' (whatever that means) and they >> must be a >> pain in the arse to run. I see people like yourself making that harder, >> not easier. >> That seems, at the very least, impolite given that it's a free service. >> > > They may not be fair or democratic, but they should be, only because that > is best and easiest. Seriously, if it's easy and the best way to go, how > can a person go wrong? > > As to the forums being a pain to run, you can't voluntarily decide to put > up a forum, and then complain about what a hassle it is. People are > oftentimes that way: they give something up voluntarily, and then expect > some sort of return. > > To the "free service" thing, RSC will soon cost. They haven't gone > through all this crap out of their heart's goodness. Within a year RSC > will cost, period. If there is money to be made, all the spirit goes out > of it. > >

You have no proof that RSC will become a pay service, so shut up.

"David Fisher's Left Testicle" <dfg.myass@aol> wrote in message news:n9f_l.2$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (27 lines)

> > "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:2Xa_l.345611$[email hidden]... >> >> "David Fisher's Left Testicle" <dfg.myass@aol> wrote in message >> news:N6mZl.18428$[email hidden]... >>> >>> "jeffareid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>> news:egfZl.49230$[email hidden]... >>>>> And do I seriously have to agree to the so-called "terms" every time >>>>> I'm at a new forum for the first time? >>>> >>>> < General rule #5: >>>> < All serious complaints about staff or users should not be >>>> < publically posted by members. >>>> >>>> So non serious complaints about staff are OK then? >>>> >>> That's the sort of thing only a cunt would do. >> >> You have a serious problem. I wonder if you'd talk the same if >> face-to-face. >> >> I doubt it. It's nice and safe to talk like a bigshot when you have the >> Internet behind which to HIDE. >> > Let's meet up then. I'm in the UK. Where are you?

Oh, now you're nice. Do you actually think I'd meet up with some WHACKO who probably would need a piece to fight with, who couldn't fight on his own, who wouldn't be willing to go one-on-one, without props? But anyhow, I used to live next door to you, believe it or not. I see how you're thinking, though. And mulling over all this, I think you'd better stay behind your firewall. It's safer there, and you won't get yourself killed. Alan

"Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bby_l.164697$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (41 lines)

> > "David Fisher's Left Testicle" <dfg.myass@aol> wrote in message > news:n9f_l.2$[email hidden]... >> >> "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:2Xa_l.345611$[email hidden]... >>> >>> "David Fisher's Left Testicle" <dfg.myass@aol> wrote in message >>> news:N6mZl.18428$[email hidden]... >>>> >>>> "jeffareid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>>> news:egfZl.49230$[email hidden]... >>>>>> And do I seriously have to agree to the so-called "terms" every time >>>>>> I'm at a new forum for the first time? >>>>> >>>>> < General rule #5: >>>>> < All serious complaints about staff or users should not be >>>>> < publically posted by members. >>>>> >>>>> So non serious complaints about staff are OK then? >>>>> >>>> That's the sort of thing only a cunt would do. >>> >>> You have a serious problem. I wonder if you'd talk the same if >>> face-to-face. >>> >>> I doubt it. It's nice and safe to talk like a bigshot when you have the >>> Internet behind which to HIDE. >>> >> Let's meet up then. I'm in the UK. Where are you? > > Oh, now you're nice. Do you actually think I'd meet up with some WHACKO > who probably would need a piece to fight with, who couldn't fight on his > own, who wouldn't be willing to go one-on-one, without props? > > But anyhow, I used to live next door to you, believe it or not. > > I see how you're thinking, though. And mulling over all this, I think > you'd better stay behind your firewall. It's safer there, and you won't > get yourself killed. >

No tools, no backup and I'm willing to travel with in the Uk You're move, cunt face.

"PlowBoy," <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:h195pi$d87$[email hidden]... > RAS/usnet is near DEATH. AT&T to stop access to ALL usenet, that is a > pretty big group of people. > Really, now, who really uses their ISP to browse usenet? I stopped doing that years ago, a year or two before TimeWarner stopped usenet access. I'll say it again, though: RAS will be a paid deal in less than a year. That annoying thing you get about donating money for these poor souls is only the beginning. I think I've been banned three or so times from RAS, all of them for railing against some title. RAS is like FOX News, hiding behind its shield of phony democracy, firing off false bullets of truth Alan

Alan Bernardo wrote: > I'll say it again, though: RAS will be a paid deal in less than a year. T think you mean RSC. Much as I like to learn new words from Byron et al, I don't think I would pay for the pleasure...

"Tony R" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:xaR_l.12197$[email hidden]... > Alan Bernardo wrote: > >> I'll say it again, though: RAS will be a paid deal in less than a year. > > T think you mean RSC. Much as I like to learn new words from Byron et al, > I don't think I would pay for the pleasure... Yes, most of my posts are priceless I must say!

> Really, now, who really uses their ISP to browse usenet? I do. Cox cable supports it just fine. > > > RAC > > I think you mean RSC. > > Much as I like to learn new words from Byron et al, I don't think I would pay for the pleasure... > Yes, most of my posts are priceless I must say! Hey I've learned a new meaning for a word from Byron ... So in some areas, priceless has the same meaning as worthless?

you are unbelievable, since you dont nobody does? yeah right... "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:5eQ_l.179566$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > "PlowBoy," <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:h195pi$d87$[email hidden]... >> RAS/usnet is near DEATH. AT&T to stop access to ALL usenet, that is a >> pretty big group of people. >> > > Really, now, who really uses their ISP to browse usenet? I stopped doing > that years ago, a year or two before TimeWarner stopped usenet access. > > I'll say it again, though: RAS will be a paid deal in less than a year. > That annoying thing you get about donating money for these poor souls is > only the beginning. > > I think I've been banned three or so times from RAS, all of them for > railing against some title. RAS is like FOX News, hiding behind its > shield of phony democracy, firing off false bullets of truth > > Alan >

"PlowBoy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Ptk%l.363$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (24 lines)

> you are unbelievable, since you dont nobody does? yeah right... > "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:5eQ_l.179566$[email hidden]... >> >> "PlowBoy," <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:h195pi$d87$[email hidden]... >>> RAS/usnet is near DEATH. AT&T to stop access to ALL usenet, that is a >>> pretty big group of people. >>> >> >> Really, now, who really uses their ISP to browse usenet? I stopped doing >> that years ago, a year or two before TimeWarner stopped usenet access. >> >> I'll say it again, though: RAS will be a paid deal in less than a year. >> That annoying thing you get about donating money for these poor souls is >> only the beginning. >> >> I think I've been banned three or so times from RAS, all of them for >> railing against some title. RAS is like FOX News, hiding behind its >> shield of phony democracy, firing off false bullets of truth >> >> Alan >> >

I could say the same about what you say: since you do everyone does. Try and take a look at some of the statistic's of usenet browsing. You'll see that most are using Google and other Web-based programs to read and post on Assent. It's really much simpler, especially since many do not know how to configure a mail client anyhow, in order to access Usenet. And really, from your own nasty habit of top-posting, you don't know a whole lot about anything. But ISPs, knowing full well that users can access Usenet in other ways and probably do, have seen that it is too costly to maintain servers for such things. (And think about this also-- how many people of all Internet users even know that Usenet is? ) Alan

Sorry, I had to wipe your post clean, since I couldn't understand a word you said/meant/wrote/scribbled Alan

"Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Yqy%l.169152$[email hidden]... > Sorry, I had to wipe your post clean, since I couldn't understand a word > you said/meant/wrote/scribbled > > > Alan > Talking to yourself again.