Timeline for Is it legal to post content from overclock.net, if it is against their TOS? [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:04 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/
|
|
| May 11, 2012 at 13:06 | comment | added | user4951 | This raises an interesting question. Why not everyone put a note in front of their house saying that those who took away stuff without permission agree to pay $1 million. For that to work terms must be reasonable or something. | |
| Dec 15, 2011 at 8:18 | comment | added | Daniel Beck Mod | Wow. How this post, while being nothing but helpful, gathered 8 down votes is completely beyond me. It is a legitimate question and only helped SE possibly avoid legal trouble. // Edit: Aaah yes. Should have looked at the editing history... | |
| Dec 15, 2011 at 0:21 | comment | added | studiohack Mod | @slhck see my answer below. in general, I would say to keep the copy/pasting to a minimum, or just copy the most needed parts (and keep it brief), and include attribution... but, if the TOS prohibits it, then don't do it. Check first or paraphrase/summarize. | |
| Dec 15, 2011 at 0:14 | history | closed | studiohackMod | too localized | |
| Dec 15, 2011 at 0:14 | answer | added | studiohackMod | timeline score: 7 | |
| Dec 15, 2011 at 0:08 | history | reopened | studiohackMod | ||
| Dec 15, 2011 at 0:04 | history | closed | studiohackMod | too localized | |
| Dec 15, 2011 at 0:04 | history | reopened | studiohackMod | ||
| Dec 15, 2011 at 0:03 | history | closed | studiohackMod | not constructive | |
| Dec 15, 2011 at 0:03 | comment | added | Evan Carroll | Apparently, the official position is to do what the law requires of them and then to close the discussion and burn the evidence like the Vatican in the 1500s. | |
| Dec 15, 2011 at 0:03 | history | reopened | studiohackMod | ||
| Dec 15, 2011 at 0:02 | comment | added | slhck | @studiohack So what's the official position? | |
| Dec 15, 2011 at 0:01 | comment | added | studiohack Mod | Post has been deleted. | |
| Dec 15, 2011 at 0:01 | history | closed | studiohackMod | noise or pointless | |
| Dec 14, 2011 at 23:50 | answer | added | Simon Sheehan | timeline score: 6 | |
| Dec 14, 2011 at 23:49 | history | edited | slhck | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Dec 14, 2011 at 23:47 | comment | added | slhck | As for the legal parts: Do you think it's justified in the sense of "fair use"? Also, I don't think adding these tags was really necessary. We should be talking about all users, not blame a single one. | |
| Dec 14, 2011 at 23:44 | comment | added | slhck | I don't know if that's the main point of this post, but for what it's worth: I don't see the value in a complete copy & paste answer if the content could as well be summarized and linked to. Regardless of who posted it. We also don't copy Wikipedia articles as full answers. At least I hope that's not what we encourage. | |
| Dec 14, 2011 at 23:35 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | One has to wonder: If this had been someone else other than Jeff Atwood, would you have even bothered bringing this up? | |
| Dec 14, 2011 at 23:34 | comment | added | ChrisF | Haven't you just done the same by quoting their TOS? | |
| Dec 14, 2011 at 23:31 | history | asked | Evan Carroll | CC BY-SA 3.0 |