Posted by ert on August 13, 2018, at 22:32:44
It is not relevant if the host of a public database thinks its good or not someone else intellectual property is stored publicly.
Relevant is, if the owner of the intellectual property gives the permission of his data being stored in the public database or not.By the sentence Submitting a message gives me permission to use it as I wish. the host claims illegal ownership.
It is the same as if someone goes to a doctor (maybe the only one in the village) and the doctor demands that participation requires the permission of given personal data to be stored and used as he wishes on his public database. It equals blackmail, violates property and data protection laws.
In my opinion, the terms requires revision especially also in the light of changed circumstances and laws.
For example a revision could signify that participants give the host of the public database the permission to use their intellectual property as the owner wishes, the participants profile or parts of it, but only as long as the participants give their approvals. The public part of the database could be online for up to two years until it gets cleared or the participants is given the option to delete their posts themselves. The non public database as a whole containing all posts can be used by the host for research as long as the participant gives his or her permission.
Personally, I am ok of deleting parts, thus sentences or words at best right away. But it does not mean that others are ok too, and that they possess the means and power to defend themselves. Hereby, I do not question a potential therapeutical value of a public database but only the terms and how it should be operated.
poster:ert
thread:1100306
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20151112/msgs/1100306.html