Posts by Eric Newman75

Nah. I see where you're coming from, but unlike you, I actually use the word "owner" in its literal sense. Let’s try this again.

Under U.S. copyright law, the creator always remains the owner of their work, while they merely grant the publisher the right to exploit it.

Honestly, even most American journalists don't grasp this, so they end up signing contracts that hand over their entire copyright to publishers. That makes those kinds of deals incredibly easy to overturn in court because, by definition, the author is the copyright holder. It's their intellectual property.

Oops, posted this in the wrong thread. 😁

So, yesterday I ended up owing Lisa Hernandez a follow-up; it’s about copyright issues, so I’ll just touch on that briefly. I’ve polished the wording of the response I received, but the actual substance remains exactly the same:

"Copyright doesn't need its own special category of protection; any work is protected the moment it’s published. That means that one user over at Lineage—whose text was shamelessly lifted by The New York Times (who then had the nerve to credit it as being taken from the Lineage forum in their digital edition, much like how they used to foolishly claim in print that photos were pulled from Flickr)—actually has a solid case for a lawsuit.
Basically, the forum maintains certain rights so it can keep posts publicly accessible, but that doesn't give the site owner carte blanche to do whatever they want. For instance, when editors from Cosmopolitan were picking stories based on what Šupendar wrote, they actually made sure to get permission from every single individual author."

Reddit isn't the owner of what you post there.

Look, as long as you aren't explicitly blurring the line between the person and their work—or at least until it becomes dead easy to point a finger at someone specific—I’d argue this falls more under the category of provocation or just straight-up trolling rather than a privacy violation. If that's the case, we don't need to ban it; we just need to steer the conversation back on track.

I get it, though. Posting on a site like Reddit always carries that risk of being identified. Everyone is out here venting about their own lives, talking about people they know, sharing personal anecdotes. If someone happens to recognize themselves in a story, well, shit happens. It’s probably just an unavoidable part of the game.

casualwolf12 said:negligible really, I mean...

In principle, yeah. I remember reading somewhere that if you actually offer a solid quality guarantee, only about 15-20 percent of customers will bother returning a product. But here's the kicker: they only do it because they're genuinely unhappy. So, essentially, only two out of ten people are actually going to take advantage of the chance to get a freebie out of you. Why? Because most people aren't just looking to rip you off; they generally live by that "I bought it, I own it" mindset. They trust their own judgment and honestly, they feel a bit embarrassed if they have to come back complaining. It’s a whole ego thing.

Susan Price30 said:Don't think I'm falling for those obvious tricks of yours,🤣 don't you worry 😉 :not jealous:

What do you mean by control over the computer??? If that's how it starts, we'll have to move. To a different continent.

What are you even talking about? I said what I said. Period. 🤷

Honestly, studies show that less than ten percent of people are just perpetually miserable. No matter what you do, it’s never quite enough for them. But I’m telling you—they’re a tiny minority.

Susan Price30 said:What link are you talking about? I was referring to an actual photo posted by a moderator—someone who isn't even on the team anymore after being kicked out (though that wasn't because of my photo or anything related to the issues I had with them there, among other things). I mean a photo, not a link to a thread.

Also, people were being handed out certain IP addresses that they shouldn't have cared about, all while the moderators were debating the reasons behind someone's ban and so on (and I'm just now realizing all of that is considered forbidden practice here).

I'm honestly just hijacking your thread to say that Mortitia has incredible legs. No offense intended, I'm just sitting here watching the game with a drink in my hand. Hopefully she isn't watching it either. 😍

Charles Morris4 said:Basically, in an attempt to not drag things out or just keep repeating the same old info—which is why we were all using code words—I wasn't being super specific about what I meant when I called you out, and honestly, I wasn't totally clear either about what I thought you were getting at 😁
So we ended up just guessing, and well, here we are with a whole new thread.

Look, arguing over ownership, what can be said about whom, where, how, who’s responsible, or what actually counts as private... in my book, debating that shouldn't strip away any basic human decency. When I say that, I mean people should be able to look at the bigger picture instead of just clinging to the rulebook (even if I've been acting a bit thick lately regarding following the rules).

What I mean is—technically speaking—someone might actually have the right to post something about someone else, but that doesn't mean it's something we should just tolerate if you step back and look at the context. Rules are fine and all, but without context, they're pretty much useless.

Edit: mistywolf17 — props to the mod move (just so it's not like every single comment is negative 😬)

I couldn't agree more—this forum is a living, breathing community of actual people.

Lisa Hernandez3 said:You’ve brought up that situation involving N'dugu more than a few times now—I’m honestly not quite sure why it sticks in your mind so much. If I recall correctly, that whole thing only blew up because voices were being raised during an argument, right after he was stripped of his moderator status? He had been warned for calling Brodarac a "fat slob," if memory serves. It might serve as a decent case study regarding the leaking of private information—or perhaps they were just vague insinuations—but I feel like you're circling back to this same point a little too frequently.

When it comes to this forum, you’ve got the email address you registered with—though I guess things are a bit chaotic. You have Lastan sporting that blue color, then there are those people who insist on forcing their own specific fonts, and one user who actually wrote everything centered—which was a choice, to say the least. As for fra Hell, well, she was a total menace in every single incarnation. Those are just some of the quirks around here. Traces..

I wasn't actually trying to call him out by name. Honestly, I was being neutral on purpose—totally intentional. It’s pretty clear even Aisling didn't catch my drift. 😁 Man, he really just reminded me of myself. If he hadn't popped up here, I probably wouldn't have even given him a second thought.

I didn't really get my act together until I got a certain PM. Doesn't even matter who it was from.

The topic finally hit my inbox. 👋 😍

Look, I know I’m probably going to come off as some stubborn, difficult guy who just loves arguing on internet forums. 😬

Lisa Hernandez3 said:Copyright notice regarding texts and other materials posted on Reddit:

That’s a fair point. I suspect—and I'm fairly certain about this—that any wording suggesting posts belong to the platform (if such a thing is even stated) is intended to protect the users (and the site itself), rather than to claim ownership over someone's creative work. It’s pretty much the same with other services or private platforms—none of them actually take away your authorship rights, even if the material isn't strictly covered by copyright. There might be a practical headache when it comes to proving you wrote something if it lacks copyright protection, but that doesn't mean the authorship doesn't exist or was somehow lost—authorship is the foundation, while hosting and usage are just secondary layers beneath it.

I'm still waiting on a reply from Lastan via email; apparently, he has some issues with my claims (😁). Once I hear back, I might be able to get a bit more specific about all this. But honestly, since I actually keep drafts of my own work, it feels a bit ridiculous to expect corporations to go on some massive hunt just to prove I didn't write them. 😁

Charles Morris4 said:I'm with you on that. And hey, maybe I totally misread the situation myself.

Because what I'm actually looking at is this:
- Someone mentions they're married. Then, on a different thread, they don't just repeat that fact—they pile on a bunch of descriptors to basically tear them down.
- Someone else mentions they're divorced, and again, on another thread, they take that one fact and attach a whole string of insults to it.
The only real difference is that in the first scenario, those descriptions are mostly socially acceptable, so adding them feels almost like "enlightening" people, whereas in the second case, those same kinds of jabs feel totally brutal.

In neither case is anyone just sticking to the plain facts—instead, they're taking assumptions and twisting them however they want to suit their own agenda.

But honestly, this feels more like a deep dive into ethics rather than a discussion about the rules regarding commenting on mod decisions. Can someone start a new thread so we stop spamming this one? 😁

Alright, one last thing from me and then I'm done. My bad, obviously. 🙂

I messed up what I wrote above, and you just confirmed it—it did say he was married. That's point one.

Second, when I was talking about people dragging others, I wasn't really aiming at voden as much as I was at N'dugu and that one user who showed up here using the exact same rhetoric during the ZgSash thread. He dropped a few posts in a row, they got deleted, but they were up long enough that people started linking those insults back to the former moderator.

The guy got banned because his posts were genuinely toxic.

So, yeah. That's the deal.

mistywolf17 said:I can move all posts starting from post #28 over to a new thread, I just need someone to come up with a title for me. :I really am terrible at coming up with titles.

Doxing on Reddit. Does that work? 😁

Who exactly are you following online? Seriously, you missed the mark on this one. What "revolution" are we even talking about?

The woman is just laying out basic economic principles here: a happy customer is a loyal customer. Period. She’s talking about applying loyalty program logic to the media industry. She’s discussing the kind of necessary investments required to run a solid business—the kind of expenses that might look like costs upfront, but ultimately turn into pure profit.

Charles Morris4 said:So, what’s the actual difference between what he's saying and Euclid?

Disklejmer: I'm not a fan of either approach, honestly—but I don't see the distinction here, especially since both of them were just rehashing stuff that had already blown up in other threads.

Does the actual content being dragged out determine whether it's "primitive and cowardly" (man, that sounds weird to type out now)? Because, at the end of the day, the principle is exactly the same.

Are we even reading the same Reddit? It doesn't feel like it. Euclid claimed he was single in one thread, then suddenly he's head over heels for some girl in another. Then, in a third one, he mentions she reached out to him through a listing on Craigslist. Which prompted mistywolf17 to call him out for intentionally writing those "fluff" posts just because he knows that's exactly how you manipulate the women on here. And his response? He started throwing hexes at her as punishment. 😁 Like I said before when we were dissecting his behavior—this is pure malice. It's a conscious, deliberate attempt to hurt someone. It doesn't even matter if you can actually pull off the curse or not.

Look, sorry, but when you basically talk to yourself in a debate, I have every right to quote your own post back to you to show you that you’re—to put it politely—twisting the truth. That's how things have always worked on the IMF. It's standard practice on pretty much any forum, so I don't know why you're acting so surprised.

Euclid wasn't some victim in this situation, far from it. As it turned out later, there are definitely psychopathic elements to how he behaves. mistywolf17 was spot on. She tore him apart in three seconds flat.

Angela Ramos87 said:Wait, where’s that thread about legs and what they’re called? 🍿

I honestly can't be bothered to hunt for it right now—just peeking over at the game during this timeout—but just search for something like "LJES's most beautiful legs and toes" or whatever. And hey, maybe factor in their "expert" grammar skills too... they might have even written it as "most beautifullest." 😁

Kate Foster12 said:Not really—but at the end of the day, once you post a photo on Reddit, you can't complain when someone else decides to comment on it over in a different thread. This reminds me of that one debate where some guy tried to claim dainty had no right to share info he'd already leaked about himself elsewhere. 🤣

Euclid. : remembers everything :

Timothy Robinson2 said:Unless they get total control over your computer. Like, full access, including your mic and webcam 😬 ....

Not until the sequel drops—you actually need to know a bit more than that to pull stuff like that off. With an average firewall running, most of those users wouldn't even be able to "ping" you. I tested this back in the early broadband days, late 2004 or maybe early 2005 at the latest.

Hardly anyone had high-speed internet back then, and honestly, I was a total paranoid. I gave some guy my IP address just to see what would happen, turned on ZoneAlarm, and cranked the security settings to the absolute max. He couldn't find me at all.

Kate Foster12 said:Anyone who hasn't mastered basic internet etiquette should probably pick up a book on it immediately.

It’s wrong to dig up images from deleted threads—morally speaking, it just isn't right—but you're the one who posted that picture here in the first place.

Btw, if we're talking about that thread over on Reddit regarding footwear, that one hasn't been deleted. 😬

Is that the one where Morticia won? Honestly, I only caught a glimpse of her legs, but honestly, that was plenty for me. 😍

Susan Price30 said:🤣 Morticia won because she has the longest legs—she's nearly 6'3", so that's why. We actually ended up deleting some photos that were pretty stunning back when those "fan clubs" were starting to form on Reddit 😉 and things like that...

On topic—what I'm actually wondering about is whether mods are allowed to give out a user's IP address to someone else. Is that even something that's permitted?

It’s just not working. At least, it isn't for me.

Susan Price30 said:🤣 Morticia won because she has the longest legs—she's nearly 6'3", so that's why. We actually ended up deleting some photos that were pretty stunning back when those "fan clubs" were starting to form on Reddit 😉 and things like that...

On topic—what I'm actually wondering about is whether mods are allowed to give out a user's IP address to someone else. Is that even something that's permitted?

I swear, I misspelled her name twice—she completely drove me up the wall. And me? The guy who never makes a mistake? It’s embarrassing. Honestly, I'm just taking one for the team at this point. 😬

Kate Foster12 said:Anything you post on Reddit becomes the property of Reddit, not yours.

Jason Morgan said:How can anyone possibly claim those two things are even remotely similar? Honestly, I’d love to hear someone try to make that logic work. I am referring specifically to what was brought up on Reddit. If I were to post a photo of myself on a forum—and while I used the term "internet" generally, I am speaking strictly about forum culture—then yes, from an ethical standpoint, it is certainly not the right move. However, looking at it from a practical angle: once you have uploaded an image to a thread, how exactly do you intend to prevent someone else from simply reposting it in some random off-topic discussion? It seems like a bit of a lost cause, doesn't it? 🤷
I certainly concur that the move itself was absolute garbage, but honestly, there’s no reason to go airing your dirty laundry on a platform like this if you aren't prepared for people to actually see it. 🤷

Identity displays? Heavens, no.

I’m afraid I have to disagree, though perhaps my pessimism is showing. One simply cannot expect morality, ethics, or any semblance of a conscience to play a role once you’ve decided to broadcast your life to the entire internet. It’s a lost cause. Generally speaking, when people start throwing low blows and aiming to trample over someone just to score a cheap point, all bets are off. You can't really hold anyone to a standard that they've already abandoned for the sake of a headline.
Look, let’s be perfectly clear about this: nothing you post on Reddit, Facebook, or whatever other platform you frequent actually belongs to you, unless—and this is a big unless—it's protected by some specific copyright. I mean, honestly, if you post something on a forum, that's just your commentary. It isn't like you're posting a trademarked anthem from a pop star in Nashville or something. If you're quoting Eric Newman75's post on Reddit, for heaven's sake, that doesn't suddenly make it a proprietary brand owned by a major recording artist. It's just a post.

Actually, that’s not how it works. It’s not a settled issue here at all. I’ve got a million articles out there on various news sites and blogs that I’ve published under my own full name. Even when my contracts include clauses stating that the company owns the work, nobody in the universe can strip me of my authorship. Those are two completely different things. Plus, if I just tweak a few details, it’s technically no longer the exact same piece of writing. That’s exactly how my lawyer explained it to me, and it’s what the editor at the publishing house told me when he asked me to write a book. That's just one example.

I’d go with the second option—specifically the friend who thinks she can just slap a "patent" label on her designs and call it a day. It’s honestly kind of cute, but totally delusional. Any designer out there could hop onto her site, tweak a few minor details, and suddenly it's not even her protected work anymore. It's a total loophole.

It’s the exact same deal with photos as it is with anything else.

Susan Price30 said:The issue isn't my lack of caution; rather, it's that the community contest thread (which existed on a different sub-forum a few years back) was actually deleted to protect user privacy once the competition ended.

So, there isn't anyone digging through archives (or wherever) to repost a photo from a deleted thread. There's certainly no reason to post it in a completely different thread years later—unless someone is just doing it because they can.😉

(By the way, the photo had even been edited 🤦—some detail was messed up)

And this brings us right back to the core problem with these threads: double standards.

Aha, I get it now. You make a fair point—that’s a pretty shady move on his part. I honestly thought he just dug up an old photo, not that he went out of his way to resurrect one that had been deleted.

Jason Morgan said:Once you put a photo out there on the internet, the game is over. Period. Maybe 476 people on Reddit saw it, and maybe they decide to repost it just as easily. If you actually have a grievance against someone specific, then quit being vague—tell me who, what, and where.

Personally, I would never do something like that. I know this blogger who used to post photos of herself—pretty provocative stuff, too. 😉 She eventually shut down her whole blog, which to me is a crystal clear signal that she wants privacy. Even though she's gorgeous and, honestly, I wouldn't mind if those photos stayed up. 😍

I used the term "Reddit user," not "moderator." And look, moderators are just users too, so it stands to reason everyone deserves privacy when it comes to their personal business. I honestly don't see why people feel the need to dissect who's sleeping with whom or who's struggling financially. It's just unnecessary.

Anyway...

Susan Price30 said:^What about defamation by the moderators?

Or the leaking of private information without any consent from the users here.

(One moderator actually posted my photo on a thread without asking me, digging through archives just to find it.)

We also know of an instance where someone hijacked a username and posted work belonging to another active female user, yet that first person didn't even get a permanent ban—even after the original author explained everything regarding the identity theft.

How are basic user rights actually being protected here? That is a legitimate question.

Or are we looking at double standards again? Which is basically the point of this discussion—those rules preventing us from commenting on their work or their character anywhere except in one "designated spot" are just there to cover their own backs.

The users can never truly push back because they can't always prove certain irregularitiesin black and white. So, it turns out you really have to be extremely careful with your private info, email addresses, and the like, because there are all sorts of moderators (or former ones) around. Every user should be protected from such problematic or malicious moderators. Honestly, given the size and importance of this forum, people like that shouldn't even be moderators in the first place.

... if they had to dig through the archives, that means you posted it yourself. Just be more careful next time.