Jomarac5

quote: Seneca wrote:Is there an instant gremlin (emoticon) for a an exasperated "why do I waste my time" shrug?? I've been thinking the same thing lately. *****

quote: Seneca wrote:I find it odd that you post your questions here, if you are not interested in our input. Very, very odd. Why is this odd? Where's the problem if everyone else sees the answers to these questions? I know that I'm not the only one who would like to hear these answers. You're giving me your opinion on my asking the questions but you are not giving me the answers to the questions that I've asked, nor can you. *****

Seneca, I find it odd that you feel it necessary to reply to my queries that I ask of Groundspeak -- are they not capable of answering questions on their own? *****

Sorry Seneca, I don't buy that. Play straight and there's no need for misunderstandings or complicated language. In the above questions, I have not asked anything that compromises the Terms of Use. I only want to know if Groundspeak intends another purpose for the intellectual property that is collected and if they assume that the current TOU applies to all information collected since we began using the site -- even though the current agreement is not the one that most of us here agreed to. Why don't you quote and reply to my other two questions? Particularly: If there is in fact, no other use intended, then why not just say so? *****

In a funny way, Seneca, you're a funny guy. Where's the problem in answering the questions? Why don't people have a right to know if their intellectual propery is going to be used anywhere else? If there is in fact, no other use intended, then why not just say so? *****

quote: Team 360 wrote:Clearly stated in the Terms of Service, for all to read:... Let it go, man. Those aren't the Terms of Service that I agreed to when I joined the site. When the questions (2 posts above) are answered satisfactorily, I'll let it go. *****

Enough already. Why can we not get answers to the questions at hand? 1. Is there some other use planned for the intellectual property of those who use this site? 2. When did the terms of service (Terms of Use) take effect? 3. Are any pictures/data loaded before the TOS (TOU) grandfathered 'out' of those TOS(TOU)? -- In other words, is the intellectual property that we uploaded prior to the new TOU exempt from the current TOU? *****

quote: mckee wrote:As for why GC doesn't clearly state their stance and claimed rights, it's on the page where you click "I Agree" in order gain access to post on the forums. That people don't read it is the fault of the people. Wrong! The Terms of Use have changed since I agreed to the terms. What people don't know about is not the fault of the people. *****

quote: Mushtang wrote:Everyone here see's it. Obviously, some people still don't get it or your post wouldn't be here. <sigh> How about Groundspeak answering the questions above -- then there's no doubt about why they need our intellectual property. *****

quote: Pantalaimon wrote:Can you give me a "Worst Case Scenario" illustrating to me an example of how you could be damaged by the above-referenced sections of the TOS which concern you? I don't need to give a worst case scenario -- the whole point is that the ownership of our (yours as well) intellectual property is being 'taken' from us, and may be unwillingly be used for some other purpose (and there are lots of purposes unrelated to caching). What purpose that is, is immaterial -- Groundspeak does not have my permission to use my information other than for operating or promoting the site. Nor should they be asking or deceptively be trying to obtain it. Why is it that you have a difficult time understanding that your property is your own? The intellectual property that they are being less than up-front about telling you their intentions, is being taken from you with the slippery wording of the agreement. If there is no other planned purpose for taking the rights to our property, then why the need to have unlimited use to our property? Why don't they clearly state that the information will not be used for anything other than the operation and promotion of the site? Now do you see it? *****

quote: mckee wrote:Typically an attorney represents one side. In this case, it's geocaching.com. That may go a long way to explaining why the questions won't be answered: It is not in geocaching.com's best interests to do so. That doesn't mean there are sinister motives, only that the lawyer's advice is not to answer questions that could become problematic if those answers are changed later on. Oh, come on, if I ask a question about pretty much anything to do with policies of a business, I can expect a reasonably direct answer. And now, I've asked questions that don't require an interpretation of the TOU -- do you really think it unreasonable to have these answered? The safest bet, for everyone, including you and me, is to know what happens to your property if you upload images, etc, to share with others who participate in the activity. So far, this is not clear. Note that the poll now has 65% of all those that have responded, indicate that they very rarely or never read terms and conditions. Seems to me that lawyers count on people's ignorance to get this stuff past them unknowingly. As I've said before, wake up people -- you're being taken advantage of. So how about some answers to the reasonable questions that have been posed? *****

I received a reply from Groundspeak telling me that they cannot answer the three questions because "we are not permitted to interpret the Terms of Use Agreement or specific sections of the Agreement for you". What a croc. Are we expected to actually believe this? Are we to believe that Groundspeak doesn't understand their own Terms of Use? That their lawyer, who from my understanding is a partner in the company, can't answer a simple few questions regarding an agreement that he apparently wrote himself? At the very least, if they can't interpret their own Terms of Use then how will they know if anyone has broken it? This is rubbish, they expect us to think that they don't know what it means? What I got back as a reply was nothing more than a bad attempt to avoid a few simple questions. I asked 3 simple questions: 1. Why is the wording in paragraph 2 of section 5 necessary? 2. Is there some other use planned for the intellectual property of those who use this site? 3. If there is no other use planned, why the need for us to give you the rights to these photos? For the sake of avoiding an argument, let's drop the questions that might remotely have relevance to the Terms of Use Agreement -- and let's concentrate on question #2 -- this question doesn't ask for an interpretation of any degree. Is there some other use planned for the intellectual property of those who use this site? And while we're at it, let's ask a couple more questions that we presented by southdeltan in his post: When did the terms of service (Terms of Use) take effect? Are any pictures/data loaded before the TOS (TOU) grandfathered 'out' of those TOS(TOU)? -- In other words, is the intellectual property that we uploaded prior to the new TOU exempt from the current TOU? These seem like straight-forward questions to me that can be answered with a straight-forward answer -- the first and third questions require only yes or no replies. The second question is simply asking for a date to be specified. I've asked some pertinent questions regarding the ownership of my property and the property of others, as well, others have asked pertinent questions. I think we're entitled to know the answers as these answers effect all of us who upload information to the site. So Groundspeak, let's have straight-forward answers to the three questions above (in bold type) instead of a noncommittal or ambiguous reply. For those of you who only have an interest in slamming me for asking these questions -- please keep your childish opinions to yourself if you have nothing of value to add to this discussion (slamming anyone is of no value, if you really need to be told). *****

quote: Mr. Snazz wrote:Eh, stop whining, jerks. Oooohhh.... although the discussion has gone off topic for the past few posts (somebody please throw a bucket of cold water on the lawyers), that's hardly called for. BTW: It's well over a day and I've still not heard any response since I e-mailed the questions as per Hydee's suggestion. *****

Mushtang, chill out buddy. I think the posters are cool. *****

Who owns that photograph? *****

Huntforit, this is the second time that you've posted the picture from my profile page in these forums. Is there a point you're trying to make? Get it out man. *****

quote: Dagg wrote:Why can't we do the trip later in September? I suppose that we could if everyone wants to. Shall we hold off until the ban is lifted and reschedule then? *****

When someone says: "I have noticed that on these forums, what people say, is often not actually what they mean." What they actually mean is: "I tell you all the time how smart I am, but in reality, only I think I'm that smart but I tell you anyway because it helps to inflate my already inflated ego. In reality, I'm nothing but a low life ambulance chaser and I'm not really good at that either otherwise I'd be out helping people get a fair settlement for their suffering rather than spending all my time in the forums harrassing people. I have no idea what people are saying because I don't read their posts carefully enough and even then, I'll pick the most trivial aspect of their post to focus on. Oh, and don't let me forget that I feel compelled to take discussions off topic and then blame anyone who's trying to put it back on topic as the one who took it off topic." Thanks for starting this topic. It's a really good one. *****

quote: GS = Groundspeak Yes, of course. Thanks. *****

Pat, what is GS? I assume you meant GC? The problem runs much deeper than you express. I still don't have a reply to my e-mailed questions (as suggested by Hydee) to Jeremy. *****

quote: sept1c_tank wrote:The way I interpret it, anything on the internet is up for grabs as long as it is not used for profit, and causing no harm. NO. NO. NO. Please, tell me that you're joking. *****

How flattering. Someone looking up my old posts! Thanks! And you acuse me of creating a stir. *****

quote: TeamSJ1 wrote:Jomarac5, I think you are a moron out just to stir up trouble for attention. Thank you. You're entitled to think what you like. *****

Bad news folks... It looks like our overnight event cache trip is off. The Provincial government announced today that effective noon tomorrow until September 14 there is a backcountry travel ban in effect for southern BC. I called the Protection Branch at the Ministry of Forests and was told that access for day use is allowed but overnight camping at Granite Falls is not permitted. Kayaking in Indian Arm is still allowed at this time. I asked if stopping at beaches would be possible and was told that this was fine. When I enquired about venturing into the forested areas within 100 meters of the beaches, the woman that I spoke with didn't know and suggested that I call back tomorrow for an answer. I'll call tomorrow to get more information regarding kayak access and if it is permissible to reach the caches, would anyone be interested in doing a day paddle to Thwaytes Landing? This would mean that we would be able to pick up only four caches along the way. Give it some thought and if you're still interested in a day paddle (permission/conditions pending), post a note to the board here. I guess we'll have to re-schedule this overnight trip for the spring. Thanks to everyone for all the positive support for this event. For more info about the Backcountry Restriction (including a map of the effected areas) see the Ministry of Forests Protection Branch. ***** [This message was edited by Jomarac5 on August 28, 2003 at 07:44 PM.]

Was that a "public swipe"? And you've gone and hurt my feelings again. Can't we just be friends? *****