Timeline for What to do with stolen answers?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 25, 2015 at 18:27 | answer | added | KGIII | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 18, 2015 at 0:19 | answer | added | Jorge Castro | timeline score: 9 | |
| Nov 15, 2015 at 5:29 | comment | added | muru | @Tobias Ownership is important for attribution. I don't see what the revocability of a licence has to do with attribution requirements. When it lists a question title in the HNQ, a) they're linking to my content, which has so far been considered permissible fair use, and b) my post remained attributed to me. In case you haven't understood the point of linking to Meta Stack Exchange, let me spell it out: it's a Q&A site. Ask a question. | |
| Nov 14, 2015 at 17:40 | comment | added | Tobias | @muru You've linked that twice, and I'm not sure what you want me to read, but I went ahead and read: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/18221/… - I don't see how this makes me 'wrong'. I don't see how ownership is relevant at all once you've licensed Stack Exchange to use it, for ever. | |
| Nov 14, 2015 at 17:39 | comment | added | Tobias | @muru put aside ownership for a second then, as it is completely irrelevant once you've irrevocably licensed Stack Exchange to use it. You can not demand that Stack Exchange ever remove the content. In fact, the only thing you can demand, is that they remove your name. Now with this is mind, how can it ever be considered 'stealing' your content when Stack Exchange then, through a user or a robot or whatever, moves your content, modifies it or perhaps even lists it in 'Hot Network Questions'? You have licensed Stack Exchange to do just that. | |
| Nov 14, 2015 at 17:20 | comment | added | muru | @Tobias I still think you should check Meta Stack Exchange. Content ownership and licencing has been discussed before, though I don't think I've seen a post discussing attribution requirements. | |
| Nov 14, 2015 at 17:02 | comment | added | muru | @Tobias Your understating is flawed, as is evinced by your repeated assertion that the user isn't the owner of the content they post. That is false. Irrevocable licences are not transfer of copyright. There ToSs which require that, Stack Exchange's is not one of those. | |
| Nov 14, 2015 at 17:00 | comment | added | muru | @Tobias It is implied when you said "The content is irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange - which effectively means you don't own it." The answer remains the same: by not providing attribution. | |
| Nov 14, 2015 at 16:58 | comment | added | Tobias | @muru I have not once said that Stack Exchange is the owner. I don't appreciate you pointing out that my understanding is flawed, and then not caring to explain to me why you think so, that is not at all useful. My question still stands. How can re-posting a comment as an answer ever be considered 'theft' on a network such as this? | |
| Nov 14, 2015 at 16:51 | comment | added | muru | @Tobias Stack Exchange is not the owner, as it cannot relicence the content under different terms. I can, to someone not already covered by the licence. You should also read the related questions on Meta Stack Exchange. Your understanding is flawed. | |
| Nov 14, 2015 at 16:49 | comment | added | Tobias | @muru The content is irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange - which effectively means you don't own it. Having read stackexchange.com/legal a dozen times, I understand that any content another user has added to the site, may me modified, reposted elsewhere on the network etc. without attribution. It specifically mentions attribution for reposts off the network. | |
| Nov 14, 2015 at 16:44 | comment | added | muru | @Tobias violate the conditions of a licence, then its theft. The content is licenced to Stack Exchange, but the user remains the owner. Stack Exchange does require attribution. Who said it doesn't? | |
| Nov 14, 2015 at 16:35 | comment | added | Tobias | @muru that hardly constitutes 'theft', but let me rephrase my question: How can someone steal that which you do not own? When someone posts in the comments, the content is licensed to Stack Exchange under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license. When Stack Exchange doesn't require attribution when subscriber content is being used on-site - how can this ever be theft? | |
| Nov 14, 2015 at 12:36 | comment | added | muru | @Tobias By not providing attribution, for one. | |
| Nov 13, 2015 at 11:42 | comment | added | Tobias | Could you please clarify how it is possible to 'steal' an answer under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license? | |
| Nov 12, 2015 at 8:48 | answer | added | muru | timeline score: 11 | |
| Nov 11, 2015 at 20:14 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Nov 11, 2015 at 20:11 | answer | added | Fabby | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 11, 2015 at 19:35 | history | asked | user364819 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |