Park Slope Parents Threatening Posters/Bloggers!

They're still sore that everyone found out about the boy's blue hat.

Evilbert wrote: anything posted on a public accessible web page can be freely quoted verbatum on another site. It falls under "fair use" laws and it's perfectly legal as long as you are not using their post for commercial gain.

Dunno what they're getting all in a flap about, but there's nothing they can do about it.

It's legal, but it's also legal for them to make rules for their own site and to ban/expel anyone from the group who doesn't follow the rules.

I think the title of the thread and the outrage suggested here might be a bit misguided.

Isn't the policy cited just the usual, age-old S.O.P. for a private email list? Several private lists I've subbed to over the years have had the same policy (where the posting of private list messages externally without consent of the author is verboten and subject to disciplinary measures by listmoms).

Also, to be fair to actual circumstances here, the PSP list isn't a case of public web page mentioned above, where fair use may apply. It's a private list wherein (like so many private lists...) subscribers agree up front to the honor the terms of service.

Terms aside, isn't it just good netiquette anyway to seek permission to reprint in a public forum someone's remarks made on a private list?

Not sure what the hubbub is here. These sorts of rules have been considered private list best practices for years.

Am I missing something?

Subject: Idiots.

If only Britney Spears and George Bush had the power of the Park Slope Parents. Wouldn't their lives be great if no one could quote all of the moronic things they've said? They should speak to the Park Slope Parents to learn how to prevent people from quoting them.

A breach of that forum's rules may result in legal action (or, more likely, expulsion) against the member who broke the rules.

But Evilbert was entirely correct: if you copy a message (or, preferably, portions of a message), even a copyrighted (as all posted messages are) message on a members-only bulletin board, specifically for the purpose of criticism and commentary, that use does not constitute copyright infringement... it is specifically excepted from legal action as "fair use" under Section 107 of the United States Copyright Act:

"§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."

filmlover44 wrote: It's nice to imagine that you can control that many people, but the rule is impossible to enforce. How are they going to figure out who "leaked", particularly given the number of members that they have?

Tis the nature of the internet.

Right, everyone's on board with that. The PSP mods post quoted by the OP is the first to acknowledge all this:

imasloper's PSP message post wrote: "While Park Slope Parents is a members-only community, it is a very large community that is growing every day. At the last count we had over 5600 members on the main yahoo group and over 6100 on the classifieds list. This means that while our membership tends to be supportive and positive as a group, it is still possible, maybe inevitable, that some of what is discussed here will filter out. This is often benign but not always...

We take this very seriously. Quoting people without their knowledge or permission goes against the spirit of community most members of the list have helped to create. We can’t stop people from writing about discussions on the list; sometimes it’s a positive thing, but the moderators are ready to revoke the membership of people who abuse their access to the list by lifting posts without the author’s permission. Unfortunately, however, it is not always easy to tell who is responsible..

The next part here isn't a specific response to filmlover44, just some thoughts about the conversation in general:

Sure, it's easy and often amusing to poke fun at that particular list.

But consider these points:

1) Parenting is an awkward journey, to say the least, and any time someone exposes their weaknesses looking for more information, sure, they are easy to mock.

2) Sure, classic, silly argumentative scenarios play out repeatedly on the PSP list as in any other electronic forum. This is hardly novel or unique to PSP, as this has been going on for decades since email, USENET, BBSs, etc. existed. Why even here in these forums I think we may have had some of this from time to time. To demonize PSP specifically for this seems pointless and absurd to me, especially as PSP (as is the case of these forums) is just made up of people, warts and all.

3) Dopey comments come up everywhere (heck, I'm guilty of my own share over the years). Is that really such a big deal? So someone makes a remark that would appear to be clueless or otherwise somehow lacking in common sense. Is it better to respond with a smackdown and incite waves of negativity, or just respond with a thoughtful, helpful note (or not respond at all...)? Admittedly, this one's hard to manage. But still worth managing.

4) Let's remember that PSP is a list about parenting/childrens'/health issues. Confidentiality and trust rules apply in greater measure than a list about beanie babies. Actual names are required, and without PSP mods enforcing rules of good behavior, no one would feel confident enough to post the difficult and/or embarassing questions and answers that make it such a valuable parenting resource.

5) Lists and forums don't just exist by themselves. The successful ones are ones where the moderators are *active* in enforcing rules to maintain good behavior, or else the list/forum devolves to bad behavior, members abandon it and/or lose interest in posting, and the overall value of being there at all tanks. Ask any mod here for their opinion on this.

Eh, even those points are hardly news, and perhaps as old as the Internet itself, so my apologies for repeating what may be old information.

But with all the joys taken here in demonizing the PSP list at any given turn (and yes, there are things on it that make me laugh and/or gag, too), people seem to be missing these points and the overall big picture here.

I think the key issue here is one of courtesy and respecting the spirit of trust and confidentiality that private lists such as PSP (or other private matters lists such as health-specific ones, or whatever) seek to engender.

People seek to fault the enforcement, and not fully grasp why these rules are in place on a confidential matters list in the first place.

Oops. My apologies for the long post.

As always, your thoughts are appreciated.

booklaw,

IANAL, so thanks for providing specifics here, as these conversations often spin onward without the benefit of actual clarification of claims made.

Your citation there would seem to support posting externally if those criteria are satisfied.

So while it may perhaps be done by the letter of the law in certain cases, there are still some things that, while legal, still fail on levels of trust, ethics and the spirit of confidentiality needed to preserve conversations on such personal/private matters as parenting, health and childrens' issues.

Sure, many of the posts on PSP are not related to personal/private issues. But many are, and if you remove that implicit level of trust and confidentiality that all members agree to up-front, then there will be no more discussion of personal/private issues, and that resource will cease to exist for the very purpose it was created.

So, not to go off into a letter-vs-spirit of the law issue here, just to say that again, it boils down to individual actions here, and not the resulting actions or statements made by listmoms. If someone really dislikes PSP, they are welcome to unsub and still preserve the environment of trust that allows members to discuss private/personal matters therein.

Also, back to the OP's claims:

The great monolithic powers behind PSP aren't threatening any bloggers.

Unless I am mistaken, red herring legal assertions aside, all they said is (to paraphrase):

"People, this is your content, and this list intends to keep it private. If your post gets posted externally without your approval, please know that you have recourse and ability to make your own request that it be removed from wherever it was posted. And this violates key agreed PSP list policy, so let PSP mods know, and if the person in violation of terms is discovered, PSP mods will pursue appropriate course of action (i.e. warning or unsub)."

So, to recap:

- It's your stuff, and here's what you can do if you feel wronged
- PSP seeks to preserve confidential environment, but the most PSP can do is give warning or unsub someone if there is a problem

So I think people may be projecting more at PSP than is really there.

Again, it's hardly different than any other personal/private matters list or forum out there. Same rules, same occasional unfortunate behavior, no big deal.

**edited to correct a typo

Park Slope Parents and the term Control Freaks are synonymous. Maybe the should form a sub-chapter of the Illuminati to keep their society and it's pronouncements secret :twisted:

I've been a member of PSP for years, and I've found it very useful. I maximize its usefulness with a simple technique: I ignore annoying posts and threads and read what's relevant to me.

I disagree with the group's policy of signing posts, but it ain't my group, so I just follow the rules. I have found one of my posts quoted in print media, btw, without my permission -- and using my real name. It didn't bother me, because I've always known the group is not private. I know I can't post anything there that I wouldn't want my friends and coworkers to read in the Times a week later. Unfortunately, that restricts what I can post, but I learn a lot as a lurker and an occasional participant.

Ideally, the group would allow anonymous posts. They don't verify your identity, anyway, so what's the difference? I've never felt that anonymity is a barrier to trust and community online; quite the opposite, in fact. I've been in countless online forums in the last 15 years, all anonymous, and people still managed to show their personalities, build reputations, and even make real-life friends.

Anonymous or not, nothing written on Usenet or the Web or a Yahoo group is ever private (isn't that the point?) -- maybe some of the PSPers are more naive in this regard. There are certainly lots of them with a hair-trigger outrage reflex, as the hilarious "boy's hat" debacle proved. I'm guessing that Susan Fox has been subjected to some of this outrage, in the form of complaints about post-quoting, and is trying to do what she can to make the more skittish people feel safe in the group.

Anyway, warts and all, PSP has been very useful for practical questions and issues over the years. For the price, I can't complain too much.

"Brooke Lynn Knight" wrote: I
I disagree with the group's policy of signing posts, but it ain't my group, so I just follow the rules. I have found one of my posts quoted in print media, btw, without my permission -- and using my real name. It didn't bother me, because I've always known the group is not private. I know I can't post anything there that I wouldn't want my friends and coworkers to read in the Times a week later. Unfortunately, that restricts what I can post, but I learn a lot as a lurker and an occasional participant.or practical questions and issues over the years. For the price, I can't complain too much.

I agree with the policy of signing posts but ESPECIALLY for a parenting board. Signing posts cuts down on the hair trigger snide and snotty comments that some of the posts frankly probably deserve. BUT....when you are a new parent, you are very vulnerable and feeling judged from all sides. I think that PSP does what it can to keep down the number of nasty retorts helping to create an environment where people feel they can ask questions.

pitu wrote: [quote=Carnivore]They're still sore that everyone found out about the boy's blue hat.

How do you know it was a boy's hat?

thank you and good night ladees and gentlemans!

OBVIOUSLY it was a boy's hat. It was blue, right? And what girl would wear a hat like that

Hey, I was shocked to see that they have 5,ooo+ members. Are there REALLY that many parents in Park Slope? Wozers!