+Keith Watson Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 I hate beating dead horses, truly, but the enabling of the cache was implied, not requested. My only request was that the line remain. Groundspeak's only request was that the line be removed. Archiving was a conditioned response to my lack of adherence to Groundspeak's request. When it became obvious that Groundspeak was unwilling to allow me to keep the line, I made a modified request. Again, that was denied. I modified the line AFTER Groundspeak allowed me to do so by Unarchiving. Unarchiving was a requirement to allow me to make the change. I solely enabled the listing. Therefore Groundspeak did not compromise or make any changes on their end. The only reason I continued on was because of the note above from Nicole. Horse = Dead Stop beating it. Compromise only requires one party to give up something, not both. You gave up the line. I am sure if you had not capitulated, the listing would have been archived again. The choice was yours and yours to make alone. It is not like Groundspeak flexed their muscle and gave you no choice. They gave you a choice and you chose to give I've up the line. Regardless of what you think you may or may not have an won, the simple fact it you chose to give up the line in favor of enabling the listing. That matches the definition of a compromise. Feel free to look it up if you don't belive me, I did provide a link. Quote Link to comment
+GeeOCachers Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 I guess I have a different definition of compromise. Mine is where both parties involved give up something in return for moving forward. Yours is one party does what the other says. There are two things I have learned from this experience: 1. Compromise has different a different definition for some people than it does for others. I am sure that when asked to define it in a group of 100 people, likely there would be at least 2 different definitions, if not many more than that. 2. Some people just aren't inclined to let things go. Quote Link to comment
+dfx Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 (edited) It is not like Groundspeak flexed their muscle and gave you no choice. They gave you a choice and you chose to give I've up the line. Huh. Really? 1) Comply. 2) Have the listing archived (which they would have done). You call that a choice? Edited December 7, 2011 by dfx Quote Link to comment
+Keith Watson Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 It is not like Groundspeak flexed their muscle and gave you no choice. They gave you a choice and you chose to give I've up the line. Huh. Really? 1) Comply. 2) Have the listing archived (which they would have done). You call that a choice? That is a choice. Quote Link to comment
+Keith Watson Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 (edited) I guess I have a different definition of compromise. Mine is where both parties involved give up something in return for moving forward. Yours is one party does what the other says. There are two things I have learned from this experience: 1. Compromise has different a different definition for some people than it does for others. I am sure that when asked to define it in a group of 100 people, likely there would be at least 2 different definitions, if not many more than that. 2. Some people just aren't inclined to let things go. 1) I am sure it has a few definition variants and at least one will fit this situation. Since Groundspeak has the final rulling, theirs is the one that counts. 2) That is so much like telling someone that they just have to have the last word. It only demonstrates the person saying it is doing exactly what they are accusing the other of doing. I am glad for the people attending that the event can still go on. Too bad this had to descend into yet another thread about how unfair the reviewers and Groundspeak is. Edited December 7, 2011 by Keith Watson Quote Link to comment
+Frank Broughton Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 (edited) ETA: You could also add the leftover toy clause in a note/announcement log, as that's not the listing and not subject to the same guidelines (as per business names and other restricted content) Not recommended. Doing so would fall under the maintenance of a cache listing, which logs are a part of that aspect. Using the "announcement" log type by any host would be likely viewed as attempting to circumvent the guidelines they agreed to follow. CD Really now??? please......... This has become so petty it is beyond reason. Edited December 7, 2011 by Frank Broughton Quote Link to comment
+thebruce0 Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 This is seriously making me laugh out loud now. Thank you for providing tonight's entertainment! Quote Link to comment
+CacheDrone Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 This is seriously making me laugh out loud now. Thank you for providing tonight's entertainment! Here's what makes me laugh. Back in the summer CacheViewer declined a cache listing because it promoted the virtues of the drive-thru window of a restaurant. Instead of simply accepting that and updating their listing, this whiner kicked and screamed like a child that they were being treated so unfairly then promptly went on their own personal vendetta. They collected over 50 listings and DEMANDED that the reviewers take IMMEDIATE action against those listings just to satisfy the ego and entitlement issues that so cripple their delicate self-confidence. As the logs went out they likely puffed up with pride knowing the swath of disablings were sending shock waves across the province. So while this whining child-like cacher sat veiled in secrecy, the reviewers took all the heat from the locals that were so frustrated. All of this just because some listing wasn't allowed to promote a local restaurant. So here's what I see. SOME cachers in Ontario simply cannot accept that things don't always go their way, but instead of being adult about it they would rather see everyone else suffer too. "I didn't get my way so I'm going to take it out on everyone else. And I'm going to do it behind everyone's back safe in my secret bunker where no one will ever know it was me." So from time to time things like this happen in Ontario, because when some cacher with entitlement issues gets turned down they sabotage a bunch of other cache listings... claiming it is to be fair, but never with the courage to be public about it. How does that make you feel "thebruce0"? Imagine that guy was reading or even posting in this same thread... Any special words for the person that flipped out and emailed me that list of 50+ caches demanding they be changed? I blame THAT guy for all of this nonsense that has happened this year. I blame the mentality that SOME people have, that they need to take others down all because they didn't get their way. Boo hoo! Quote Link to comment
+thebruce0 Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 (edited) Any respect I've had for you has just been tossed completely out the window. Un. Believable. This has not, and has NEVER been about me. It has ALWAYS been about fairness and consistency. I am NOT the only one speaking up here. I have NEVER made it personal. I WANT to respect reviewers. I DO NOT and HAVE NEVER carried out a personal vendetta against other caches NOR cachers. I DETEST being blamed for resulting actions of reviewers based on INCONSISTENT review processes and/or reviewer oversight. I have NEVER threatened geocide. I HAVE stated I will no longer be placing caches (at least as long as certain review processes and/or reviewers are still active). Geocaching - by whatever service - is, and SHOULD BE an enjoyable, fair, and sane sport and pastime for ALL - including volunteer reviewers. DO NOT BLAME ME - let alone me alone for all the "ANGST" that has occurred this summer. Un. Believable. Dare I share the whole story? Good day, CacheDrone. Edited December 8, 2011 by thebruce0 Quote Link to comment
+CacheDrone Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Any respect I've had for you has just been tossed completely out the window. Un. Believable. This has not, and has NEVER been about me. It has ALWAYS been about fairness and consistency. I am NOT the only one speaking up here. I have NEVER made it personal. I WANT to respect reviewers. I DO NOT and HAVE NEVER carried out a personal vendetta against other caches NOR cachers. I DETEST being blamed for resulting actions of reviewers based on INCONSISTENT review processes and/or reviewer oversight. I have NEVER threatened geocide. I HAVE stated I will no longer be placing caches (at least as long as certain review processes and/or reviewers are still active). Geocaching - by whatever service - is, and SHOULD BE an enjoyable, fair, and sane sport and pastime for ALL - including volunteer reviewers. DO NOT BLAME ME - let alone me alone for all the "ANGST" that has occurred this summer. Un. Believable. Dare I share the whole story? Good day, CacheDrone. Where did I infer it was you? I said... How does that make you feel "thebruce0"? Imagine that guy was reading or even posting in this same thread... Any special words for the person that flipped out and emailed me that list of 50+ caches demanding they be changed? I blame THAT guy for all of this nonsense that has happened this year. I blame the mentality that SOME people have, that they need to take others down all because they didn't get their way. and that was because you keep suggesting the lack of consistency by the reviewers is causing all these problems. Quote Link to comment
+t4e Posted December 8, 2011 Author Share Posted December 8, 2011 This is seriously making me laugh out loud now. Thank you for providing tonight's entertainment! Here's what makes me laugh. Back in the summer CacheViewer declined a cache listing because it promoted the virtues of the drive-thru window of a restaurant. Instead of simply accepting that and updating their listing, this whiner kicked and screamed like a child that they were being treated so unfairly then promptly went on their own personal vendetta. They collected over 50 listings and DEMANDED that the reviewers take IMMEDIATE action against those listings just to satisfy the ego and entitlement issues that so cripple their delicate self-confidence. As the logs went out they likely puffed up with pride knowing the swath of disablings were sending shock waves across the province. So while this whining child-like cacher sat veiled in secrecy, the reviewers took all the heat from the locals that were so frustrated. All of this just because some listing wasn't allowed to promote a local restaurant. So here's what I see. SOME cachers in Ontario simply cannot accept that things don't always go their way, but instead of being adult about it they would rather see everyone else suffer too. "I didn't get my way so I'm going to take it out on everyone else. And I'm going to do it behind everyone's back safe in my secret bunker where no one will ever know it was me." So from time to time things like this happen in Ontario, because when some cacher with entitlement issues gets turned down they sabotage a bunch of other cache listings... claiming it is to be fair, but never with the courage to be public about it. How does that make you feel "thebruce0"? Imagine that guy was reading or even posting in this same thread... Any special words for the person that flipped out and emailed me that list of 50+ caches demanding they be changed? I blame THAT guy for all of this nonsense that has happened this year. I blame the mentality that SOME people have, that they need to take others down all because they didn't get their way. Boo hoo! you did mention in the original thread that the whole fiasco was caused by one disgruntled cacher, but...since when do the reviewers give in to demands from cachers? i thought that's when they distance themselves from the situation and directed them to appeals i asked if they were directed to appelas in the original thread but nobody replied also, that would have been a good time to invoke the no precedence rule that keeps flying around every time someone brings up a similar older listing, and the majority of those listings that were disabled were older, mine at least were 2 years old to me, giving in to their demands was as bad as them making the demand so now you got one "happy camper" hiding somewhere behind a screen at the expense of dozens of others meanwhile in the announcement you made we are told not to bother gathering a list of similar caches because nothing will be done about it and you are surprised the reviewers were blamed? and with all due respect to the CacheViewer, he/she does seem to have an inclination towards interpreting everything as being commercial i find it amazing that people like this, the disgruntled cacher, are allowed to throw mud and start a "war", invoke the right to "privacy" thus cowardly remaining behind the scenes its a wonderful thing the society has created with the right to "privacy" we can live in comfort that we can do pretty much anything and be allowed to remain anonymus Quote Link to comment
+t4e Posted December 8, 2011 Author Share Posted December 8, 2011 and the mystery is solved busted because of a C&Per timeline makes a lot of sense now...C&P event gets published on December 4 and the Original Event gets disabled on December 4 The Original Event The C&P Event Quote Link to comment
+northernpenguin Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 and the mystery is solved busted because of a C&Per timeline makes a lot of sense now...C&P event gets published on December 4 and the Original Event gets disabled on December 4 The Original Event The C&P Event Just wanna point out ... a search for the word "charity" on that other listing produced zero matches for that word .... Quote Link to comment
+t4e Posted December 8, 2011 Author Share Posted December 8, 2011 Just wanna point out ... a search for the word "charity" on that other listing produced zero matches for that word .... seriously? its just too obvious lol the second listing copied and pasted everything, including the "charity" part...CD reviews it and notices the line, points it out to the CO who in turn points out the original event....the original listing is disabled december 4, the other CO removes the line their event gets published december 4 Quote Link to comment
+northernpenguin Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Just wanna point out ... a search for the word "charity" on that other listing produced zero matches for that word .... seriously? its just too obvious lol the second listing copied and pasted everything, including the "charity" part...CD reviews it and notices the line, points it out to the CO who in turn points out the original event....the original listing is disabled december 4, the other CO removes the line their event gets published december 4 But I don't seem to recall the massive CO outrage and peer debate about that listing to arrive at the event being enabled. As for the Copy/Paste of another event cache, very poor taste but a completely different topic altogether (not like this topic has stayed on target per se) Quote Link to comment
+hikerT Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 and the mystery is solved busted because of a C&Per timeline makes a lot of sense now...C&P event gets published on December 4 and the Original Event gets disabled on December 4 The Original Event The C&P Event Um, nope. I went to sign up for the event on the morning of the 4th and noticed it was disabled. At that time there were no other events of the same name. Later that same day, I checked the event listings again after this one was archived and saw the other one there. Quote Link to comment
+GeeOCachers Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=0ade9b35-58e3-4d9f-911c-0f4e55f1cb1a WTF? There must be some rule against stealing an entire page worth of information for a cache event without asking the original creator for permission first? Quote Link to comment
Pup Patrol Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Uh, the C&P event is taking place in Sudbury. GC38M3T ReGift-O-Rama 2012 http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=0ade9b35-58e3-4d9f-911c-0f4e55f1cb1a A bit cheeky to C&P an entire concept and cache page. Did this copy/paste submission make you curious, CacheDrone? Quote Link to comment
+northernpenguin Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=0ade9b35-58e3-4d9f-911c-0f4e55f1cb1a WTF? There must be some rule against stealing an entire page worth of information for a cache event without asking the original creator for permission first? Yup. It's called Copyright Law (or something similar if there's a lawyer in the room). Your listing is still your creative work so, while Groundspeak isn't dropping an anvil on that other CO, you're certainly able to. Downside is that'll involve lawyers and such. For now rest easy that the only attendee for the rip-off event is the CO as of 9:19 this morning. Bad karma to do that I say, but I'll re-iterate I believe the cache listing theft in whole or in part is a new forum topic. There was quite the kerfuffle in the Geocaching Topics forum over something similar (cross listing exact caches). Quote Link to comment
Pup Patrol Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 (edited) When one looks at the "newest listings" for Ontario, it's very confusing to see two events with exactly the same name, with one being a complete rip-off of the original. The fact that the two are miles and miles apart is not immediately apparent. Permission to copy the concept and the cache page is not noted, and from the sounds of it, not granted by Geeocachers. Again, I would like to ask CacheDrone if the C&P submission didn't raise some concerns. It seems rather confusing to allow it to be published as a almost-verbatim copy of the original. Edited December 8, 2011 by Pup Patrol Quote Link to comment
+northernpenguin Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 When one looks at the "newest listings" for Ontario, it's very confusing to see two events with exactly the same name, with one being a complete rip-off of the original. The fact that the two are miles and miles apart is not immediately apparent. Permission to copy the concept and the cache page is not noted, and from the sounds of it, not granted by Geeocachers. Again, I would like to ask CacheDrone if the C&P submission didn't raise some concerns. It seems rather confusing to allow it to be published as a almost-verbatim copy of the original. You realize you're asking if CacheDrone happened to remember the exact wording of another cache when this one was published. While I'm sure this particular cache is easy enough to remember, there are over 25,000 geocaches in Ontario and it's a pretty tall order to ask the reviewers to memorize the listing text of all caches for future reviews. More likely they don't worry about that and respond to emails from COs who feel slighted instead. Geeocachers, I sure hope you've generated that WTF email to CacheDrone rather than relying on him to visit this thread again... and also contacted the copy paste cacher to find out why they thought that was a good idea in the first place. Quote Link to comment
+GeeOCachers Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Indeed, I have sent him an email. Quote Link to comment
+Frank Broughton Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Copyright law???? man oh man, how petty is this going to end up? Hang it up boys - this is getting majorly embarrassing. I am siding with the drone! Some people are just plain insane over this hobby. Quote Link to comment
Pup Patrol Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 I would think that with all the recent "attention", that yes, the exact title and concept and cache page write-up would immediately ring a bell. I don't think it's much of a stretch. I've approved thousands of registrants in my forum, and you would be surprised how easy it is to recognize an email address out of thousands. Quote Link to comment
+GeeOCachers Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Copyright law???? man oh man, how petty is this going to end up? Hang it up boys - this is getting majorly embarrassing. I am siding with the drone! Some people are just plain insane over this hobby. I host one event a year. I'm certainly not insane. I would appreciate an ask from someone before they copy my entire cache event page, as I am sure you would if it happened to you. Quote Link to comment
+Frank Broughton Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Copyright law???? man oh man, how petty is this going to end up? Hang it up boys - this is getting majorly embarrassing. I am siding with the drone! Some people are just plain insane over this hobby. I host one event a year. I'm certainly not insane. I would appreciate an ask from someone before they copy my entire cache event page, as I am sure you would if it happened to you. I would be glad they thought my words so great that they felt no need to change any of them! Guess there are different ways to look at everything. I would take it as a compliment! Quote Link to comment
Pup Patrol Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 I host one event a year. I'm certainly not insane. I would appreciate an ask from someone before they copy my entire cache event page, as I am sure you would if it happened to you. I'm not in your area, but I recognize the "ReGift-O-Rama" event and its recurring format from years past: GC2GM64 ReGift-O-Rama 2011! GC20XKJ ReGift-O-Rama 2010! GC1J0A0 ReGift-O-Rama 2009! GCYDRR Evil in the Park: The ReGift-o-Rama Event! Quote Link to comment
Pup Patrol Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Copyright law???? man oh man, how petty is this going to end up? Hang it up boys - this is getting majorly embarrassing. I am siding with the drone! Some people are just plain insane over this hobby. I host one event a year. I'm certainly not insane. I would appreciate an ask from someone before they copy my entire cache event page, as I am sure you would if it happened to you. I would be glad they thought my words so great that they felt no need to change any of them! Guess there are different ways to look at everything. I would take it as a compliment! In addition to the blatant verbatim lifting of the text and event structure, I find the timing of the C&P event to be "interesting". Quote Link to comment
+t4e Posted December 8, 2011 Author Share Posted December 8, 2011 (edited) and the mystery is solved busted because of a C&Per timeline makes a lot of sense now...C&P event gets published on December 4 and the Original Event gets disabled on December 4 The Original Event The C&P Event Um, nope. I went to sign up for the event on the morning of the 4th and noticed it was disabled. At that time there were no other events of the same name. Later that same day, I checked the event listings again after this one was archived and saw the other one there. huh? what you mean nope? they all took place on December 4th original event disabled, maybe at 00:01 http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=f506a279-64f9-437b-97d2-d834adcec840 as a result of the original event being disabled the CO of C&P event removes line and the event is published sometime during December 4th http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=96d67004-28b8-4a0c-99d5-b5f4cab7219a archival took place on December 5th http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=e228b3c5-297e-4368-8f3e-9241d98840b6 come on, its no brain surgery...a day has 24 hours perhaps is the reason why there are no time stamps on the logs Edited December 8, 2011 by t4e Quote Link to comment
+dfx Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 (edited) SOME cachers in Ontario simply cannot accept that things don't always go their way, but instead of being adult about it they would rather see everyone else suffer too. "I didn't get my way so I'm going to take it out on everyone else. And I'm going to do it behind everyone's back safe in my secret bunker where no one will ever know it was me." So from time to time things like this happen in Ontario, because when some cacher with entitlement issues gets turned down they sabotage a bunch of other cache listings... claiming it is to be fair, but never with the courage to be public about it. What I don't understand is why this mystery cacher isn't simply cited the "no precedence" guideline with no further action against anyone else? Edit: I see that's already been mentioned. Edited December 8, 2011 by dfx Quote Link to comment
+northernpenguin Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Copyright law???? man oh man, how petty is this going to end up? Hang it up boys - this is getting majorly embarrassing. I am siding with the drone! Some people are just plain insane over this hobby. I host one event a year. I'm certainly not insane. I would appreciate an ask from someone before they copy my entire cache event page, as I am sure you would if it happened to you. I would be glad they thought my words so great that they felt no need to change any of them! Guess there are different ways to look at everything. I would take it as a compliment! So, I should take it as a compliment that someone copied the entire Ontario Trails Project, and included it in a commercial product worth $150 then. After all, they thought my product was good enough to market it as their own! Same issue here. Give credit where credit is due, and ask permission first. Quote Link to comment
+dfx Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Copyright law???? man oh man, how petty is this going to end up? Hang it up boys - this is getting majorly embarrassing. I am siding with the drone! Some people are just plain insane over this hobby. I host one event a year. I'm certainly not insane. I would appreciate an ask from someone before they copy my entire cache event page, as I am sure you would if it happened to you. I would be glad they thought my words so great that they felt no need to change any of them! Guess there are different ways to look at everything. I would take it as a compliment! So, I should take it as a compliment that someone copied the entire Ontario Trails Project, and included it in a commercial product worth $150 then. After all, they thought my product was good enough to market it as their own! Same issue here. Give credit where credit is due, and ask permission first. Yup. Copyright issues may seem petty to you (Frank), but in fact there's a whole page on gc.com dedicated to exactly this issue. Quote Link to comment
+Frank Broughton Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Copyright law???? man oh man, how petty is this going to end up? Hang it up boys - this is getting majorly embarrassing. I am siding with the drone! Some people are just plain insane over this hobby. I host one event a year. I'm certainly not insane. I would appreciate an ask from someone before they copy my entire cache event page, as I am sure you would if it happened to you. I would be glad they thought my words so great that they felt no need to change any of them! Guess there are different ways to look at everything. I would take it as a compliment! So, I should take it as a compliment that someone copied the entire Ontario Trails Project, and included it in a commercial product worth $150 then. After all, they thought my product was good enough to market it as their own! Same issue here. Give credit where credit is due, and ask permission first. Yup. Copyright issues may seem petty to you (Frank), but in fact there's a whole page on gc.com dedicated to exactly this issue. I saw this on that page: "Licensee may use, copy, alter, modify, merge, reproduce, and/or create derivative works of the on-line textual content..." what am I missing on that page, in truth, I need glasses. Quote Link to comment
+dfx Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 I saw this on that page: "Licensee may use, copy, alter, modify, merge, reproduce, and/or create derivative works of the on-line textual content..." what am I missing on that page, in truth, I need glasses. you're missing the next few words afterwards: "... for Licensee's own internal use." Quote Link to comment
+Frank Broughton Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Internal use, what does that mean, give a warm fuzzy feeling when using it.... {snicker} ya, I know all about the "letter" of the law. The letter KILLETH! that is my beef with all sides of the argument. Quote Link to comment
+northernpenguin Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 (edited) Internal use, what does that mean, give a warm fuzzy feeling when using it.... {snicker} ya, I know all about the "letter" of the law. The letter KILLETH! that is my beef with all sides of the argument. How about this: 6. License to Use SubmissionsAll comments, articles, tutorials, screenshots, pictures, graphics, tools, downloads, and all other materials submitted to Groundspeak in connection with the Site or available through the Site (collectively, "Submissions") remain the property and copyright of the original author. If You submit Submissions to Groundspeak, You must adhere to any applicable submission guidelines that may be posted from time to time on the Site. By submitting any Submission to Groundspeak, You grant Groundspeak a worldwide, non-exclusive, transferable, perpetual, irrevocable, fully-paid royalty-free license and right to use, reproduce, distribute, import, broadcast, transmit, modify and create derivative works of, license, offer to sell, and sell, rent, lease or lend copies of, publicly display and publicly perform that Submission for any purpose and without restriction or obligation to You. Which says, you own the copyright for your cache page but allow Groundspeak to list it. You don't automatically grant the right to another cacher to use that information for their cache page. Edited December 8, 2011 by northernpenguin Quote Link to comment
+CanadianRockies Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 (edited) There must be some rule against stealing an entire page worth of information for a cache event without asking the original creator for permission first? Yup. It's called Copyright Law (or something similar if there's a lawyer in the room). Your listing is still your creative work so, while Groundspeak isn't dropping an anvil on that other CO, you're certainly able to. Downside is that'll involve lawyers and such. Lawyers don't necessarily have to be involved. If GeeOCachers wants to protect his creative efforts, then the logical first step would be to contact juliendon directly and ask them to modify their event listing. It appears GeeOCachers already has done this. If that doesn't produce the desired result, then GeeOCachers might want to use Groundspeak's copyright dispute process. From Groundspeak's guidelines: 7. Claims of Copyright Infringement Groundspeak respects the intellectual property rights of others, and Groundspeak asks that all users of the Site do the same. If You believe that Your work has been published on the Site in a way that constitutes copyright infringement, You may notify Groundspeak's copyright agent by providing the following information... Edited December 8, 2011 by CanadianRockies Quote Link to comment
+Frank Broughton Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 haha - ya such valuable material. Them dirty thieves. They just want the extra gifts for themselves.... hang em! I say form a posse and hang 'em. Ya, my original comment stands - boldly so... Quote Link to comment
+t4e Posted December 8, 2011 Author Share Posted December 8, 2011 haha - ya such valuable material. Them dirty thieves. They just want the extra gifts for themselves.... hang em! I say form a posse and hang 'em. Ya, my original comment stands - boldly so... i'm sure there must be something for your taste here Quote Link to comment
+SwineFlew Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 What about this event? http://coord.info/GC36PKX Quote Link to comment
+dfx Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Good thing it's already archived Quote Link to comment
Pup Patrol Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 What about this event? http://coord.info/GC36PKX And a "commercial" tie-in, with the restaurant being named and donating raffle prizes. Gee, a donation of a kid's coat only got you one raffle ticket. Quote Link to comment
+dfx Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Gee, a donation of a kid's coat only got you one raffle ticket. Yeah, that makes sense because Groundspeak doesn't care about chinldren Quote Link to comment
+Dr. House Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 I think it's unfortunate that the 3 "hottest" topics this year in the Canadian forums amounted to: 1. I feel I am entitled to mention a store name on my cache listing as my FTF prize. 2. I feel one cache is more important than the thousands that have come before it and therefore feel, because of the perceived historiocity of that cache, it should be entitled to the spot that someone else now wishes to use for any purpose whatsoever, even though that goes against an established VR protocol of spot reservation that may have benefitted me in the past. 3. I feel I am entitled to mention on a cache listing that a charity stands to benefit from any excess toys brought by attendees since giving to charity is inherently good and I've always been able to do so in the past. Further, I have a beef with anyone else using my listing description to further the comeraderie of the game. In this country, and many others around the world, we have more pressing issues that affect this game which should garner our attention, but because they don't tend to affect one person solely, we conveniently ignore them. We tend to draw arbitrary lines in the sand which say "I'm OK with that, but not with this" and then debate the merits of those points as though we are somehow "owed" something because we play the game and may or may not pay a menial subscription fee that allows us to enjoy the game more completely. As an example, in this province (Ontario), we have an entity that will not allow for physical placements of caches within their boundaries, and while a portion of your tax dollars goes toward this entity, nobody seems to care about that anymore and would seemingly rather argue the merits of how the needs of a few should take precedence. Why aren't we all up in arms about this entity's policy? Why do people really feel the need to argue incessantly about petty things like the 3 mentioned above? The lines in the sand many folks continue to draw while sweating the petty details about this game reek of petulance and entitlement and stunt the game more than any VR has ever done by following established guidelines. Quote Link to comment
+Frank Broughton Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 (edited) haha - ya such valuable material. Them dirty thieves. They just want the extra gifts for themselves.... hang em! I say form a posse and hang 'em. Ya, my original comment stands - boldly so... i'm sure there must be something for your taste here I think my dart is pretty close to triple 20 here. Thanks! Edited to add: Dr House just hit the Double bulls eye! Edited December 8, 2011 by Frank Broughton Quote Link to comment
+SwineFlew Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 What about this event? http://coord.info/GC36PKX And a "commercial" tie-in, with the restaurant being named and donating raffle prizes. Gee, a donation of a kid's coat only got you one raffle ticket. It wasnt just geocachers doing it, it is an annual kid coat drive with the whole community doing it along all the local TV station. I didnt go because I thought goecaching event shouldnt be tied with those things. Quote Link to comment
+Tequila Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 I think it's unfortunate that the 3 "hottest" topics this year in the Canadian forums amounted to: 1. I feel I am entitled to mention a store name on my cache listing as my FTF prize. 2. I feel one cache is more important than the thousands that have come before it and therefore feel, because of the perceived historiocity of that cache, it should be entitled to the spot that someone else now wishes to use for any purpose whatsoever, even though that goes against an established VR protocol of spot reservation that may have benefitted me in the past. 3. I feel I am entitled to mention on a cache listing that a charity stands to benefit from any excess toys brought by attendees since giving to charity is inherently good and I've always been able to do so in the past. Further, I have a beef with anyone else using my listing description to further the comeraderie of the game. In this country, and many others around the world, we have more pressing issues that affect this game which should garner our attention, but because they don't tend to affect one person solely, we conveniently ignore them. We tend to draw arbitrary lines in the sand which say "I'm OK with that, but not with this" and then debate the merits of those points as though we are somehow "owed" something because we play the game and may or may not pay a menial subscription fee that allows us to enjoy the game more completely. As an example, in this province (Ontario), we have an entity that will not allow for physical placements of caches within their boundaries, and while a portion of your tax dollars goes toward this entity, nobody seems to care about that anymore and would seemingly rather argue the merits of how the needs of a few should take precedence. Why aren't we all up in arms about this entity's policy? Why do people really feel the need to argue incessantly about petty things like the 3 mentioned above? The lines in the sand many folks continue to draw while sweating the petty details about this game reek of petulance and entitlement and stunt the game more than any VR has ever done by following established guidelines. Can you hear the applause all the way from Markham???? . Quote Link to comment
+MontyFam Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Applause here in Barrie too. Thanks for putting this one to bed!... I hope.... LOL Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.