Preventing forum posts from becoming 'news'

[richkae]

The more successful Tesla gets, the dirtier the other side will play. Not every negative article is a fabrication, there are valid criticisms, the car is not perfect - nor is the company. But I expect more negative articles that are based on lies, misrepresentations, and cherry picked data - and from "journalists" more clever than Broder.
Without Tesla we would live in a 2013 where almost nobody believes there is an alternative to gasoline.
The automotive establishment and Big Oil do not fear Tesla's 20000 cars per year. The fear the idea of Tesla, and how it threatens the huge tax breaks they covet, the preferential treatment they get, and the blind acceptance they enjoy in the trifecta of inevitability ( death, taxes, gasoline ).
I will eventually die, I grudgingly pay my taxes, but I no longer need gasoline.

 

[stevezzzz]

All my old posts show the updated signature.

My old posts don't show an updated signature: only those I posted yesterday and today do. Which may be due to the fact that, until yesterday, I had no sig block at all.

 

[bonnie]

I misspoke. I had looked back a day or so & saw the updated signature. I didn't check back further than that. I wonder what the algorithm is that determines which older posts are updated with the new signature.

 

[dpeilow]

From Digital Gains Help Newspaper Circulation Figures - NYTimes.com it seems half the readership is the print version. How likely are the to come here...?

 

[artsci]

The more successful Tesla gets, the dirtier the other side will play. Not every negative article is a fabrication, there are valid criticisms, the car is not perfect - nor is the company. But I expect more negative articles that are based on lies, misrepresentations, and cherry picked data - and from "journalists" more clever than Broder.
Without Tesla we would live in a 2013 where almost nobody believes there is an alternative to gasoline.
The automotive establishment and Big Oil do not fear Tesla's 20000 cars per year. The fear the idea of Tesla, and how it threatens the huge tax breaks they covet, the preferential treatment they get, and the blind acceptance they enjoy in the trifecta of inevitability ( death, taxes, gasoline ).
I will eventually die, I grudgingly pay my taxes, but I no longer need gasoline.

Amen! And I would ad advertisers and the media they advertise in to the list of of those who are threatened big time by the very idea of Tesla.

 

[GSP]

Amen! And I would ad advertisers and the media they advertise in to the list of of those who are threatened big time by the very idea of Tesla.

Car dealers as well!

GSP

 

[jhs_7645]

I think the only way to really solve this is to put all of the content behind a membership wall (which would make it impossible for guests to browse the content, which would be sad), and then, as a condition of a membership agreement, you agree not to republish the content. Not a pleasant solution, but I think it's the only way to stop it.

 

[jerry33]

I think the only way to really solve this is to put all of the content behind a membership wall (which would make it impossible for guests to browse the content, which would be sad), and then, as a condition of a membership agreement, you agree not to republish the content. Not a pleasant solution, but I think it's the only way to stop it.

You could also put any controversial subject as members only the way the TM forum does. It would be a moderator nightmare though. So the two practical solutions are:

1. Use a membership wall.

2. Do nothing and let the owners debunk the FUD on a one-by-one basis.

All new technology has gone through this same stage: radial tires and hybrids most recently.

And bear in mind: People who are against EVs are going to be against EVs for a very long time. No need to be concerned about them. People who are on the fence will put more emphasis on what they hear from actual owners rather than what they read in the media. The more actual owners there are, the less effect the media has.

 

[tezco]

.

(Had to delete the "reply with quote" quote due to the disclaimer at the bottom!)

 

[sp4rk]

I misspoke. I had looked back a day or so & saw the updated signature. I didn't check back further than that. I wonder what the algorithm is that determines which older posts are updated with the new signature.

Very odd. I would think that rather than wasting database text space, your signature would display based on a pointer. Not copy and paste every time you post.

 

[markb1]

I misspoke. I had looked back a day or so & saw the updated signature. I didn't check back further than that. I wonder what the algorithm is that determines which older posts are updated with the new signature.

When you make a post, there's a check box for showing your signature. Presumably, if you don't have a signature, that check box doesn't show and your posts are entered into the database without that flag. If you go back and edit a post (in advanced mode) you can retroactively turn on that flag. I think all of your old posts with that flag will display your updated signature.

 

[Discoducky]

Is there a policy for the site all up that would cover our posts? Or it open season when posting to an open forum? I'm wondering if anything would stand up in court or could actually be used to scare the guilty.

 

[NigelM]

Check out the NYT ToS here: http://www.nytco.com/terms_of_use.html

Their copyright restrictions are so tight I can't even quote the restrictions paragraph here. Kinda laughable considering the way they treat TMC members.....

 

[bonnie]

Check out the NYT ToS here: http://www.nytco.com/terms_of_use.html

Their copyright restrictions are so tight I can't even quote the restrictions paragraph here. Kinda laughable considering the way they treat TMC members.....

Tweet!

 

[sp4rk]

I'd love an IP attorney comment on this ... "Trademarks, Copyrights and Restrictions. This site is controlled and operated by The New York Times Company. All material on this site, including, but not limited to, images, illustrations, audio clips, and video clips, is protected by copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property rights that are owned and controlled by The New York Times Company, its related companies or by other parties that have licensed their material to The New York Times Company. Material on this Web site is solely for your personal, non-commercial use. Such material may not be copied, reproduced, republished, modified, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way, including by e-mail or other electronic means, without the express prior written consent of The New York Times Company. Use of the materials on any other Web site or networked computer environment, or use of the materials for any purpose other than personal, non-commercial use is a violation of The New York Times Company 's copyrights, trademarks and other proprietary rights, and is prohibited. "

Sounds as if they're usurping "our" words here. Plagiarism? Claiming copyright on others work here?

 

[ElSupreme]

I'd love an IP attorney comment on this ... "Trademarks, Copyrights and Restrictions. This site is controlled and operated by The New York Times Company. All material on this site, including, but not limited to, images, illustrations, audio clips, and video clips, is protected by copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property rights that are owned and controlled by The New York Times Company, its related companies or by other parties that have licensed their material to The New York Times Company. Material on this Web site is solely for your personal, non-commercial use. Such material may not be copied, reproduced, republished, modified, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way, including by e-mail or other electronic means, without the express prior written consent of The New York Times Company. Use of the materials on any other Web site or networked computer environment, or use of the materials for any purpose other than personal, non-commercial use is a violation of The New York Times Company 's copyrights, trademarks and other proprietary rights, and is prohibited. "

Sounds as if they're usurping "our" words here. Plagiarism? Claiming copyright on others work here?

You just 'copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, and distributed' a subset of 'All material on [NYT's] site'. OH NOES!

- - - Updated - - -

Check out the NYT ToS here: http://www.nytco.com/terms_of_use.html

Their copyright restrictions are so tight I can't even quote the restrictions paragraph here. Kinda laughable considering the way they treat TMC members.....

I guess SteveZZZZ should take down his post now that it is property of the NYT!

 

[Doug_G]

That copyright statement is probably just as unenforceable as anything we'd put on this forum. "Fair Use"

 

[Arnold Panz]

That copyright statement is probably just as unenforceable as anything we'd put on this forum. "Fair Use"

This is pretty much the case. The NY Times (or TMC) can say that they're going to cut off your finger every time you quote a word or phrase from them, but the reality is that much of this isn't enforceable (which is fortunate in the case of our fingers!). This is particularly true for all of us posting here from other websites like the NY Times (or, for example, sending notes to friends or posting on Facebook) because there is no commercial (i.e., money-making) purpose to what we are doing. That means we have pretty wide discretion on "fair use" and the Times (or TMC) would have a very tough time enforcing their Terms of Use. Of course, there is no harm for the Times (or TMC) to put in very strict TOUs, which is why they read much stricter than anything they'd ever enforce or attempt to enforce.

And while I am sympathetic and appreciative of everyone's efforts to thwart those who would otherwise quote you, it is unlikely that any individual at TMC has any ability to copyright their posts from this website. Arguably, TMC could come up with a policy covering the whole site, but it would be quite difficult to enforce, especially against a news organization like the NY Times as long as they were ostensibly using the post(s) for the dissemination of "news". If someone was just reprinting posts from TMC elsewhere on the web, that would presumably be actionable, but all the disclaimers that people are putting at the bottom of their signatures are about as enforceable as the Times' TOU, which is to say, not really enforceable at all other than in the most egregious of circumstances.

That said, I think everyone's diligence on this particular issue, especially Stevezzzz's, may make the Times think twice before blindly quoting people from TMC. I'm still not sure if it would be the greatest day, or saddest day, if they quoted "Arnold Panz" somewhere in the NY Times. I was sufficiently taken aback when it happened on Green Car Reports, but I think people recognize that people who post on message boards generally don't put their real names, and that's part of the benefit and drawback of trying to use information from websites like TMC in their reporting. We all know that the best information about Tesla is found here, so it may be unnecessary from an integrity perspective to get a "real" person's name to put next to a quote from the site. On the other hand, by referencing people who write here, the Times (and anyone else) is subject to the "15 year old in his basement" situation, where someone who claims to be one thing online turns out to be something else and the citation to the post becomes useless or, worse, misleading.

 

[gray]

This is an annoying development. The reality is now we cannot speak openly about the car for fear that some ass-hat fancies himself a journalist will misrepresent the information. I don't know how many of the "quotes" in that article were from before Tesla published the logs from the test car that, IMHO, clearly show Mr. Broder to be either incompetent or a liar. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's simply not very bright, btw.

Oh, and if anyone from the NYT reads this, you should know I'm deeply disappointed in your newspaper. Have the stones to come out and say when you've screwed up. In the mean time I'll be reading the Washington Post.

Oh, and you can damn well quote this post if you'd like.

Given the known "quality" of the NYT reporting that we have observed, can you imagine the quality/veracity of all the other reporting?

 

[jerry33]

(Had to delete the "reply with quote" quote due to the disclaimer at the bottom!)

Sorry about that. Disclaimer changed.