Youtube geocaching videos

[+thebruce0]

Lutefisk is too disgusting, how about sauerkraut?

Too hard to spell correctly. Do you really want to see new threads titled "Geocaching Sour Crouts Videos"?

Ok, so we've established it needs to be a reasonably phonetic name as well, then?

[Blue Square Thing]

Groundspeak seems to agree with the control freak cache owners who want to stop the natural sharing of information. They should realize that they are not going to stop spoilers.

"Control freaks"? I don't think that people that want to protect their work should be considered "control freaks", Toz. I think the situation is comparable to copyrights. You aren't going to stop copyright theft either, but that doesn't mean that those that want to should be considered "control freaks", nor that nothing should be done in an attempt to stop the problem.

 

OK - I've read these threads with some interest. I now have a specific question which touches on the exchange ^ here (which is the only reason I've quoted it).

 

The cache owner sets the cache and maintains it, sure. To what extent can they, therefore, restrict my right to freedom of expression?

 

On a forum they own, yes, I'm happy that it's their media and they can restrict any "right" I may claim. But on another forum or media? On my own website, for example? Are we really happy to go there?

 

Blimey.

[knowschad]

Groundspeak seems to agree with the control freak cache owners who want to stop the natural sharing of information. They should realize that they are not going to stop spoilers.

"Control freaks"? I don't think that people that want to protect their work should be considered "control freaks", Toz. I think the situation is comparable to copyrights. You aren't going to stop copyright theft either, but that doesn't mean that those that want to should be considered "control freaks", nor that nothing should be done in an attempt to stop the problem.

 

OK - I've read these threads with some interest. I now have a specific question which touches on the exchange ^ here (which is the only reason I've quoted it).

 

The cache owner sets the cache and maintains it, sure. To what extent can they, therefore, restrict my right to freedom of expression?

 

On a forum they own, yes, I'm happy that it's their media and they can restrict any "right" I may claim. But on another forum or media? On my own website, for example? Are we really happy to go there?

 

Blimey.

 

I love your avatar! It goes with your name well.

 

I think your question regarding freedom of expression has been asked and answered here a number of times already, and I'm not invested in this issue enough to want to repeat them or go back and search for them. Others seem to be, though, so I'm sure you'll get your answer.

[+Team Taran]

Groundspeak seems to agree with the control freak cache owners who want to stop the natural sharing of information. They should realize that they are not going to stop spoilers.

"Control freaks"? I don't think that people that want to protect their work should be considered "control freaks", Toz. I think the situation is comparable to copyrights. You aren't going to stop copyright theft either, but that doesn't mean that those that want to should be considered "control freaks", nor that nothing should be done in an attempt to stop the problem.

 

OK - I've read these threads with some interest. I now have a specific question which touches on the exchange ^ here (which is the only reason I've quoted it).

 

The cache owner sets the cache and maintains it, sure. To what extent can they, therefore, restrict my right to freedom of expression?

 

On a forum they own, yes, I'm happy that it's their media and they can restrict any "right" I may claim. But on another forum or media? On my own website, for example? Are we really happy to go there?

 

Blimey.

I think it depends on who you mean by they. Since the cacher created the cache and maintains it, I think they have a right to request that you not reveal information that is not on their cache page without permission especially if you are profiting by doing this. If you are talking about Groundspeak, they only get involved in one of these disputes if the two parties involved can't come to an agreement. Lackeys are not cruising the internet searching for spoilers so they can stifle free expression. The simplest solution is for those who want to post this kind of information on the web request permission before doing so. That way they won't run afoul of either the cache owner or Groundspeak.

[Mr.Yuck]

Groundspeak seems to agree with the control freak cache owners who want to stop the natural sharing of information. They should realize that they are not going to stop spoilers.

"Control freaks"? I don't think that people that want to protect their work should be considered "control freaks", Toz. I think the situation is comparable to copyrights. You aren't going to stop copyright theft either, but that doesn't mean that those that want to should be considered "control freaks", nor that nothing should be done in an attempt to stop the problem.

 

OK - I've read these threads with some interest. I now have a specific question which touches on the exchange ^ here (which is the only reason I've quoted it).

 

The cache owner sets the cache and maintains it, sure. To what extent can they, therefore, restrict my right to freedom of expression?

 

On a forum they own, yes, I'm happy that it's their media and they can restrict any "right" I may claim. But on another forum or media? On my own website, for example? Are we really happy to go there?

 

Blimey.

 

On another forum or medium? Yes. They've done it before, won't be the first time. I'm aware of a cacher who received the same exact ban (1 Month) for posting puzzle cache solutions to Facebook in early 2010. Over a year and a half ago. However, he just quietly accepted the ban, and didn't cause an International incident.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Mr.Yuck

[+Flintstone5611]

But why are we constituting this as spoiling a cache and not as flattery. When a CO creates a unique cache isn't it for the enjoyment of his/her fellow cachers? I really think there is a backwards spin on the efforts here. I feel that what was being done here was merely a case of admiration, not malicious unraveling of well laid plans. By allowing a large forum to see what was deemed as impressive to one geocacher, we are all able to marvel at the creativity of someone else in our realm of interest. If you don't want people to see it why would you publish it? Allowing anyone that wants to go and see your hide with little to no control of who will be going and actually manipulating the hide itself. I really just feel that it is a case of mistaken motivation. I would be honoured to have a cache of mine regarded as "worth letting people know about it". But that is just me.

[+Team Taran]

But why are we constituting this as spoiling a cache and not as flattery. When a CO creates a unique cache isn't it for the enjoyment of his/her fellow cachers? I really think there is a backwards spin on the efforts here. I feel that what was being done here was merely a case of admiration, not malicious unraveling of well laid plans. By allowing a large forum to see what was deemed as impressive to one geocacher, we are all able to marvel at the creativity of someone else in our realm of interest. If you don't want people to see it why would you publish it? Allowing anyone that wants to go and see your hide with little to no control of who will be going and actually manipulating the hide itself. I really just feel that it is a case of mistaken motivation. I would be honoured to have a cache of mine regarded as "worth letting people know about it". But that is just me.

Then when he contacts you to ask permission, you can say thank you very much. I'd be delighted. Someone else however may say no thank you.

[+tozainamboku]

While Groundspeak has every right to ban Sven for violation of the TOUs, this thread provides ample evidence, IMO, that there are people who want these spoilers. I haven't been convinced by any of the arguments why the cache owner's wishes should trump other cacher's wishes. To me the argument of respecting the desires of the cache owner is hollow, since to do so Sven would have to disrespect the desires of the many people who want him to keep these videos available.

Your the ice cream guy, so try this (non-ice cream, more real world):

 

Let's say I know your personal information (SSN, Driver's license, DOB, etc), by your reasoning I should share this as there are lots of people who would like to know and use said info in way you don't want (for the slow: identity theft). So why should I 'respect' your desire to keep it private, when there are many who desire to use it?

 

BTW copyright doesn't just cover monetary gain situations. Any intellectual propery is covered whether you profit from it or not. As a magician my act is copyrighted whether I get paid for a performance or not. Just because I've performed in public, no one has rights to the material without my say so.

That's going a little far - comparing spoiling a geocache to identity theft.

 

Tha magician bit is a little better. One could view the geocache as magic show. I'd like to know what your rights are as magician if someone stands up in your show and blurts out how you did that trick.

 

You say that your show is copyright, but what happens when another magician figures out how you did a trick. Can you prevent him from publishing how the trick is done? My guess is that magic is a lot like geocaching and magicians learn new tricks by watching others and then figuring out how they were done. If magicians really have such control over spoilers of their tricks circulating among others I'd be surprised.

 

Now, perhaps there is a magician's code of conduct saying you don't share the secrets of someone else's tricks - at least with non-magicians. And if so there may be some professional organization or web site that has a clause like the section in the Groundspeak TOUs that allows them to take some sanction against magicians who violate the code of conduct.

 

What you, and others, seem to be arguing for is a geocacher's code of conduct that says you shouldn't spoil someone else's geocache without permission. My guess is that a majority of geocachers might agree to such a code of conduct. However some may not feel that caches need the same protection as magicians, since people who used a spoiler still seem to enjoy finding caches and spoiler sites might have the effect of improving cache quality by giving ideas for clever hides. My concern is that without some consensus on what can or cannot be shared there will abuses of the TOUs where cache owners will complain about something that is not a spoiler.

[+tozainamboku]

On another forum or medium? Yes. They've done it before, won't be the first time. I'm aware of a cacher who received the same exact ban (1 Month) for posting puzzle cache solutions to Facebook in early 2010. Over a year and a half ago. However, he just quietly accepted the ban, and didn't cause an International incident.

Too bad. He should have made it an international incident. First of all what section of the TOUs was he in violation at the time. Now, at least, Grounspeak has a clause they can point to. Second, what sort of Facebook page was set up. Was it a public page that everyone could see or did you need to become a friend in order to see the solutions? A facebook page is just a way of sharing with your friend in this online era. It isn't fundamentally different than having an event and talking about caches with the people who attend the event. It isn't different that having your friend call you and ask for solutions. Just what is Groundspeak trying to stop?

[Mr.Yuck]

On another forum or medium? Yes. They've done it before, won't be the first time. I'm aware of a cacher who received the same exact ban (1 Month) for posting puzzle cache solutions to Facebook in early 2010. Over a year and a half ago. However, he just quietly accepted the ban, and didn't cause an International incident.

Too bad. He should have made it an international incident. First of all what section of the TOUs was he in violation at the time. Now, at least, Grounspeak has a clause they can point to. Second, what sort of Facebook page was set up. Was it a public page that everyone could see or did you need to become a friend in order to see the solutions? A facebook page is just a way of sharing with your friend in this online era. It isn't fundamentally different than having an event and talking about caches with the people who attend the event. It isn't different that having your friend call you and ask for solutions. Just what is Groundspeak trying to stop?

 

True, there would not have been, to my knowledge, a section of the TOU he was in violation of at that time. I do not know what type of Facebook page it was, whether it was his own personal space, or some sort of puzzle solving club. As a matter of fact, the whole thing was kept totally secret, and I only know about it myself through Geo-Gossip. But I can assure you the account was locked for a month, and I did witness that myself looking at the profile.

[+GeoBain]

Everyone realizes that Groundspeak defines Spoilers on every cache listing, right? Right where it says "**Warning! Spoilers may be included in the descriptions or links." there is a link to Groundspeak's glossary.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/glossary.aspx#spoiler

 

Spoiler

A spoiler is information that can give details away and ruin the experience of something. For example, telling someone the end of a movie before they see it. In geocaching, a spoiler gives away details of a cache location and can ruin the experience of the find.

[knowschad]

Everyone realizes that Groundspeak defines Spoilers on every cache listing, right? Right where it says "**Warning! Spoilers may be included in the descriptions or links." there is a link to Groundspeak's glossary.

 

http://www.geocachin...ry.aspx#spoiler

 

Spoiler

A spoiler is information that can give details away and ruin the experience of something. For example, telling someone the end of a movie before they see it. In geocaching, a spoiler gives away details of a cache location and can ruin the experience of the find.

 

As I've said before, a warning does not imply approval.

[+GeoBain]

Everyone realizes that Groundspeak defines Spoilers on every cache listing, right? Right where it says "**Warning! Spoilers may be included in the descriptions or links." there is a link to Groundspeak's glossary.

 

http://www.geocachin...ry.aspx#spoiler

 

Spoiler

A spoiler is information that can give details away and ruin the experience of something. For example, telling someone the end of a movie before they see it. In geocaching, a spoiler gives away details of a cache location and can ruin the experience of the find.

 

As I've said before, a warning does not imply approval.

 

????????

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

Y'all do realize that the sole purpose of this thread was to get more publicity for the spoiler site, right?

[+GeoBain]

Y'all do realize that the sole purpose of this thread was to get more publicity for the spoiler site, right?

 

Yes. I caught on to that a while back. But darn it all, folks kept saying Groundspeak needed to define the term spoiler and I couldn't help myself.

[+tozainamboku]

BTW copyright doesn't just cover monetary gain situations. Any intellectual propery is covered whether you profit from it or not. As a magician my act is copyrighted whether I get paid for a performance or not. Just because I've performed in public, no one has rights to the material without my say so.

Since I like the analogy between a cache spoiler and revealing how a magic trick works, I did a little more research.

 

Wikipedia has an article on intellectual rights to magic tricks.

 

IANAL, but based on my understanding, in the United States your magic act is not copyright simply because you performed it. It may be copyright if you have a written script that you follow or have video taped a performance. In fact you could write down a description of the tricks and register the copyright and receive protection akin to a choreographer copyrighting dance steps. Then someone else could not perform these same steps.

 

But in any case this doesn't seem to protect you from someone revealing how you do the tricks.

 

The tricks (if original) may be patentable. However, this does not protect them from exposure. It only allows you to prevent someone else from performing the trick. The method of the trick will be revealed in the patent, which is public information.

 

Trade secret law provides you some protection. You need to take reasonable steps to prevent others from figuring out your tricks, or use non-disclosure agreements when you reveal information that might be used to figure out the trick. I doubt many magicians would make audiences sign a non-disclosure agreement, but I bet these are used all the time with magician's assistants, back stage staff, and craftspeople who build the props.

 

As I speculated, the International Brotherhood of Magicians does have a code of practice which states:

All members of the International Brotherhood of Magicians agree to oppose the willful exposure to the public of any principles of the Art of Magic, or the methods employed in any magic effect or illusion.

 

The Brotherhood advises that any individual who is a professional or amateur magician should be aware that "exposing" the methods of an illusion may result in damage to their relations among other magicians.

 

"Exposure" is the word magicians use for "spoilers".

 

Interestingly this section of the code has an exception for sellers of magic tricks, though magicians consider that the seller should confirm that the buyer intends to learn and perform the trick for others and not just purchase the trick out of curiosity for how it is done. Perhaps GeocacheSpoilers needs to confirm that people who watch the videos intend to hide similar caches and are not just viewing them in order to get a smiley .

 

While magicians are mostly of the opinion that exposure is bad and should be subject to strict codes developed by magician's organizations, there are some who argue that this knowledge (particular for older established tricks) should be freely available.

Edited October 27, 2011 by tozainamboku

[+GeoBain]

 

As I speculated, the International Brotherhood of Magicians does have a code of practice which states:

All members of the International Brotherhood of Magicians agree to oppose the willful exposure to the public of any principles of the Art of Magic, or the methods employed in any magic effect or illusion.

 

The Brotherhood advises that any individual who is a professional or amateur magician should be aware that "exposing" the methods of an illusion may result in damage to their relations among other magicians.

 

I'm guessing this guy does not belong to the International Brotherhood of Magicians.

[+redsox_mark]

Everyone realizes that Groundspeak defines Spoilers on every cache listing, right? Right where it says "**Warning! Spoilers may be included in the descriptions or links." there is a link to Groundspeak's glossary.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/glossary.aspx#spoiler

 

Spoiler

A spoiler is information that can give details away and ruin the experience of something. For example, telling someone the end of a movie before they see it. In geocaching, a spoiler gives away details of a cache location and can ruin the experience of the find.

 

I think the problem is that it is very subjective. Where do you draw the line between "share your experience online" and posting a spoiler.

 

Clearly

 

• Describing or taking photos of the exact location of the cache
  
• Posting the answer to a puzzle
  

 

Are spoilers.

 

But to someone who doesn't want to know anything about the cache, logs which describe that you need to climb a mountain, walk over a narrow bridge, etc. could be seen as "spoilers". They give away some part of the experience. I think that is the reason for the warning; reading any logs may give away part of the experience. Otherwise logs would be very boring...

 

In the case of the nuclear bunker video (one of the ones in question), it doesn't (in my view) give away any more than is on the cache page or in the logs and photo gallery.

[cezanne]

Everyone realizes that Groundspeak defines Spoilers on every cache listing, right? Right where it says "**Warning! Spoilers may be included in the descriptions or links." there is a link to Groundspeak's glossary.

 

http://www.geocachin...ry.aspx#spoiler

 

Spoiler

A spoiler is information that can give details away and ruin the experience of something. For example, telling someone the end of a movie before they see it. In geocaching, a spoiler gives away details of a cache location and can ruin the experience of the find.

 

As I've said before, a warning does not imply approval.

 

I thought that the inten of GeoBain here was to tell us that Groundspeak has a definition for spoiler or at least something that can be seen as definition. This becomes relevant as some argue here that the ToU might lead to cache owners to complain about issues that are not spoilers. In my opinion, this is no issue as Groundspeak can judge whether they regard something as spoiler in case a cache owner complains.

[+thebruce0]

Spoiler, ultimately, will be whatever the CO feels "spoils" the intended geocache/puzzle experience. Groundspeak will decide likely on a case-by-case basis what they feel is requiring of additional action on their part if/when they receive a complaint. And much like guidelines, I would think they'll take a "no precedent" approach. They'll deal with what they feel needs dealing with.

 

There is no constant definition of a "spoiler" in the context of this issue. Forget about defining it. The issue is when a CO feels that someone shares information about a cache that "spoils" the experience they want to provide geocachers who take up the task of logging it.

 

It's really not that hard to grasp.

 

Many COs want to retain the integrity of that experience by making it hard for stumped players to circumvent it by searching for solutions online. That's their prerogative. Other COs don't really care, and will be honoured when people enjoy their cache so much they share it (even while blatantly spoiling it in some cases).

 

Who are you to tell a CO they're wrong for caring about the integrity of their puzzle or hide? That is the attitude that can get you targeted by Groundspeak.

[knowschad]

Everyone realizes that Groundspeak defines Spoilers on every cache listing, right? Right where it says "**Warning! Spoilers may be included in the descriptions or links." there is a link to Groundspeak's glossary.

 

http://www.geocachin...ry.aspx#spoiler

 

Spoiler

A spoiler is information that can give details away and ruin the experience of something. For example, telling someone the end of a movie before they see it. In geocaching, a spoiler gives away details of a cache location and can ruin the experience of the find.

 

As I've said before, a warning does not imply approval.

 

????????

 

It means, a warning does not imply approval. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough about that.

 

Please see post #523

Edited October 27, 2011 by knowschad

[knowschad]

 

As I speculated, the International Brotherhood of Magicians does have a code of practice which states:

All members of the International Brotherhood of Magicians agree to oppose the willful exposure to the public of any principles of the Art of Magic, or the methods employed in any magic effect or illusion.

Interestingly this section of the code has an exception for sellers of magic tricks, though magicians consider that the seller should confirm that the buyer intends to learn and perform the trick for others and not just purchase the trick out of curiosity for how it is done. Perhaps GeocacheSpoilers needs to confirm that people who watch the videos intend to hide similar caches and are not just viewing them in order to get a smiley .

 

I like it!!

 

The Code of the International Brotherhood of Geocachers

All members of the International Brotherhood of Geocachers agree to oppose the willful spoiling to the public of any principles of the Art of Camouflage, or the methods employed in any geocache hide.

 

As to the exception for sellers, have you ever priced any *real* magician's illusions? Even simple tricks are expensive, but professional level tricks sell for thousands of dollars. Few are likely to drop that sort of change just to spoil a magic trick. Perhaps GeocacheSpoilers needs to charge admission.

[knowschad]

Everyone realizes that Groundspeak defines Spoilers on every cache listing, right? Right where it says "**Warning! Spoilers may be included in the descriptions or links." there is a link to Groundspeak's glossary.

 

http://www.geocachin...ry.aspx#spoiler

 

Spoiler

A spoiler is information that can give details away and ruin the experience of something. For example, telling someone the end of a movie before they see it. In geocaching, a spoiler gives away details of a cache location and can ruin the experience of the find.

 

As I've said before, a warning does not imply approval.

 

I thought that the inten of GeoBain here was to tell us that Groundspeak has a definition for spoiler or at least something that can be seen as definition. This becomes relevant as some argue here that the ToU might lead to cache owners to complain about issues that are not spoilers. In my opinion, this is no issue as Groundspeak can judge whether they regard something as spoiler in case a cache owner complains.

 

Whoops! Sorry, Geobain... guess I was a little trigger-happy.

[+GeoBain]

Nevermind - can't see post numbers when viewing mobile version.

Edited October 27, 2011 by GeoBain

[+The Jester]

While Groundspeak has every right to ban Sven for violation of the TOUs, this thread provides ample evidence, IMO, that there are people who want these spoilers. I haven't been convinced by any of the arguments why the cache owner's wishes should trump other cacher's wishes. To me the argument of respecting the desires of the cache owner is hollow, since to do so Sven would have to disrespect the desires of the many people who want him to keep these videos available.

Your the ice cream guy, so try this (non-ice cream, more real world):

 

Let's say I know your personal information (SSN, Driver's license, DOB, etc), by your reasoning I should share this as there are lots of people who would like to know and use said info in way you don't want (for the slow: identity theft). So why should I 'respect' your desire to keep it private, when there are many who desire to use it?

 

BTW copyright doesn't just cover monetary gain situations. Any intellectual propery is covered whether you profit from it or not. As a magician my act is copyrighted whether I get paid for a performance or not. Just because I've performed in public, no one has rights to the material without my say so.

That's going a little far - comparing spoiling a geocache to identity theft.

But the underlying princple you're promoting is the same - the desire of the many trump the desire of the one. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't really fly well in reality.

 

Tha magician bit is a little better. One could view the geocache as magic show. I'd like to know what your rights are as magician if someone stands up in your show and blurts out how you did that trick.

 

You say that your show is copyright, but what happens when another magician figures out how you did a trick. Can you prevent him from publishing how the trick is done? My guess is that magic is a lot like geocaching and magicians learn new tricks by watching others and then figuring out how they were done. If magicians really have such control over spoilers of their tricks circulating among others I'd be surprised.

 

Now, perhaps there is a magician's code of conduct saying you don't share the secrets of someone else's tricks - at least with non-magicians. And if so there may be some professional organization or web site that has a clause like the section in the Groundspeak TOUs that allows them to take some sanction against magicians who violate the code of conduct.

 

What you, and others, seem to be arguing for is a geocacher's code of conduct that says you shouldn't spoil someone else's geocache without permission. My guess is that a majority of geocachers might agree to such a code of conduct. However some may not feel that caches need the same protection as magicians, since people who used a spoiler still seem to enjoy finding caches and spoiler sites might have the effect of improving cache quality by giving ideas for clever hides. My concern is that without some consensus on what can or cannot be shared there will abuses of the TOUs where cache owners will complain about something that is not a spoiler.

I wasn't talking about how the trick is done (that can be learned in any magic shop) but the performance and patter line (story/talk) used in the performance. I use a number of "standard" tricks but with unique patter, making them mine. When someone uses a patter line from another magician, without permission or publication, we (magicians) call that "stealing".

Edited October 27, 2011 by The Jester

[+GeoBain]

While Groundspeak has every right to ban Sven for violation of the TOUs, this thread provides ample evidence, IMO, that there are people who want these spoilers. I haven't been convinced by any of the arguments why the cache owner's wishes should trump other cacher's wishes. To me the argument of respecting the desires of the cache owner is hollow, since to do so Sven would have to disrespect the desires of the many people who want him to keep these videos available.

Your the ice cream guy, so try this (non-ice cream, more real world):

 

Let's say I know your personal information (SSN, Driver's license, DOB, etc), by your reasoning I should share this as there are lots of people who would like to know and use said info in way you don't want (for the slow: identity theft). So why should I 'respect' your desire to keep it private, when there are many who desire to use it?

 

BTW copyright doesn't just cover monetary gain situations. Any intellectual propery is covered whether you profit from it or not. As a magician my act is copyrighted whether I get paid for a performance or not. Just because I've performed in public, no one has rights to the material without my say so.

That's going a little far - comparing spoiling a geocache to identity theft.

But the underlying princple you're promoting is the same - the desire of the many trump the desire of the one. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't really fly well in reality.

 

Tha magician bit is a little better. One could view the geocache as magic show. I'd like to know what your rights are as magician if someone stands up in your show and blurts out how you did that trick.

 

You say that your show is copyright, but what happens when another magician figures out how you did a trick. Can you prevent him from publishing how the trick is done? My guess is that magic is a lot like geocaching and magicians learn new tricks by watching others and then figuring out how they were done. If magicians really have such control over spoilers of their tricks circulating among others I'd be surprised.

 

Now, perhaps there is a magician's code of conduct saying you don't share the secrets of someone else's tricks - at least with non-magicians. And if so there may be some professional organization or web site that has a clause like the section in the Groundspeak TOUs that allows them to take some sanction against magicians who violate the code of conduct.

 

What you, and others, seem to be arguing for is a geocacher's code of conduct that says you shouldn't spoil someone else's geocache without permission. My guess is that a majority of geocachers might agree to such a code of conduct. However some may not feel that caches need the same protection as magicians, since people who used a spoiler still seem to enjoy finding caches and spoiler sites might have the effect of improving cache quality by giving ideas for clever hides. My concern is that without some consensus on what can or cannot be shared there will abuses of the TOUs where cache owners will complain about something that is not a spoiler.

I wasn't talking about how the trick is done (that can be learned in any magic shop) but the performance and patter line (story/talk) used in the performance. I use a number of "standard" tricks but with unique patter, making them mine. When someone uses a patter line from another magician, without permission or publication, we (magicians) call that "stealing".

 

How do you feel about The Masked Magician? Has he been banned from the International Brotherhood of Magicians' forums?

[+tozainamboku]

While Groundspeak has every right to ban Sven for violation of the TOUs, this thread provides ample evidence, IMO, that there are people who want these spoilers. I haven't been convinced by any of the arguments why the cache owner's wishes should trump other cacher's wishes. To me the argument of respecting the desires of the cache owner is hollow, since to do so Sven would have to disrespect the desires of the many people who want him to keep these videos available.

Your the ice cream guy, so try this (non-ice cream, more real world):

 

Let's say I know your personal information (SSN, Driver's license, DOB, etc), by your reasoning I should share this as there are lots of people who would like to know and use said info in way you don't want (for the slow: identity theft). So why should I 'respect' your desire to keep it private, when there are many who desire to use it?

 

BTW copyright doesn't just cover monetary gain situations. Any intellectual propery is covered whether you profit from it or not. As a magician my act is copyrighted whether I get paid for a performance or not. Just because I've performed in public, no one has rights to the material without my say so.

That's going a little far - comparing spoiling a geocache to identity theft.

But the underlying princple you're promoting is the same - the desire of the many trump the desire of the one. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't really fly well in reality.

There are specific laws against identity theft and fraud. This is totally different than spoiling a cache.

 

Someone claiming harm doesn't give them the right to stop others actions. Not only must real harm be proven, but the rights of others must be taken into consideration. Fox was able to broadcast the Masked Magician revealing magic tricks despite many magicians claiming they would be harmed by the exposure.

 

Tha magician bit is a little better. One could view the geocache as magic show. I'd like to know what your rights are as magician if someone stands up in your show and blurts out how you did that trick.

 

You say that your show is copyright, but what happens when another magician figures out how you did a trick. Can you prevent him from publishing how the trick is done? My guess is that magic is a lot like geocaching and magicians learn new tricks by watching others and then figuring out how they were done. If magicians really have such control over spoilers of their tricks circulating among others I'd be surprised.

 

Now, perhaps there is a magician's code of conduct saying you don't share the secrets of someone else's tricks - at least with non-magicians. And if so there may be some professional organization or web site that has a clause like the section in the Groundspeak TOUs that allows them to take some sanction against magicians who violate the code of conduct.

 

What you, and others, seem to be arguing for is a geocacher's code of conduct that says you shouldn't spoil someone else's geocache without permission. My guess is that a majority of geocachers might agree to such a code of conduct. However some may not feel that caches need the same protection as magicians, since people who used a spoiler still seem to enjoy finding caches and spoiler sites might have the effect of improving cache quality by giving ideas for clever hides. My concern is that without some consensus on what can or cannot be shared there will abuses of the TOUs where cache owners will complain about something that is not a spoiler.

I wasn't talking about how the trick is done (that can be learned in any magic shop) but the performance and patter line (story/talk) used in the performance. I use a number of "standard" tricks but with unique patter, making them mine. When someone uses a patter line from another magician, without permission or publication, we (magicians) call that "stealing".

That's different from copyright and might not necessarily stand up in court. Many performance artists have a long tradition of non-infringement. Performers are traditionally accorded proprietary rights to unique attributes of their performance and these will not be claimed or used by other performers. One could certainly trademark or register copyrights on these attributes of you wanted to be sure of legal standing.

 

No such code exists in geocaching. Geocache hides and puzzles are routinely copied, often without credit or permission. It would be difficult to argue that a cache owner has some legal protection to the secrets of their hide. Groundspeak's argument in this case is not that the hider of cache has the right to prevent spoilers, but rather that the publisher of the spoiler should show some respect for the wishes of the cache owner. The problem with this argument is that this respect is not mutual. A cache owner can demand that a blogger not share his geocaching experience at a cache simply by calling any information that is published a solution, hint, or spoiler. Sharing of one's geocaching experience is a natural part of geocaching and, IMO, has done a lot more to make geocaching popular and fun than any cache owner trying to control things that are out of their control.

[cezanne]

Sharing of one's geocaching experience is a natural part of geocaching and, IMO, has done a lot more to make geocaching popular and fun than any cache owner trying to control things that are out of their control.

 

You seem to ignore that sharing experiences and avoiding major spoilers can be done at the same time and do not contradict each other, at least if you mean the same with sharing experiences as I have in mind. For example, it does not fall under "sharing experiences" for me if someone publishes the coordinates or solution of an involved mystery or multi caches or posts a photo of the final location that makes the location identifiable with the argument that the final location is nice and/or the hideout is so special that the cache experience should be available also to those who are not willing or able to deal with the part before the final.

 

Cezanne

[+tozainamboku]

Sharing of one's geocaching experience is a natural part of geocaching and, IMO, has done a lot more to make geocaching popular and fun than any cache owner trying to control things that are out of their control.

 

You seem to ignore that sharing experiences and avoiding major spoilers can be done at the same time and do not contradict each other, at least if you mean the same with sharing experiences as I have in mind. For example, it does not fall under "sharing experiences" for me if someone publishes the coordinates or solution of an involved mystery or multi caches or posts a photo of the final location that makes the location identifiable with the argument that the final location is nice and/or the hideout is so special that the cache experience should be available also to those who are not willing or able to deal with the part before the final.

 

Cezanne

I would be nice if we could agree on a definition of major spoiler. It would seem that publishing the coordinates or solution of a puzzle cache would be a major spoiler and perhaps even a video or sequence of photos that revealed enough of a final location that a person could go there without solving the puzzle or doing the multi. But where do you ultimately draw the line?

 

What if I take on picture of the final location. The cache owner will no doubt see this as revealing the location, but how many people, even locals familiar with the location, will be able to identify it from the picture. And will that still get you close enough to find the cache?

 

What happens if you show a picture of the location of a traditional. The cache owner can spot some tale-tale sign of the cache in the photo. Is is a spoiler, or is only what the cacher will see anyway when the get to GZ.

 

The main problem I have is that the cache owner can claim anything is a spoiler.

 

The intial video a the start of this thread was one where Sven show a nuclear fallout bunker. The cache page had pictures of the bunker. The page said is was OK to show pictures of the bunker in the logs - just not show the cache location. Sven complied with this request, yet the cache owner demanded he remove the spoiler (and Groundspeak backed the cache owner). There is something wrong here.

 

I don't know much about the second cache owner's complaint. But from what I gather, Sven removed the video with the spoiler. He then replaced it with another video. Perhaps Sven felt the second video no longer showed a spoiler. The cache owner complain and Groundspeak issued a ban. Perhaps Groundspeak looked and decided the second was a spoiler (and Sven should have known and should have gotten permission before posting), or perhaps they took the cache owner's word. I don't know. I just see a rule that ripe for abuse.

 

My personal feeling is that outright major spoilers aren't so bad either. If someone want's to have a web site with solutions for puzzles, so long as it is clearly labelled, then those who want to get the full enjoyment out of the cache can avoid it. Cachers who don't enjoy puzzle or complex multis can still find the cache.

 

Now, Cezanne has given some reasons why he as cache owner uses a puzzle or a multi and wants to stop people using spoilers to find his caches. While I am not convinced at his number of how many more visitor his caches would get if spoilers are readily available, I understand that a significant increase may not be good for some locations and that he as owner may not want to see the extra logs if they come from people who didn't get the full experience of his cache.

 

I don't know if there ia a good way to control these spoiler sites that provide the solutions for puzzles and multis yet still allow bloggers to share their experience. Initially I believed that Section 4(m) was written in reaction to one of these spoiler sites and that it would only be used against the most blatant of spoilers. Cezanne has pointed out to me the feedback thread that actually resulted in Section 4(m) being added and it was clear that it is aimed at all spoilers. While I personally would rather see Groundspeak not have TOUs against sharing of any information about a cache, I might be able to live with ones that deal with the most blatant spoilers, but only if there is a clear definition of these spoilers. Unfortunately, I believe this definition will be as hard to come by as "Wow" for virtual caches was.

Edited October 27, 2011 by tozainamboku

[+CanadianRockies]

Someone claiming harm doesn't give them the right to stop others actions. Not only must real harm be proven, but the rights of others must be taken into consideration.

This is where you (and Sven) seem to part ways with many people. You (and Sven) only seem to take into consideration the preferences of those geocachers who want to share their experiences. You (and Sven) don't seem to care about the preferences of those geocachers who might be effected by these actions.

 

When there are conflicting preferences, people in civilized communities try to take into account both preferences. In the geocaching community, one way to do this is to remove spoilers when a cache owner requests that this be done.

 

People who want everything their way regardless of how that effects others are likely to live disappointing lives.

[jholly]

I would be nice if we could agree on a definition of major spoiler.

How about it is what the cache owner defines as a spoiler. If they don't like a gallery picture they delete the log and request it be re-logged without the picture. With U-tube videos they don't have that option. Seems pretty simple and basic to me.

[+tozainamboku]

Someone claiming harm doesn't give them the right to stop others actions. Not only must real harm be proven, but the rights of others must be taken into consideration.

This is where you (and Sven) seem to part ways with many people. You (and Sven) only seem to take into consideration the preferences of those geocachers who want to share their experiences. You (and Sven) don't seem to care about the preferences of those geocachers who might be effected by these actions.

 

When there are conflicting preferences, people in civilized communities try to take into account both preferences. In the geocaching community, one way to do this is to remove spoilers when a cache owner requests that this be done.

 

People who want everything their way regardless of how that effects others are likely to live disappointing lives.

I can't speak for Sven, but you are certainly taking my stance wrong. I believe that the rule as written now only considers the cache owner's preference and does not take into consideration the preferences of others to share information about the cache. While I personally don't see the dangers of spoilers the same as many seem to, I understand why some cache owners don't want to see the solutions for puzzles or obvious spoilers for caches be in easy to find collections. As I stated in my last post if one could define these blatant spoilers I might accept a rule against publishing these without consent of the cache owner. However I feel it may be difficult to draw a line that everyone can live with. Owners will insist that any information is a spoiler, bloggers will insist that their video doesn't fall into the blatant category, and Groundspeak will be criticize whichever side they take.

[+GeoBain]

I would be nice if we could agree on a definition of major spoiler.

How about it is what the cache owner defines as a spoiler. If they don't like a gallery picture they delete the log and request it be re-logged without the picture. With U-tube videos they don't have that option. Seems pretty simple and basic to me.

 

One major difference is the gallery picture is accessible right there on the page while the youtube videos are not.

 

In other words, I could accidentally stumble upon a spoiler by reading the cache page where I would need to be more proactive in finding a spoiler on youtube.

[cezanne]

I would be nice if we could agree on a definition of major spoiler. It would seem that publishing the coordinates or solution of a puzzle cache would be a major spoiler and perhaps even a video or sequence of photos that revealed enough of a final location that a person could go there without solving the puzzle or doing the multi.

 

Yes, indeed.

 

But where do you ultimately draw the line?

 

I guess that will not be possible in a general way with no exceptions, but do we really need to draw that line exactly?

 

What if I take on picture of the final location. The cache owner will no doubt see this as revealing the location,

 

Not necessarily. I have a cache where showing the tree where it is hidden would not reveal more than I am offering in the cache description anyway.

 

but how many people, even locals familiar with the location, will be able to identify it from the picture. And will that still get you close enough to find the cache?

 

It depends on the case. I'd say it is a major spoiler if an average cacher (average with respect to gift and devotion to geocaching) is able to take profit from the spoiler in such a way that consierable time can be saved - i.e. the time invested into exploiting the spoiler is smaller than the time saved with respect to the cache (for searching, walking, puzzle solving etc).

 

What happens if you show a picture of the location of a traditional. The cache owner can spot some tale-tale sign of the cache in the photo. Is is a spoiler, or is only what the cacher will see anyway when the get to GZ.

 

Do you mean tell-tale? I guess again it depends on the situation and the cache type. If the sign makes it possible to identify the final location and this is not given, then I'd regard it as major spoiler.

 

The main problem I have is that the cache owner can claim anything is a spoiler.

 

Theoretically, yes. In practice, typically arguments are attached with a request to remove a spoiler and in the ultimate case that Groundspeak gets involved, further people can look into the case. I do know some stories where something has been written in a log that has not been intended as spoiler, but after explanation by the cache owner why he felt that a spoiler is involved got deleted without further debate. Someone was writing something like "Gefunden beim zweiten Griff" (in German, intended English meaning "found at the second attempt to grab") while the cache owner thought this might be a spoiler as the cache is a magnetic container hidden inside the starting part of a handrail which can also be referred to as "Griff" in German. So something can be a spoiler although when writing something or publishing a photo one does not intend to spoil.

 

The intial video a the start of this thread was one where Sven show a nuclear fallout bunker. The cache page had pictures of the bunker. The page said is was OK to show pictures of the bunker in the logs - just not show the cache location. Sven complied with this request, yet the cache owner demanded he remove the spoiler (and Groundspeak backed the cache owner). There is something wrong here.

 

No, not from my point of view as there are many videos on his site and many of them are definitely spoilers that give away a lot.

BTW: It understood that the second complaint involved more than one cache.

 

My personal feeling is that outright major spoilers aren't so bad either. If someone want's to have a web site with solutions for puzzles, so long as it is clearly labelled, then those who want to get the full enjoyment out of the cache can avoid it. Cachers who don't enjoy puzzle or complex multis can still find the cache.

 

But the last aspect will ruin the experience for many cache owners. If the number of people getting major help stays reasonably small in comparison to the number of overall finders, many cache owners will be able to live with the situation and keep their cache alive, but spoiler sites of the above mentioned type would ruin many caches.

 

Of course it depends on where a cache is located. A mystery cache in the desert which is hard to reach will suffer much less from the effects of spoilers than an urban mystery/multi cache which needs hours of preparatory work, but which is a 1* drive in once one has the coordinates of the final available. Furthermore, of course the number of cachers in the area plays a role. The numbers I provided for my example were based on the situation in my home town Graz - in Vienna I even would have to come up with higher numbers.

I had a look at some of your recent finds and came across e.g. this easy cache from 2008

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=56b61e20-c687-4433-8cc1-14ef009227c0

which still has less than 100 finds. That's about the same rate per year as my newest, quite difficult mystery/multi cache will achieve.

93 finds is achieved in my region for a comparable traditional in less than two months, sometimes in less then one month in particular if several new caches are nearby.

 

This cache in Vienna

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=144f2b69-58b6-4052-9c53-a2f9613d5dfb

with over 5500 finds might give you an idea about the situation in Vienna for easy traditionals. In the same area there exist, however, difficult mystery caches with less than 20 finds which is only the case because these caches have not yet be effected by spoiler sites.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited October 27, 2011 by cezanne

[+tozainamboku]

I would be nice if we could agree on a definition of major spoiler.

How about it is what the cache owner defines as a spoiler. If they don't like a gallery picture they delete the log and request it be re-logged without the picture. With U-tube videos they don't have that option. Seems pretty simple and basic to me.

Cache owners use to be allowed to delete log because you didn't do an ALR. This privilege was abused and owners cannot have ALRs any more. I suspect that if a cache owner deleted a log that said TFTC because it was a spoiler Groundspeak might reinstate that log. (I'm thinking of creating a sign that says TFTC and hide the cache on it so I can delete all the logs that say TFTC). Cache owners are going to abuse this feature. Perhaps Groundspeak reviews every complaint and decides whether this is really a spoiler or just a "spoiled" cache owner, but without knowing what Groundspeak thinks a spoiler is, you might as well just stop posting any pictures or videos of caches you found.

[+Team Taran]

I also think it makes a difference if the person posting the information is benefiting financially from it. It's obvious that the major reason for this whole flap is to generate publicity for Sven's channel. Benefiting from the creative work of others without their permission is rude and also generally means that such use does not fall under fair use. Geocaching depends on a symbiotic relationship between hiders and finders, It's not fair for one side to violate the generally expected mores. Asking permission before you post will eliminate the problem. If you are confident that most hiders won't mind and that what you wish to do will not upset most hiders, ask them and follow their wishes.

[jholly]

I would be nice if we could agree on a definition of major spoiler.

How about it is what the cache owner defines as a spoiler. If they don't like a gallery picture they delete the log and request it be re-logged without the picture. With U-tube videos they don't have that option. Seems pretty simple and basic to me.

Cache owners use to be allowed to delete log because you didn't do an ALR. This privilege was abused and owners cannot have ALRs any more. I suspect that if a cache owner deleted a log that said TFTC because it was a spoiler Groundspeak might reinstate that log. (I'm thinking of creating a sign that says TFTC and hide the cache on it so I can delete all the logs that say TFTC). Cache owners are going to abuse this feature. Perhaps Groundspeak reviews every complaint and decides whether this is really a spoiler or just a "spoiled" cache owner, but without knowing what Groundspeak thinks a spoiler is, you might as well just stop posting any pictures or videos of caches you found.

 

From the great book of knowledge of all things geocaching on log deletion ..

If the geocacher has failed to meet logging requirements, please explain your concerns. Politely email the log owner before or immediately after you delete their log. If their log or photos contain spoilers, invite them to edit the log. If you have deleted the log already, invite them to re-log without the spoiler.

 

You cannot delete just a photo from a log. The entire log must be deleted.

 

Seems they are letting me decide what a spoiler is. I guess if the logee disagrees and raises an escalation then GS will have to make a determination.

 

So again I say, a spoiler is what the cache owner defines as a spoiler.

[+CanadianRockies]

As I stated in my last post if one could define these blatant spoilers I might accept a rule against publishing these without consent of the cache owner. However I feel it may be difficult to draw a line that everyone can live with. Owners will insist that any information is a spoiler, bloggers will insist that their video doesn't fall into the blatant category, and Groundspeak will be criticize whichever side they take.

That's a pretty weak crutch to lean on. The Groundspeak guidelines allow cache owners to delete logs "that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate." None of those definitions are precisely defined, but most people seem to accept that the guideline is okay. If there is a dispute about what constitutes "inappropriate" or "spoiler," then the two parties can turn to Groundspeak to resolve the matter. People seem to have lived with that for years. If Groundspeak is occasionally criticized, then they appear to have lived with that as well.

 

Are there any other Groundspeak guidelines you feel are unacceptable unless they "draw a line that everyone can live with?" I don't know of any community with over a million members that requires the unanimous consent of the governed.

Edited October 27, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+tozainamboku]

As I stated in my last post if one could define these blatant spoilers I might accept a rule against publishing these without consent of the cache owner. However I feel it may be difficult to draw a line that everyone can live with. Owners will insist that any information is a spoiler, bloggers will insist that their video doesn't fall into the blatant category, and Groundspeak will be criticize whichever side they take.

That's a pretty weak crutch to lean on. The Groundspeak guidelines allow cache owners to delete logs "that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate." None of those definitions are precisely defined, but most people seem to accept that the guideline is okay. If there is a dispute about what constitutes "inappropriate" or "spoiler," then the two parties can turn to Groundspeak to resolve the matter. People seem to have lived with that for years. If Groundspeak is occasionally criticized, then they appear to have lived with that as well.

 

Are there any other Groundspeak guidelines you feel are unacceptable unless they "draw a line that everyone can live with?" I don't know of any community with over a million members that requires the unanimous consent of the governed.

There are guidelines that I wish Groundspeak would clarify. For example the Delete any logs which are blah, blah, blah....

Originally this stated "not within the stated requirements" instead of "otherwise inappropriate" and that was used to justify deletion of logs for not meeting ALRs. Groundspeak had to clarify and change the guidelines because cache owner abused this. I understand that it is difficult to define what spoilers are so they TOUs are written in broad strokes: no "solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates" can be published in "any media" without consent of the cache owner. Just like the "within stated requirements" this allows abuse by cache owners. You are cetainly aware of my stance on what constitute "bogus" and that there are some people who have a different opinion than me on that. Just because Groundspeak seems to allow cache owners to delete online find simply because the physical log is not signed doesn't mean I agree with it. And just because a cache owner can complain about anything being a spoiler doesn't mean that it is a spoiler and that consent is needed to show it.

 

My personal opinion that sharing information is natural and benefit geocaching and geocachers. Giving powers to the cache owner to control what is done on non-Groundspeak sites is not needed. I am aware that among those who post in the forums, at least, this is a minority opinion. Many seem to find it as natural that a cache owner would want to "protect" his cache from spoilers as I find it natural that people want to share information. I believe that we will just have accept a difference of opinion. If Groundspeak is going to insist on a rule giving cache owners the power to insist on spoiler being removed from third party sites, then at least I want to make sure there are safeguards so this rule will not be abused.

[+CanadianRockies]

Are there any other Groundspeak guidelines you feel are unacceptable unless they "draw a line that everyone can live with?" I don't know of any community with over a million members that requires the unanimous consent of the governed.

Just because Groundspeak seems to allow cache owners to delete online find simply because the physical log is not signed doesn't mean I agree with it.

Nobody expects you to agree with every Groundspeak guideline. And I don't believe you seriously expect Groundspeak to change a guideline whenever a single member disagrees with it. If that were the case, then it's unlikely that there would be any guidelines at all.

 

And just because a cache owner can complain about anything being a spoiler doesn't mean that it is a spoiler and that consent is needed to show it.

Correct. If a "spoiler" publisher doesn't believe it's a spoiler, then they can ask Groundspeak to resolve the issue. If the publisher disagrees with Groundspeak's decision, then they can opt to continue publishing the spoiler and risk being suspended/banned from Groundspeak's website.

 

How would you propose that disagreements be resolved?

[Blue Square Thing]

If a "spoiler" publisher doesn't believe it's a spoiler, then they can ask Groundspeak to resolve the issue. If the publisher disagrees with Groundspeak's decision, then they can opt to continue publishing the spoiler and risk being suspended/banned from Groundspeak's website.

 

How would you propose that disagreements be resolved?

 

The problem comes with the suggestion that it is legitimate to attempt to restrict my ability to publish stuff on other parts of the internet based on a convention which seems to be being forced on everyone. That, in all seriousness, is an attempt to restrict my freedom to write or otherwise publish interesting stuff.

 

I'm aware that there are issues with the role of cache owners, but forcing a specific convention on all users, when there's clearly not agreement, is also an issue.

 

In the end, though, it doesn't matter what is published - Groundspeak reserve the right to terminate anyone's membership of their site without having to give any reason whatsoever. What defines a spoiler or whether that convention is valid is irrelevant. That's fine, it's their bit of the internet which they run and it's utterly legitimate for them to do so. We just need to be aware of that when we write stuff elsewhere on the internet.

 

Thanks, by the way, to the three people who responded to a similar point I made further up this thread. My apologies for not acknowledging them earlier. I agree with many of the points that were made.

[+thebruce0]

That's fine, it's their bit of the internet which they run and it's utterly legitimate for them to do so. We just need to be aware of that when we write stuff elsewhere on the internet.

Not so, really. Once again, it's only where there are issues. Groundspeak, I'm sure, is all for people sharing and discussing openly and freely. They're not trying to shut down geocaching videos and sharing experiences and even spoiling caches.

What they're doing is taking a stance when approached with an issue that goes against what they feel should be the spirit of the game. It's only after a conflict would arise that they'd take that stance.

 

We shouldn't feel bothered at all to blog and video whatever we want out there.

 

Would it be smart to check with cache owners first if we reveal something? Sure. Do we have to? Nope! If they find it and complain, would it be smart to comply with their wishes? Sure. Do we have to? Nope! But it might cost you your access to geocaching.com.

 

Takes a while to get to that last stage... and it only happens if you insist on being an idiot about insisting on spoiling someone else's work.

just sayin'.

 

We bloggers and videographers shouldn't worry about just going ahead and doing what we're doing. Just respect the game and people's work is all.

[+GeoGeeBee]

 

The problem comes with the suggestion that it is legitimate to attempt to restrict my ability to publish stuff on other parts of the internet based on a convention which seems to be being forced on everyone.

 

But, as you realize, GS cannot possibly restrict your ability to publish stuff on other parts of the internet. You're free to post anything you want.

 

GS is, on the other hand, equally free to say "Get lost" and not let you use their servers.

[Blue Square Thing]

But, as you realize, GS cannot possibly restrict your ability to publish stuff on other parts of the internet. You're free to post anything you want.

 

GS is, on the other hand, equally free to say "Get lost" and not let you use their servers.

 

Absolutely their right. For whatever reason (or no reason at all).

 

It strikes me, though, that by using the idea of showing disrespect (through spoilers or potentially otherwise) anywhere on the internet that there's the implication that either I stay quiet and play the game or I have the right to say what I want, but not both.

 

I appreciate that the whole "respect each other" thing is tricky as heck to enforce. Certainly using Groundspeak's servers to push, say, a spolier site is reasonable to ban for. But I'm really not certain that cache owners can claim any kind of intellectual copyright on their caches or cache sites that should be enforceable here under any circumstances.

 

Sorry to take a step back from the whole "what is a spoiler site" debate and all. I just see this as more of a freedom to use the interwebz thing myself.

[Blue Square Thing]

Not so, really. Once again, it's only where there are issues. Groundspeak, I'm sure, is all for people sharing and discussing openly and freely. They're not trying to shut down geocaching videos and sharing experiences and even spoiling caches.

What they're doing is taking a stance when approached with an issue that goes against what they feel should be the spirit of the game. It's only after a conflict would arise that they'd take that stance.

 

We shouldn't feel bothered at all to blog and video whatever we want out there.

 

Would it be smart to check with cache owners first if we reveal something? Sure. Do we have to? Nope! If they find it and complain, would it be smart to comply with their wishes? Sure. Do we have to? Nope! But it might cost you your access to geocaching.com.

 

As I've said above, I think, it's that last bit that causes me the problems I think. I'm really not sure that a cache owner has a specific right to ask that action be taken about me if I say something, on a totally different part of the internet, about a cache of theirs (obviously with the exception of if it were libellous, for example). If I deliberatly link to or from here then I think that changes the nature of the case a little.

 

I appreciate the importance of cache owners and their role in all of this. I appreciate, as well, that there is a "spirit" to the game, although the nature of the game and the different ways in which people play it does, really, make that very hard to define imo.

[+CanadianRockies]

The problem comes with the suggestion that it is legitimate to attempt to restrict my ability to publish stuff on other parts of the internet based on a convention which seems to be being forced on everyone. That, in all seriousness, is an attempt to restrict my freedom to write or otherwise publish interesting stuff.

There are plenty of things that restrict your freedom to write and publish. If you write libelous material, then you risk being sued. If you publish classified documents, then you risk being arrested.

 

When you publish spoilers, you might ruin the fun for other geocachers. Why should your enjoyment of sharing your geocaching experiences be valued more than the fun of other geocachers? There are plenty of other caches out there to discover and share. Why not write about one of those -- one where the cache owner might even like the attention?

 

Nobody gets to have it their way all the time. When conflicting preferences arise, some sort of dispute resolution is needed. In the case of alleged libel and state secrets, the legal system is available. In the case of alleged spoilers, the two parties can resort to Groundspeak if they fail to resolve the issue between themselves.

 

I'm aware that there are issues with the role of cache owners, but forcing a specific convention on all users, when there's clearly not agreement, is also an issue.

Then how would you propose that the disagreements be resolved?

[+CanadianRockies]

It strikes me, though, that by using the idea of showing disrespect (through spoilers or potentially otherwise) anywhere on the internet that there's the implication that either I stay quiet and play the game or I have the right to say what I want, but not both.

But, those aren't the only two options. Here's another one: Write what you want, but be open to the possibility of removing content if someone points out that it's ruining part of geocaching for them. And if you don't understand how it could significantly ruin things for them, then be prepared to make your case to Groundspeak. That's one way you can show respect to others.

 

But I'm really not certain that cache owners can claim any kind of intellectual copyright on their caches or cache sites that should be enforceable here under any circumstances.

I don't think anybody said cache owners can claim a copyright on their caches or sites. I think somebody used copyright as an analogy for explaining why cache owners' efforts deserve some sort of protection.

 

I just see this as more of a freedom to use the interwebz thing myself.

You are free to use the Internet. But that freedom isn't absolute.

Edited October 28, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+terrkan78]

I'm kind of surprised to see so many people seemingly defending the position that a CO should be able to "enforce secrecy" or "respect." You really can't enforce something like that. And I'm surprised GS banned the "geo-spoilers."

 

I enjoyed the videos - it helps broaden my method of searching when I have some idea what all it is I could be looking for. I would never have found my first log-cut-in-half-and-cache-inserted were it not for a spoiler photo I saw somewhere on the net. I would never have found my first nano without seeing a photo first. I cache alone - I don't phone-a-friend - the Internet is my education tool. It helps me enjoy this game more.

 

I realize some COs guard their difficulty ratings carefully (perhaps even religiously). I doubt people are stumbling across spoiler sites accidentally - they're seeking out these sites intentionally. I'm sure the fact that the sites exist irritates the heck out of some COs. But I don't see any moral difference between using spoiler sites and e-mailing/phoning someone who's already found the cache and asking for help. If I found some spoiler site that helped me solve a few local puzzles that I have no prayer of ever solving myself, I'd be pleased.

 

I hope future "geo-spoilers" make sure there's no way to tie their geocaching name to their videos/photos/etc. But I hope they keep putting them up.

[cezanne]

 

I enjoyed the videos - it helps broaden my method of searching when I have some idea what all it is I could be looking for.

 

I fully understand that lots of geocachers like to view pictures or watch videos showing special containers and types of hideouts. I do not object against the CCC thread and likewise I would not object at all against a worldwide geocaching video site where videos from all over the world without any reference where the featured cache is located and who has found it are collected. In the case of Sven's site take into account that he provided 81 videos after having found roughly 300 caches.

 

One can come up with an offer for cachers like you without ending up with spoiler sites.

 

I doubt people are stumbling across spoiler sites accidentally - they're seeking out these sites intentionally. I'm sure the fact that the sites exist irritates the heck out of some COs.

 

Exactly - I belong to those cache owners.

 

But I don't see any moral difference between using spoiler sites and e-mailing/phoning someone who's already found the cache and asking for help. If I found some spoiler site that helped me solve a few local puzzles that I have no prayer of ever solving myself, I'd be pleased.

 

In case I found out that some of my caches can be solved via a spoiler site, I'd immediately archive the cache. If a cacher like you would however ask me for help with one of my caches, I would more than willing to provide help, even a lot of help depending on the situation. I provided many reasons why there is a big difference between asking for help on an individual basis or using the internet. Hardly any cachers dares to ask for help for almost all caches and that without even having tried to first find the cache/or a solution. Those who always ask and just take and never give, do not have the best chances to obtain help via personal contacts while the internet does not make any differences.

 

Cezanne

[+tozainamboku]

That's fine, it's their bit of the internet which they run and it's utterly legitimate for them to do so. We just need to be aware of that when we write stuff elsewhere on the internet.

Not so, really. Once again, it's only where there are issues. Groundspeak, I'm sure, is all for people sharing and discussing openly and freely. They're not trying to shut down geocaching videos and sharing experiences and even spoiling caches.

First I'm not convinced that Groundspeak is all in favor of openly discussing geocaching, either here or on third party sites. Too often here threads are locked for discussing other geocaching sites or geocaching related products based on the commercial guidelines for the the Forums. Clearly Groundspeak is a company and it is reasonable for them to not want their resources used to promote other companies that might be competitors. I'd bet they would love to find a way to control what people say about Groundspeak and other companies on other sites. But if they started banning users because the say something unflattering about them or promoting a competitor on another site, they might face a backlash from users as well as run afoul of fair trade laws.

 

What they're doing is taking a stance when approached with an issue that goes against what they feel should be the spirit of the game. It's only after a conflict would arise that they'd take that stance.

What they have decided here is that a cache owner can object to anything related to their cache that is posted on a third party site, and if the poster does not "respect" the cache owners wishes they will apply sanctions to the poster's Geocaching.com account. They use the argument of "respect" of the wishes of the cache owner to justify this. This is fine, if the cache owner is making a reasonable request and is willing to work with the blogger to find a legitimate fair use of their cache. But there is nothing in the TOUs to prevent the cache owner from disrespecting the rights of bloggers to share their geocaching experience by making unreasonable demands.

 

We shouldn't feel bothered at all to blog and video whatever we want out there.

I would feel less bothered if the TOUs said this. What is says now is that cache owners can complain about anything that is related to their hide and you have to remove it or face sanctions.

 

Would it be smart to check with cache owners first if we reveal something? Sure. Do we have to? Nope! If they find it and complain, would it be smart to comply with their wishes? Sure. Do we have to? Nope! But it might cost you your access to geocaching.com.

I'd argue that if you want to keep your geocaching.com account you almost have to check with cache owners before posting anything. This can be difficult is a cache owner isn't responding to emails or is simply stubborn enough to not want any mention of his cache on any site or has a personal vendetta against you. One certainly would have to remove the material if a cache owner complains because so far there is no evidence that Groundspeak would ever rule in favor of the poster let alone that they even review the complaint. Sven received a request from Groundspeak to remove a video that complied with what the cache owner had requested on the cache page.

 

Takes a while to get to that last stage... and it only happens if you insist on being an idiot about insisting on spoiling someone else's work.

just sayin'.

Don't delude yourself. While in some areas Groundspeak has established a documented appeals process and takes their time issuing rulings, this doesn't appear to be the case here. Sven claims to be trying to work out things with cache owners (he may or may not be telling the truth) yet Groundspeak appears to be moving along with a ban, apparently to set an example for others.

 

We bloggers and videographers shouldn't worry about just going ahead and doing what we're doing. Just respect the game and people's work is all.

Just imagine if Michael Moore had to get permission to publish from the people and companies he features in his videos. It's all good and well to talk about respecting the work of cache owners and keeping spoilers they don't want off the internet. But my guess is there is both a demand for these spoilers and a desire to share the knowledge. These bloggers see what they do as being just as important to geocaching as people hiding caches. There is conflict. Sure. And Groundspeak has chosen to take one side. Those who want a fairer approach will continue to argue for a change.