i blogged this at cyberdash, although i did not extend significantly what you have said here. but one point. there are two issues here: ethics and legality. do forum owners have ethical obligations about how they treat the community? and do forum users have any IP rights regarding their posts?

You'd hope that owners would have the best interests of the populace in the back of their heads but like most people they think of only their needs. The Retrogaming owner has the right to defend and close his site because it is simply his forum. The case he makes for this decision is common in the world of online forums since users tend to make that space more than a neutral home (a site where there is love and care but only to a certain degree). The circular topics, changing of forum principles, etc happen far too often on the internet and has closed many forums that I read. Ethically, the owner has the right to keep his product's identity intact and can close his forum at will. Shit happens. It's just as if a sandwich shop owner entrusted his store to his friends (they have no economic stake nor are they paid, just creative influence). If these friends change this shop into a delivery chinese joint and profits fall, the owner can step in and close the site. The only link these people have to that site is their content but that does not mean they have complete control of everything.

[As a side note: I worked on a Mud (Mozart) from 1998-2002 as a room designer and admin. During that period we had a major crash that deleted over 4000 man hours, 150 rooms, and more that I had worked on during those four years. I had a personal connection to almost everything I touched there and once it was gone I was devastated. Years before this crash, an IT at CWRU deleted huge portions of the mud after a spat with one of the mud's admins. Could the admins have sued the University or IT? Chances are they couldn't and if they could the work that was deleted would be considered voluntary and hard to place a price on. With this forum debate, the work that people put into posts is negotiable since they were acting in a purely voluntary nature.

I'm not widely read on IP as many of you but from what i've observed there is a serious need to define the production/process of production/use value paradigm that the internet poses. In a sense, the internet is still under the auspices of low culture and has yet to be truly defined in legal terms. This void allows for the new problems to arise in terms of what can and cannot go on. If the posters on this forum do have the rights to their work and are entitled to some legal priveledges can they pursue monetary compensation? If I was to jump from this forum and quote Charlie on Clancy's blog do I need to pay for that right? There is an assumption that a privacy statement affects their right to their own work.

Chances are this is way offbase but this is as best as I can explain how i see this situation. Plus i'm tired and haven't recovered from my return to humidity.

". . . .If these friends change this shop into a delivery chinese joint and profits fall, the owner can step in and close the site. The only link these people have to that site is their content but that does not mean they have complete control of everything."

No doubt. But the situation here could also be compared to an art gallery where artists have donated their art to the public being closed, not for financial reasons but because the owner decides he doesn't like the art being displayed, meanwhile keeping the content in the gallery for himself to peruse. Matt has told me that the content still appears to be there; read and write access to the public has been turned off. Which sort of begs the question, why not just turn off write access to the public but leave the posts up for a short time to let the original posters have opportunity to download their content?

Meanwhile, I think that fair use trumps privacy in your example of quoting one blog on another. TyAnna Herrington (in a Computers and Composition article) and others has linked fair use to free speech, that fair use enables free speech. Exactly how that works legally, though, I can't tell you. Having enough trouble learning all about how IP works otherwise (LOL).

I think Charlie's art gallery is the best analogy I've seen yet. It's definitely accurate and worth a close examination.

I suppose it depends on whether or not you think that a post is a gift to the owner of the forum, or something loaned. If they are loans, then the owner ought to delete all the posts if he/she is serious about closing down the forum. Keeping them set aside for personal use seems questionable to me. If they are gifts to the owner, though, it's fine to do so.

Regardless, the owner of RGR forums acted poorly. He didn't warn anyone about the closure--it appears that this was a spontaneous act done, in part, to punish members of the community he was apparently angry at.

What's more is that he's begun to ban members who have spoken out against him on the Armchair Arcade forums. These people can't even log in to check private messages or view the few still-open forums there.

Anyway, fortunately, most of the RGR regulars have made their way to the AA forum. Surprisingly, most of them are sympathetic to Shane's shutting down the forum and state that they will continue to support the show. When I mentioned the word "lawyer" in one of my posts, they bashed me as a whole, dismissing any such effort as purely childish and spiteful.

This issue does bring to mind something far more sinister, though. What if the forum was dedicated to some type of research? I imagine that any efforts to make forum participation count as scholarship would require a pretty stable arrangement with the forum owners. Obviously, no one would want to waste time publishing research or carrying on academic conversations on a forum that was in danger of being shut down by an angry, unpredictable administrator.

Armchair Arcade essentially has three administrators, and we get together and discuss issues before making any big decisions. There is a lot of trust involved, but I think co-ownership is the way to go with these things. Consolidating all administrative power in the hands of one individual is definitely a bad idea.

"I suppose it depends on whether or not you think that a post is a gift to the owner of the forum, or something loaned. If they are loans, then the owner ought to delete all the posts if he/she is serious about closing down the forum. Keeping them set aside for personal use seems questionable to me. If they are gifts to the owner, though, it's fine to do so."

See, I was thinking more along the lines of a gift to the public or community that happens to be housed in an a gallery either privately owned or owned by an organization. Normally, when one makes one's property available for display to the public as a gift, one does expect it back if that public display is no longer available.

As for your point about research, this is a good reason why community sites should have a CC license, such as what we have, that makes clear that content is for the benefit of the community and that it will not be "owned" and controlled by the site owners.

Well, he finally deleted the entire archive. Again, he offered no explanation, but sent a private email to one of our editors informing him that he was afraid of litigation. Actually, he blamed deleting the posts (instead of putting them back up as read-only) because of this discussion.

Alright, I've had enough of the BS, Blacklily ... Its time we had it out ... right here ... right now.

First off, we HID NOTHING. We nuked it - thanks to you. We were going to reopen it under RGR.com as read only, but all your precious followers can thank YOU PERSONALLY for the content being nuked. Your unwarranted abuse made us nuke the forums.

Second, it was NOT AN UNKNOWN REASON. We both posted LARGE messages explaining the situation. Sorry it didn't meet with your approval. We told EVERYONE months ago that being on this forum was a PRIVILAGE - NOT A RIGHT, and the Agreement Statement backs this up.

Its all right here: http://www.monroeworld.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1765

Third, you have ZERO legal action to take against me. Me, on the other hand, I am beginning to see this as slander and defamation of character. Perhaps you should be less worried about your legal recourse and be more worried about mine. CHECK THE AGREEMENT WHEN YOU SIGNED UP FOR AN ACCOUNT. We completely have EVERY RIGHT to delete any and all messages without reason. Here, here is the EXACT wording you agreed to:

"You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time should they see fit."

Fourth, we gave the forum people more freedom than ANY OTHER FORUM ON THE PLANET. We have testimony from dozens of other forum people that AGREE and UNDERSTAND our position and didn't understand why it didn't happen sooner. So, while you sit on your high and mighty throne pretending everyone is in your corner, they aren't. Period.

Fifth, you have the balls the size of watermelon to even THINK about saying "we raped the forums for the show" when you have written several articles on your website DIRECTLY as a result of the forum. Let's see - who is doing the mining here? In fact, in the upcoming show and in my post, I said that the forum was adversely affecting the content of the show because we'd record segments AHEAD OF TIME, only to find someone posting on the forums LATER, which we THREW AWAY to avoid collisions of topics. Mentioning people on the show was a nice way of thanking our listeners. Another practice Blacklily will be DIRECTLY responsible for killing off. Thanks big guy. Its worth noting here that AA is not our enemy in this issue - its Blacklily and the people that follow his insane line of thinking.

Work through your own convoluted ethics, Blacklily. You posted some bitching thread about Cloanto some weeks back about how information should be free to all, blah blah blah. But when you have a conflict, its back to "Intellectual Property" and "Legal Action" and "Copyright". Pathetic.

I hope your little tantrum here has proven to the world that you are the hypocrite that you are.

I'm done on this subject. There will be a rant on the show about it, and the discussion is closed as far as I'm concerned.

I doubt I'll get a response to this, but as I said on the other forum, my interest in the matter is purely intellectual. I can't with experience on the issue, but my prejudice is that no lawyer would even consider getting involved in a situation where so little money is involved. Taking an interest in the legal implications of this issue is much different than threatening anyone with legal action, which I did not. I did take it personally when you shut down the forums, and you are naive to think that the community would just nod their assent and move on peacefully. It wasn't I who made people angry at you; the worst I did was say outright what more polite people were keeping to themselves. If you can't tolerate criticism, I suggest you retreat back to your closed forum and hide your head in shame. There are plenty of people out there who shut their ears to any criticism and accuse everyone who dares raise their voice in protest guilty of slander. Please. You strike me as a man much better than that; that's why this recent activity has shocked me so badly.

I don't doubt that your feelings have been hurt in this matter as much as mine have, but I do appreciate your taking the time to express yourself and attempt to justify your actions. Thanks.

slander is a spoken utterance; a libel is published.