Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hi, I’m new here and I’ve noticed that many people have a legal warning on their profile description. Do people realise it means nothing legally? I’ve seen loads of variations that have been cut and pasted on - some even refer to Facebook(!) Was there a big data breach on here that spooked people? Curious as to why people are posting this stuff on their profile. " No. People are sheeple. Its meaningless tripe and the faqs on the site confirm as much. It's the "publicly traded entity" bit that gets me... some people have changed FB to fab but dont know what a publicly traded entity is. I actually use that as a filter sometimes. I see that nonsense, roll my eyes and delete the message. But otherwise. Welcome to fab OP. The site is generally what you make of it.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seriously though, it's bollocks. " I think you are wrong, at some of the socials you can see Sydney Uni researchers - they turn up as bold as brass. In fact, some of the Sydney Uni researchers parade in their uniforms in their uploaded photos.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seriously though, it's bollocks. I think you are wrong, at some of the socials you can see Sydney Uni researchers - they turn up as bold as brass. In fact, some of the Sydney Uni researchers parade in their uniforms in their uploaded photos. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seriously though, it's bollocks. I think you are wrong, at some of the socials you can see Sydney Uni researchers - they turn up as bold as brass. In fact, some of the Sydney Uni researchers parade in their uniforms in their uploaded photos. "Shameless! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It *can* mean something if you word it properly for certain situations. Whether it will come to anything is another matter! It just gets me how people think it's always nonsense. We live in such a cynical world! Obviously the 'Facebook' and 'publicly traded' ones are just cut and pasted silliness. But people have got a right to underline their security. Fab isn't overly helpful in this area, and what harm can be done? If anyone is actually 'put off' by a well-written (ie non-Facebook) yadda then I'd be happy to see them go personally. pt" I don't think that's how law works | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It *can* mean something if you word it properly for certain situations. Whether it will come to anything is another matter! It just gets me how people think it's always nonsense. We live in such a cynical world! Obviously the 'Facebook' and 'publicly traded' ones are just cut and pasted silliness. But people have got a right to underline their security. Fab isn't overly helpful in this area, and what harm can be done? If anyone is actually 'put off' by a well-written (ie non-Facebook) yadda then I'd be happy to see them go personally. pt I don't think that's how law works " . 'Law' doesn't work in any 'specific' way! It's all in its letter. And I didn't even give a specific example! When I was a full time graphic designer (God I do find this particular one a little bit tedious and people have got so angry over this with me in the past too).... ok I used to occasionally have to use (ie pinch) other people's images from off the net. GD's will do this kind of thing when they feel they absolutely have to. Despite natural copyright, I always took the ones that had nothing at all on the website they were connected to, that said people couldn't do it. Always. I've detailed more in my own YADDA. When I see people get really angry about this part of Fab (amazingly this can happen) it's a HUGE red flag for me I'll tell ya. There is nothing wrong with people protecting themselves from the changes in terms of a website like Fabswingers too. If I was Sydney Uni (who I always like to think are actually reading - hi guys) - or maybe somewhere less prodigious - I'd even take the Facebook nonsense into account (ie if it was ever just about the intention for privacy). I would as a judge too, if that ever came into play (Fabswingers finally makes the 6 oclock news!!!). It's easy to steal anything from this site, that's the long and short of it. Why does Jimmy Wales ask for money all the time? When people built the Wikipedia for free? It's largely because WikiMedia (who specialise in Public Domain licensing and are always being sued for something) employ a load of lawyers! The Law has to cover everything remember, so when it needs to it can do all kinds of things. That's how the law works! pt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It *can* mean something if you word it properly for certain situations. Whether it will come to anything is another matter! It just gets me how people think it's always nonsense. We live in such a cynical world! Obviously the 'Facebook' and 'publicly traded' ones are just cut and pasted silliness. But people have got a right to underline their security. Fab isn't overly helpful in this area, and what harm can be done? If anyone is actually 'put off' by a well-written (ie non-Facebook) yadda then I'd be happy to see them go personally. pt I don't think that's how law works . 'Law' doesn't work in any 'specific' way! It's all in its letter. And I didn't even give a specific example! When I was a full time graphic designer (God I do find this particular one a little bit tedious and people have got so angry over this with me in the past too).... ok I used to occasionally have to use (ie pinch) other people's images from off the net. GD's will do this kind of thing when they feel they absolutely have to. Despite natural copyright, I always took the ones that had nothing at all on the website they were connected to, that said people couldn't do it. Always. I've detailed more in my own YADDA. When I see people get really angry about this part of Fab (amazingly this can happen) it's a HUGE red flag for me I'll tell ya. There is nothing wrong with people protecting themselves from the changes in terms of a website like Fabswingers too. If I was Sydney Uni (who I always like to think are actually reading - hi guys) - or maybe somewhere less prodigious - I'd even take the Facebook nonsense into account (ie if it was ever just about the intention for privacy). I would as a judge too, if that ever came into play (Fabswingers finally makes the 6 oclock news!!!). It's easy to steal anything from this site, that's the long and short of it. Why does Jimmy Wales ask for money all the time? When people built the Wikipedia for free? It's largely because WikiMedia (who specialise in Public Domain licensing and are always being sued for something) employ a load of lawyers! The Law has to cover everything remember, so when it needs to it can do all kinds of things. That's how the law works! pt" Sticking words on your profile protects exactly nothing. That's not law, that's magical thinking. Wikimedia asks for money because of their infrastructure and staff. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It *can* mean something if you word it properly for certain situations. Whether it will come to anything is another matter! It just gets me how people think it's always nonsense. We live in such a cynical world! Obviously the 'Facebook' and 'publicly traded' ones are just cut and pasted silliness. But people have got a right to underline their security. Fab isn't overly helpful in this area, and what harm can be done? If anyone is actually 'put off' by a well-written (ie non-Facebook) yadda then I'd be happy to see them go personally. pt I don't think that's how law works . 'Law' doesn't work in any 'specific' way! It's all in its letter. And I didn't even give a specific example! When I was a full time graphic designer (God I do find this particular one a little bit tedious and people have got so angry over this with me in the past too).... ok I used to occasionally have to use (ie pinch) other people's images from off the net. GD's will do this kind of thing when they feel they absolutely have to. Despite natural copyright, I always took the ones that had nothing at all on the website they were connected to, that said people couldn't do it. Always. I've detailed more in my own YADDA. When I see people get really angry about this part of Fab (amazingly this can happen) it's a HUGE red flag for me I'll tell ya. There is nothing wrong with people protecting themselves from the changes in terms of a website like Fabswingers too. If I was Sydney Uni (who I always like to think are actually reading - hi guys) - or maybe somewhere less prodigious - I'd even take the Facebook nonsense into account (ie if it was ever just about the intention for privacy). I would as a judge too, if that ever came into play (Fabswingers finally makes the 6 oclock news!!!). It's easy to steal anything from this site, that's the long and short of it. Why does Jimmy Wales ask for money all the time? When people built the Wikipedia for free? It's largely because WikiMedia (who specialise in Public Domain licensing and are always being sued for something) employ a load of lawyers! The Law has to cover everything remember, so when it needs to it can do all kinds of things. That's how the law works! pt Sticking words on your profile protects exactly nothing. That's not law, that's magical thinking. Wikimedia asks for money because of their infrastructure and staff." . I'm almost certain you and I have done this before (maybe actually more than once). I did all the work and the writing, you simply stuck your nose up at everything I wrote. It's not going to happen again. pt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It *can* mean something if you word it properly for certain situations. Whether it will come to anything is another matter! It just gets me how people think it's always nonsense. We live in such a cynical world! Obviously the 'Facebook' and 'publicly traded' ones are just cut and pasted silliness. But people have got a right to underline their security. Fab isn't overly helpful in this area, and what harm can be done? If anyone is actually 'put off' by a well-written (ie non-Facebook) yadda then I'd be happy to see them go personally. pt I don't think that's how law works . 'Law' doesn't work in any 'specific' way! It's all in its letter. And I didn't even give a specific example! When I was a full time graphic designer (God I do find this particular one a little bit tedious and people have got so angry over this with me in the past too).... ok I used to occasionally have to use (ie pinch) other people's images from off the net. GD's will do this kind of thing when they feel they absolutely have to. Despite natural copyright, I always took the ones that had nothing at all on the website they were connected to, that said people couldn't do it. Always. I've detailed more in my own YADDA. When I see people get really angry about this part of Fab (amazingly this can happen) it's a HUGE red flag for me I'll tell ya. There is nothing wrong with people protecting themselves from the changes in terms of a website like Fabswingers too. If I was Sydney Uni (who I always like to think are actually reading - hi guys) - or maybe somewhere less prodigious - I'd even take the Facebook nonsense into account (ie if it was ever just about the intention for privacy). I would as a judge too, if that ever came into play (Fabswingers finally makes the 6 oclock news!!!). It's easy to steal anything from this site, that's the long and short of it. Why does Jimmy Wales ask for money all the time? When people built the Wikipedia for free? It's largely because WikiMedia (who specialise in Public Domain licensing and are always being sued for something) employ a load of lawyers! The Law has to cover everything remember, so when it needs to it can do all kinds of things. That's how the law works! pt Sticking words on your profile protects exactly nothing. That's not law, that's magical thinking. Wikimedia asks for money because of their infrastructure and staff. . I'm almost certain you and I have done this before (maybe actually more than once). I did all the work and the writing, you simply stuck your nose up at everything I wrote. It's not going to happen again. pt" I didn't realise that I was required to write a treatise or that length was an indication of merit. I suppose it's up there, in terms of factual basis, with this idea that random words on a website are in any way legally meaningful. You can, of course, do as you like. Don't let me stop you. Including believing that the law is some sort of magical pixie dust. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seriously though, it's bollocks. " How did you guys dig up this relic of a post | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It *can* mean something if you word it properly for certain situations. Whether it will come to anything is another matter! It just gets me how people think it's always nonsense. We live in such a cynical world! Obviously the 'Facebook' and 'publicly traded' ones are just cut and pasted silliness. But people have got a right to underline their security. Fab isn't overly helpful in this area, and what harm can be done? If anyone is actually 'put off' by a well-written (ie non-Facebook) yadda then I'd be happy to see them go personally. pt I don't think that's how law works . 'Law' doesn't work in any 'specific' way! It's all in its letter. And I didn't even give a specific example! When I was a full time graphic designer (God I do find this particular one a little bit tedious and people have got so angry over this with me in the past too).... ok I used to occasionally have to use (ie pinch) other people's images from off the net. GD's will do this kind of thing when they feel they absolutely have to. Despite natural copyright, I always took the ones that had nothing at all on the website they were connected to, that said people couldn't do it. Always. I've detailed more in my own YADDA. When I see people get really angry about this part of Fab (amazingly this can happen) it's a HUGE red flag for me I'll tell ya. There is nothing wrong with people protecting themselves from the changes in terms of a website like Fabswingers too. If I was Sydney Uni (who I always like to think are actually reading - hi guys) - or maybe somewhere less prodigious - I'd even take the Facebook nonsense into account (ie if it was ever just about the intention for privacy). I would as a judge too, if that ever came into play (Fabswingers finally makes the 6 oclock news!!!). It's easy to steal anything from this site, that's the long and short of it. Why does Jimmy Wales ask for money all the time? When people built the Wikipedia for free? It's largely because WikiMedia (who specialise in Public Domain licensing and are always being sued for something) employ a load of lawyers! The Law has to cover everything remember, so when it needs to it can do all kinds of things. That's how the law works! pt Sticking words on your profile protects exactly nothing. That's not law, that's magical thinking. Wikimedia asks for money because of their infrastructure and staff. . I'm almost certain you and I have done this before (maybe actually more than once). I did all the work and the writing, you simply stuck your nose up at everything I wrote. It's not going to happen again. pt I didn't realise that I was required to write a treatise or that length was an indication of merit. I suppose it's up there, in terms of factual basis, with this idea that random words on a website are in any way legally meaningful. You can, of course, do as you like. Don't let me stop you. Including believing that the law is some sort of magical pixie dust. " . You have NO NEED to be this consistently rude to me. I mean why? What does it change? Who do you save? What kind of language is 'pixie dust' etc. when it comes to any kind of debate or argument? Is it a legal term? You clearly know little about how the legal world flexes and breathes to cater for every thing and every one yet you clearly have a need to try and ridicule someone who does. You may or may not win any particular case, but to say "the law doesn't work like this" is a kind of cynical 'myth-making' in itself. And what you said about the WMF Wikimedia was just plain untrue - they spend a huge amount on legal matters, plagiarism and things like image copyright. You have to digitally sign all kinds of things when you upload to them. You should read *their* bumpf. Obviously they don't list this in their bi-monthly pleas for donations, they list the positive stuff. People's sense of privacy is not an area you should be ridiculing them anyway. pt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seriously though, it's bollocks. I think you are wrong, at some of the socials you can see Sydney Uni researchers - they turn up as bold as brass. In fact, some of the Sydney Uni researchers parade in their uniforms in their uploaded photos.
Shameless! "Indeed anyone can get a tee shirt with that codswallop on. I am not guillable to sucking into forum users garbage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They're designed to tell you who to avoid. All you need to assume is that anyone with a legal disclaimer has an std you don't want to catch." Okay note taken avoid those with garbage sydney university | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's laughable if it wasn't so tedious. I've seen some profiles that just have the "legal" warning and nothing else. The best ones though are the ones who say they can't post photos because of thier job, but hey I'll take you to court...sheeple. " Sheeple is hands down the best description I've ever heard! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seriously though, it's bollocks. I think you are wrong, at some of the socials you can see Sydney Uni researchers - they turn up as bold as brass. In fact, some of the Sydney Uni researchers parade in their uniforms in their uploaded photos.
Shameless!
Indeed anyone can get a tee shirt with that codswallop on. I am not guillable to sucking into forum users garbage. "Not anyone, cos they are copyright and Sydney Uni Research Dept is very proud of its reputation and will take you to court, because like Fab it is a publicly traded entity and so is prepared to protect its prize winning assessment and analysis of the worldwide swinging scene through litigation. I should know, cos they have a gagging order on me and I am not allowed to publish anything about their research or the on-going court case following their High Court injunction. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The terns should be revised….. your pictures of your penis , vagina and bum holes are your personal property until you choose to put them on someone else's computer e.g fab, then you accept that they will likely end up being saved, copied, pasted, shared to thousands of peoples phones, computes, down on the pub, in the gym, up someone’s bum, and on some weird Facebook and WhatsApp fetish groups. Click to agree."  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seriously though, it's bollocks. How did you guys dig up this relic of a post " Skimmmed a profile and saw a monster disclaimer. When my eyes stopped rolling did a forum search to see if others thought it was bollocks too. Decided to comment on the most recent as a bit of mischief and here we are!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seriously though, it's bollocks. How did you guys dig up this relic of a post Skimmmed a profile and saw a monster disclaimer. When my eyes stopped rolling did a forum search to see if others thought it was bollocks too. Decided to comment on the most recent as a bit of mischief and here we are! "There are disclaimers about being a monster now?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hi, I’m new here and I’ve noticed that many people have a legal warning on their profile description. Do people realise it means nothing legally? I’ve seen loads of variations that have been cut and pasted on - some even refer to Facebook(!) Was there a big data breach on here that spooked people? Curious as to why people are posting this stuff on their profile. " Its a public company people can share in your info and pics and the university study vanilla  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hi, I’m new here and I’ve noticed that many people have a legal warning on their profile description. Do people realise it means nothing legally? I’ve seen loads of variations that have been cut and pasted on - some even refer to Facebook(!) Was there a big data breach on here that spooked people? Curious as to why people are posting this stuff on their profile. Its a public company people can share in your info and pics and the university study vanilla "It’s a private LTD company, the disclaimers can’t even get that but right! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hi, I’m new here and I’ve noticed that many people have a legal warning on their profile description. Do people realise it means nothing legally? I’ve seen loads of variations that have been cut and pasted on - some even refer to Facebook(!) Was there a big data breach on here that spooked people? Curious as to why people are posting this stuff on their profile. Its a public company people can share in your info and pics and the university study vanilla
It’s a private LTD company, the disclaimers can’t even get that but right!"you have a lovely but | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It *can* mean something if you word it properly for certain situations. Whether it will come to anything is another matter! It just gets me how people think it's always nonsense. We live in such a cynical world! Obviously the 'Facebook' and 'publicly traded' ones are just cut and pasted silliness. But people have got a right to underline their security. Fab isn't overly helpful in this area, and what harm can be done? If anyone is actually 'put off' by a well-written (ie non-Facebook) yadda then I'd be happy to see them go personally. pt I don't think that's how law works . 'Law' doesn't work in any 'specific' way! It's all in its letter. And I didn't even give a specific example! When I was a full time graphic designer (God I do find this particular one a little bit tedious and people have got so angry over this with me in the past too).... ok I used to occasionally have to use (ie pinch) other people's images from off the net. GD's will do this kind of thing when they feel they absolutely have to. Despite natural copyright, I always took the ones that had nothing at all on the website they were connected to, that said people couldn't do it. Always. I've detailed more in my own YADDA. When I see people get really angry about this part of Fab (amazingly this can happen) it's a HUGE red flag for me I'll tell ya. There is nothing wrong with people protecting themselves from the changes in terms of a website like Fabswingers too. If I was Sydney Uni (who I always like to think are actually reading - hi guys) - or maybe somewhere less prodigious - I'd even take the Facebook nonsense into account (ie if it was ever just about the intention for privacy). I would as a judge too, if that ever came into play (Fabswingers finally makes the 6 oclock news!!!). It's easy to steal anything from this site, that's the long and short of it. Why does Jimmy Wales ask for money all the time? When people built the Wikipedia for free? It's largely because WikiMedia (who specialise in Public Domain licensing and are always being sued for something) employ a load of lawyers! The Law has to cover everything remember, so when it needs to it can do all kinds of things. That's how the law works! pt" Where to start......... How about Fab FAQ? From the horses mouth; "We've noticed a legal disclaimer paragraph that some people have on their profiles. Should we have one too? What are they about? Do they do any good? The "legal disclaimer" is pointless nonsense and all does is take up extra space on our servers. Please remove it if you have it on your profile. If you're worried about privacy please set your account to be hidden from non-registered users on your privacy page (this also hides it from search engines but may take a week or two to drop out of search) and remove the notice (and encourage others to do likewise)" If Fab FAQ says it's pointless nonsense, I'm going with........"it's pointless nonsense" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rule of thumb - anything you put out in the internet is at risk of being copied, shared, adapted etc etc. Nature of the beast. Don’t post anything you don’t want put in the wide world. Simples. " Boom Eloquent and to the point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It *can* mean something if you word it properly for certain situations. Whether it will come to anything is another matter! It just gets me how people think it's always nonsense. We live in such a cynical world! Obviously the 'Facebook' and 'publicly traded' ones are just cut and pasted silliness. But people have got a right to underline their security. Fab isn't overly helpful in this area, and what harm can be done? If anyone is actually 'put off' by a well-written (ie non-Facebook) yadda then I'd be happy to see them go personally. pt I don't think that's how law works . 'Law' doesn't work in any 'specific' way! It's all in its letter. And I didn't even give a specific example! When I was a full time graphic designer (God I do find this particular one a little bit tedious and people have got so angry over this with me in the past too).... ok I used to occasionally have to use (ie pinch) other people's images from off the net. GD's will do this kind of thing when they feel they absolutely have to. Despite natural copyright, I always took the ones that had nothing at all on the website they were connected to, that said people couldn't do it. Always. I've detailed more in my own YADDA. When I see people get really angry about this part of Fab (amazingly this can happen) it's a HUGE red flag for me I'll tell ya. There is nothing wrong with people protecting themselves from the changes in terms of a website like Fabswingers too. If I was Sydney Uni (who I always like to think are actually reading - hi guys) - or maybe somewhere less prodigious - I'd even take the Facebook nonsense into account (ie if it was ever just about the intention for privacy). I would as a judge too, if that ever came into play (Fabswingers finally makes the 6 oclock news!!!). It's easy to steal anything from this site, that's the long and short of it. Why does Jimmy Wales ask for money all the time? When people built the Wikipedia for free? It's largely because WikiMedia (who specialise in Public Domain licensing and are always being sued for something) employ a load of lawyers! The Law has to cover everything remember, so when it needs to it can do all kinds of things. That's how the law works! pt Where to start......... How about Fab FAQ? From the horses mouth; "We've noticed a legal disclaimer paragraph that some people have on their profiles. Should we have one too? What are they about? Do they do any good? The "legal disclaimer" is pointless nonsense and all does is take up extra space on our servers. Please remove it if you have it on your profile. If you're worried about privacy please set your account to be hidden from non-registered users on your privacy page (this also hides it from search engines but may take a week or two to drop out of search) and remove the notice (and encourage others to do likewise)" If Fab FAQ says it's pointless nonsense, I'm going with........"it's pointless nonsense"
". *THE* legal disclaimer!!!!!!!!!!! It's about the original that one so many people copies and pastes (and certain were when they wrote it) - not anything you might write yourself! How would they know what you have written???? They are not being 'macho' about "The Law!" I do love Fab, by they are not at their best in this area (instructing people as to what Fab it). Hence the endless forum questions on just about everything to do with Fab. I often get the feeling people have been on here 10 years and a never used Search. pt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It *can* mean something if you word it properly for certain situations. Whether it will come to anything is another matter! It just gets me how people think it's always nonsense. We live in such a cynical world! Obviously the 'Facebook' and 'publicly traded' ones are just cut and pasted silliness. But people have got a right to underline their security. Fab isn't overly helpful in this area, and what harm can be done? If anyone is actually 'put off' by a well-written (ie non-Facebook) yadda then I'd be happy to see them go personally. pt I don't think that's how law works . 'Law' doesn't work in any 'specific' way! It's all in its letter. And I didn't even give a specific example! When I was a full time graphic designer (God I do find this particular one a little bit tedious and people have got so angry over this with me in the past too).... ok I used to occasionally have to use (ie pinch) other people's images from off the net. GD's will do this kind of thing when they feel they absolutely have to. Despite natural copyright, I always took the ones that had nothing at all on the website they were connected to, that said people couldn't do it. Always. I've detailed more in my own YADDA. When I see people get really angry about this part of Fab (amazingly this can happen) it's a HUGE red flag for me I'll tell ya. There is nothing wrong with people protecting themselves from the changes in terms of a website like Fabswingers too. If I was Sydney Uni (who I always like to think are actually reading - hi guys) - or maybe somewhere less prodigious - I'd even take the Facebook nonsense into account (ie if it was ever just about the intention for privacy). I would as a judge too, if that ever came into play (Fabswingers finally makes the 6 oclock news!!!). It's easy to steal anything from this site, that's the long and short of it. Why does Jimmy Wales ask for money all the time? When people built the Wikipedia for free? It's largely because WikiMedia (who specialise in Public Domain licensing and are always being sued for something) employ a load of lawyers! The Law has to cover everything remember, so when it needs to it can do all kinds of things. That's how the law works! pt Where to start......... How about Fab FAQ? From the horses mouth; "We've noticed a legal disclaimer paragraph that some people have on their profiles. Should we have one too? What are they about? Do they do any good? The "legal disclaimer" is pointless nonsense and all does is take up extra space on our servers. Please remove it if you have it on your profile. If you're worried about privacy please set your account to be hidden from non-registered users on your privacy page (this also hides it from search engines but may take a week or two to drop out of search) and remove the notice (and encourage others to do likewise)" If Fab FAQ says it's pointless nonsense, I'm going with........"it's pointless nonsense"
.
*THE* legal disclaimer!!!!!!!!!!!
It's about the original that one so many people copies and pastes (and certain were when they wrote it) - not anything you might write yourself!
How would they know what you have written????
They are not being 'macho' about "The Law!"
I do love Fab, by they are not at their best in this area (instructing people as to what Fab it). Hence the endless forum questions on just about everything to do with Fab. I often get the feeling people have been on here 10 years and a never used Search.
pt
"I'll add to this that Fab generalises on this matter and goes into no detail at all. Fab are notoriously shoe-string and hard to contact too! I appreciate the reason for this is the site is free/cheap, fast, stable and very large. But don't (oh the irony) talk about them like they are Facebook! Fab have the smallest Terms I've ever seen for a site this size! pt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"one day I decided to check out Sydney uni. Their website has profiles for all the staff, just like Fab! They all have a face picture too. So I looked for any disclaimer on their website and couldn’t find it. " Did you find any evidence of Sydney University using this site for research purposes ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But don't (oh the irony) talk about them like they are Facebook! Fab have the smallest Terms I've ever seen for a site this size! pt " Now you're being sizeist. After all it's not how big it is but rather how effective it is when used.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seriously though, it's bollocks. I think you are wrong, at some of the socials you can see Sydney Uni researchers - they turn up as bold as brass. In fact, some of the Sydney Uni researchers parade in their uniforms in their uploaded photos.
Shameless!
Indeed anyone can get a tee shirt with that codswallop on. I am not guillable to sucking into forum users garbage.
Not anyone, cos they are copyright and Sydney Uni Research Dept is very proud of its reputation and will take you to court, because like Fab it is a publicly traded entity and so is prepared to protect its prize winning assessment and analysis of the worldwide swinging scene through litigation.
I should know, cos they have a gagging order on me and I am not allowed to publish anything about their research or the on-going court case following their High Court injunction."Do you actually know what a public traded entity is ? The reason i ask is you said ‘because’ like it makes a difference legally, it does not the law is for all. In fact the opposite is true - public traded companies are far less likely to go to court because the drama of it affects share price , way more than ant settlement is worth And I’m sure you’re taking the piss anyway as neither fab or any university issues stock. One is a private company the other is a charity so neither are publicly traded | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seriously though, it's bollocks. I think you are wrong, at some of the socials you can see Sydney Uni researchers - they turn up as bold as brass. In fact, some of the Sydney Uni researchers parade in their uniforms in their uploaded photos.
Shameless!
Indeed anyone can get a tee shirt with that codswallop on. I am not guillable to sucking into forum users garbage.
Not anyone, cos they are copyright and Sydney Uni Research Dept is very proud of its reputation and will take you to court, because like Fab it is a publicly traded entity and so is prepared to protect its prize winning assessment and analysis of the worldwide swinging scene through litigation.
I should know, cos they have a gagging order on me and I am not allowed to publish anything about their research or the on-going court case following their High Court injunction.
Do you actually know what a public traded entity is ?
The reason i ask is you said ‘because’ like it makes a difference legally, it does not the law is for all. In fact the opposite is true - public traded companies are far less likely to go to court because the drama of it affects share price , way more than ant settlement is worth
And I’m sure you’re taking the piss anyway as neither fab or any university issues stock. One is a private company the other is a charity so neither are publicly traded "Honestly, does it need spelling out. Nearly every post I put in The Lounge falls under this heading: "I’m sure you’re taking the piss anyway" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seriously though, it's bollocks. I think you are wrong, at some of the socials you can see Sydney Uni researchers - they turn up as bold as brass. In fact, some of the Sydney Uni researchers parade in their uniforms in their uploaded photos.
Shameless!
Indeed anyone can get a tee shirt with that codswallop on. I am not guillable to sucking into forum users garbage.
Not anyone, cos they are copyright and Sydney Uni Research Dept is very proud of its reputation and will take you to court, because like Fab it is a publicly traded entity and so is prepared to protect its prize winning assessment and analysis of the worldwide swinging scene through litigation.
I should know, cos they have a gagging order on me and I am not allowed to publish anything about their research or the on-going court case following their High Court injunction.
Do you actually know what a public traded entity is ?
The reason i ask is you said ‘because’ like it makes a difference legally, it does not the law is for all. In fact the opposite is true - public traded companies are far less likely to go to court because the drama of it affects share price , way more than ant settlement is worth
And I’m sure you’re taking the piss anyway as neither fab or any university issues stock. One is a private company the other is a charity so neither are publicly traded
Honestly, does it need spelling out. Nearly every post I put in The Lounge falls under this heading:
"I’m sure you’re taking the piss anyway"" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hi, I’m new here and I’ve noticed that many people have a legal warning on their profile description. Do people realise it means nothing legally? I’ve seen loads of variations that have been cut and pasted on - some even refer to Facebook(!) Was there a big data breach on here that spooked people? Curious as to why people are posting this stuff on their profile. " check my Profile for my opinion. I wonder how many will get legal representation and go to court because a cock or tit appears on another website. Guaranteed to out you! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It *can* mean something if you word it properly for certain situations. Whether it will come to anything is another matter! It just gets me how people think it's always nonsense. We live in such a cynical world! Obviously the 'Facebook' and 'publicly traded' ones are just cut and pasted silliness. But people have got a right to underline their security. Fab isn't overly helpful in this area, and what harm can be done? If anyone is actually 'put off' by a well-written (ie non-Facebook) yadda then I'd be happy to see them go personally. pt I don't think that's how law works . 'Law' doesn't work in any 'specific' way! It's all in its letter. And I didn't even give a specific example! When I was a full time graphic designer (God I do find this particular one a little bit tedious and people have got so angry over this with me in the past too).... ok I used to occasionally have to use (ie pinch) other people's images from off the net. GD's will do this kind of thing when they feel they absolutely have to. Despite natural copyright, I always took the ones that had nothing at all on the website they were connected to, that said people couldn't do it. Always. I've detailed more in my own YADDA. When I see people get really angry about this part of Fab (amazingly this can happen) it's a HUGE red flag for me I'll tell ya. There is nothing wrong with people protecting themselves from the changes in terms of a website like Fabswingers too. If I was Sydney Uni (who I always like to think are actually reading - hi guys) - or maybe somewhere less prodigious - I'd even take the Facebook nonsense into account (ie if it was ever just about the intention for privacy). I would as a judge too, if that ever came into play (Fabswingers finally makes the 6 oclock news!!!). It's easy to steal anything from this site, that's the long and short of it. Why does Jimmy Wales ask for money all the time? When people built the Wikipedia for free? It's largely because WikiMedia (who specialise in Public Domain licensing and are always being sued for something) employ a load of lawyers! The Law has to cover everything remember, so when it needs to it can do all kinds of things. That's how the law works! pt Where to start......... How about Fab FAQ? From the horses mouth; "We've noticed a legal disclaimer paragraph that some people have on their profiles. Should we have one too? What are they about? Do they do any good? The "legal disclaimer" is pointless nonsense and all does is take up extra space on our servers. Please remove it if you have it on your profile. If you're worried about privacy please set your account to be hidden from non-registered users on your privacy page (this also hides it from search engines but may take a week or two to drop out of search) and remove the notice (and encourage others to do likewise)" If Fab FAQ says it's pointless nonsense, I'm going with........"it's pointless nonsense"
.
*THE* legal disclaimer!!!!!!!!!!!
It's about the original that one so many people copies and pastes (and certain were when they wrote it) - not anything you might write yourself!
How would they know what you have written????
They are not being 'macho' about "The Law!"
I do love Fab, by they are not at their best in this area (instructing people as to what Fab it). Hence the endless forum questions on just about everything to do with Fab. I often get the feeling people have been on here 10 years and a never used Search.
pt
I'll add to this that Fab generalises on this matter and goes into no detail at all. Fab are notoriously shoe-string and hard to contact too! I appreciate the reason for this is the site is free/cheap, fast, stable and very large.
But don't (oh the irony) talk about them like they are Facebook! Fab have the smallest Terms I've ever seen for a site this size!
pt""it's pointless nonsense" isn't a generalisation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I visited this a while ago. When I first joined fab I did the sheep thing and pasted the message onto my account. Being a person who usually asks why, one day I decided to check out Sydney uni. Their website has profiles for all the staff, just like Fab! They all have a face picture too. So I looked for any disclaimer on their website and couldn’t find it. I removed mine that day because it thought fair enough. I can see your faces and you can see mine. Who cares?" Do they send each other cock pics? If so I’m applying for a job. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's the equivalent of sticking your insurance policy to your car with a statement "if you damage my car, I'm protected"" Nah. It's the equivalent of sticking your toddler's scrawling on your car and claiming that's your insurance policy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It *can* mean something if you word it properly for certain situations. Whether it will come to anything is another matter! It just gets me how people think it's always nonsense. We live in such a cynical world! Obviously the 'Facebook' and 'publicly traded' ones are just cut and pasted silliness. But people have got a right to underline their security. Fab isn't overly helpful in this area, and what harm can be done? If anyone is actually 'put off' by a well-written (ie non-Facebook) yadda then I'd be happy to see them go personally. pt I don't think that's how law works . 'Law' doesn't work in any 'specific' way! It's all in its letter. And I didn't even give a specific example! When I was a full time graphic designer (God I do find this particular one a little bit tedious and people have got so angry over this with me in the past too).... ok I used to occasionally have to use (ie pinch) other people's images from off the net. GD's will do this kind of thing when they feel they absolutely have to. Despite natural copyright, I always took the ones that had nothing at all on the website they were connected to, that said people couldn't do it. Always. I've detailed more in my own YADDA. When I see people get really angry about this part of Fab (amazingly this can happen) it's a HUGE red flag for me I'll tell ya. There is nothing wrong with people protecting themselves from the changes in terms of a website like Fabswingers too. If I was Sydney Uni (who I always like to think are actually reading - hi guys) - or maybe somewhere less prodigious - I'd even take the Facebook nonsense into account (ie if it was ever just about the intention for privacy). I would as a judge too, if that ever came into play (Fabswingers finally makes the 6 oclock news!!!). It's easy to steal anything from this site, that's the long and short of it. Why does Jimmy Wales ask for money all the time? When people built the Wikipedia for free? It's largely because WikiMedia (who specialise in Public Domain licensing and are always being sued for something) employ a load of lawyers! The Law has to cover everything remember, so when it needs to it can do all kinds of things. That's how the law works! pt Where to start......... How about Fab FAQ? From the horses mouth; "We've noticed a legal disclaimer paragraph that some people have on their profiles. Should we have one too? What are they about? Do they do any good? The "legal disclaimer" is pointless nonsense and all does is take up extra space on our servers. Please remove it if you have it on your profile. If you're worried about privacy please set your account to be hidden from non-registered users on your privacy page (this also hides it from search engines but may take a week or two to drop out of search) and remove the notice (and encourage others to do likewise)" If Fab FAQ says it's pointless nonsense, I'm going with........"it's pointless nonsense"
.
*THE* legal disclaimer!!!!!!!!!!!
It's about the original that one so many people copies and pastes (and certain were when they wrote it) - not anything you might write yourself!
How would they know what you have written????
They are not being 'macho' about "The Law!"
I do love Fab, by they are not at their best in this area (instructing people as to what Fab it). Hence the endless forum questions on just about everything to do with Fab. I often get the feeling people have been on here 10 years and a never used Search.
pt
I'll add to this that Fab generalises on this matter and goes into no detail at all. Fab are notoriously shoe-string and hard to contact too! I appreciate the reason for this is the site is free/cheap, fast, stable and very large.
But don't (oh the irony) talk about them like they are Facebook! Fab have the smallest Terms I've ever seen for a site this size!
pt
"it's pointless nonsense" isn't a generalisation. ". . "It's pointless nonsense" ("It's") is about the Facebook nonsense that was knocking about. It's *not* about anything that someone like me might write! So it generalises in the sense of being ambiguous. ALSO PEOPLE, THESE ARE *****NOT***** "Legal Disclaimers"!!!!! If someone says "My pics and content belong to me... you have no permission to re-distribute or-use them." they are CLAIMING not disclaiming something. (They might be worried about their video being uploaded to PornoHub or whatever) THEY ARE **CLAIMING** (consolidating essentially) THEIR OWN NATURAL COPYRIGHT, and stating what that means to them in a personal level (some say people can have it all, some say not). This is *NOT* a legal disclaimer (look the word up), it more typically an actual Warning if they say they will take legal action! Pornohub (which people successfully have done over Pornohub and its constant acceptance of st*len pictures and videos - I've been following that legal action for a while, it's only one site but it's been huge and really telling). SO WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND HERE? ***Digital content*** (ie as a copy) can end up on people's computers and phones in the caches on their hard drives for sure, but look at rules regarding illegal porn.... our law is very clear that this is seen as an illegal form of ownership (ie you do have it, but have it illegally) - if in trouble you then have to prove if it is unwitting or not. Now that doesn't *exactly* correlate to the issue here obviously (about re-using content in general... sometimes even for nefarious purposes), but it clearly shows that this cynical idea that all of our of our online stuff somehow becomes owned by everyone when we upload it is actually the nonsense here. The law can and does factor in this. Blocking people? Regarding people's Fab profiles, I'd personally far rather see someone naively copy the nonsense line about Facebook being publicly traded (which is clearly what Fab refers to) than see a profile cynically comment on dumb sheeple etc. That stance couldn't be a bigger turn off for me. I've been with the former but never with the later in fact. Fabswingers? Can you sort this out. People think that your ambiguous take on the 'Facebook line' (you only say "it" and "the") discourages people affirming the terms of their own natural copyright. If that was the case it would be a free speech issue as much as anything else, and would be simply misleading legally (however weak at times personal copyright might realistically be). I also so something akin to bullying on this issue too. I personally think people have a human right to try and protect against changing 'terms' too (though there is little merit in this I grant you!) You have to deal with the ambiguity here - there are 3 different things going on here (non of which are 'disclaimers' apart from potentially no.3). 1) The Facebook 'publicly traded entity' nonsense. (You could clarify about this as it's clearly what you refer to.) 2) The Sydney Uni line. (This is up to individual people obviously as it's entirely about them.) 3) Whatever someone like me, with some experience, wants to write regarding their own content. (Again this is up to me not you.) Seeming to conflate these 3 things into one "It" is clearly misleading to people. No.3 could be anything, but nos 1 and 2 are *not* actually legal disclaimers, they are warnings essentially. So using more accurate language is important too. pt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It *can* mean something if you word it properly for certain situations. Whether it will come to anything is another matter! It just gets me how people think it's always nonsense. We live in such a cynical world! Obviously the 'Facebook' and 'publicly traded' ones are just cut and pasted silliness. But people have got a right to underline their security. Fab isn't overly helpful in this area, and what harm can be done? If anyone is actually 'put off' by a well-written (ie non-Facebook) yadda then I'd be happy to see them go personally. pt I don't think that's how law works . 'Law' doesn't work in any 'specific' way! It's all in its letter. And I didn't even give a specific example! When I was a full time graphic designer (God I do find this particular one a little bit tedious and people have got so angry over this with me in the past too).... ok I used to occasionally have to use (ie pinch) other people's images from off the net. GD's will do this kind of thing when they feel they absolutely have to. Despite natural copyright, I always took the ones that had nothing at all on the website they were connected to, that said people couldn't do it. Always. I've detailed more in my own YADDA. When I see people get really angry about this part of Fab (amazingly this can happen) it's a HUGE red flag for me I'll tell ya. There is nothing wrong with people protecting themselves from the changes in terms of a website like Fabswingers too. If I was Sydney Uni (who I always like to think are actually reading - hi guys) - or maybe somewhere less prodigious - I'd even take the Facebook nonsense into account (ie if it was ever just about the intention for privacy). I would as a judge too, if that ever came into play (Fabswingers finally makes the 6 oclock news!!!). It's easy to steal anything from this site, that's the long and short of it. Why does Jimmy Wales ask for money all the time? When people built the Wikipedia for free? It's largely because WikiMedia (who specialise in Public Domain licensing and are always being sued for something) employ a load of lawyers! The Law has to cover everything remember, so when it needs to it can do all kinds of things. That's how the law works! pt Where to start......... How about Fab FAQ? From the horses mouth; "We've noticed a legal disclaimer paragraph that some people have on their profiles. Should we have one too? What are they about? Do they do any good? The "legal disclaimer" is pointless nonsense and all does is take up extra space on our servers. Please remove it if you have it on your profile. If you're worried about privacy please set your account to be hidden from non-registered users on your privacy page (this also hides it from search engines but may take a week or two to drop out of search) and remove the notice (and encourage others to do likewise)" If Fab FAQ says it's pointless nonsense, I'm going with........"it's pointless nonsense"
.
*THE* legal disclaimer!!!!!!!!!!!
It's about the original that one so many people copies and pastes (and certain were when they wrote it) - not anything you might write yourself!
How would they know what you have written????
They are not being 'macho' about "The Law!"
I do love Fab, by they are not at their best in this area (instructing people as to what Fab it). Hence the endless forum questions on just about everything to do with Fab. I often get the feeling people have been on here 10 years and a never used Search.
pt
I'll add to this that Fab generalises on this matter and goes into no detail at all. Fab are notoriously shoe-string and hard to contact too! I appreciate the reason for this is the site is free/cheap, fast, stable and very large.
But don't (oh the irony) talk about them like they are Facebook! Fab have the smallest Terms I've ever seen for a site this size!
pt
"it's pointless nonsense" isn't a generalisation.
.
.
"It's pointless nonsense" ("It's") is about the Facebook nonsense that was knocking about. It's *not* about anything that someone like me might write!
So it generalises in the sense of being ambiguous.
ALSO PEOPLE,
THESE ARE
*****NOT*****
"Legal Disclaimers"!!!!!
If someone says "My pics and content belong to me... you have no permission to re-distribute or-use them." they are CLAIMING not disclaiming something.
(They might be worried about their video being uploaded to PornoHub or whatever)
THEY ARE **CLAIMING** (consolidating essentially) THEIR OWN NATURAL COPYRIGHT, and stating what that means to them in a personal level (some say people can have it all, some say not).
This is *NOT* a legal disclaimer (look the word up), it more typically an actual Warning if they say they will take legal action!
Pornohub
(which people successfully have done over Pornohub and its constant acceptance of st*len pictures and videos - I've been following that legal action for a while, it's only one site but it's been huge and really telling).
SO WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND HERE?
***Digital content*** (ie as a copy) can end up on people's computers and phones in the caches on their hard drives for sure, but look at rules regarding illegal porn.... our law is very clear that this is seen as an illegal form of ownership (ie you do have it, but have it illegally) - if in trouble you then have to prove if it is unwitting or not.
Now that doesn't *exactly* correlate to the issue here obviously (about re-using content in general... sometimes even for nefarious purposes), but it clearly shows that this cynical idea that all of our of our online stuff somehow becomes owned by everyone when we upload it is actually the nonsense here. The law can and does factor in this.
Blocking people?
Regarding people's Fab profiles, I'd personally far rather see someone naively copy the nonsense line about Facebook being publicly traded (which is clearly what Fab refers to) than see a profile cynically comment on dumb sheeple etc. That stance couldn't be a bigger turn off for me. I've been with the former but never with the later in fact.
Fabswingers?
Can you sort this out. People think that your ambiguous take on the 'Facebook line' (you only say "it" and "the") discourages people affirming the terms of their own natural copyright. If that was the case it would be a free speech issue as much as anything else, and would be simply misleading legally (however weak at times personal copyright might realistically be). I also so something akin to bullying on this issue too.
I personally think people have a human right to try and protect against changing 'terms' too (though there is little merit in this I grant you!)
You have to deal with the ambiguity here - there are 3 different things going on here (non of which are 'disclaimers' apart from potentially no.3).
1) The Facebook 'publicly traded entity' nonsense. (You could clarify about this as it's clearly what you refer to.)
2) The Sydney Uni line. (This is up to individual people obviously as it's entirely about them.)
3) Whatever someone like me, with some experience, wants to write regarding their own content. (Again this is up to me not you.)
Seeming to conflate these 3 things into one "It" is clearly misleading to people.
No.3 could be anything, but nos 1 and 2 are *not* actually legal disclaimers, they are warnings essentially. So using more accurate language is important too.
pt"tl;dr God only knows | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The "now a public traded entity" nonsense (stocks and shares guys) wouldn't make any different to anything anyway, Fab, Ebay or Facebook. People are fabfuming over 3 totally different types of statement here, that's the joke. pt" “Fabfuming” I’m pinching that for future use!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It *can* mean something if you word it properly for certain situations. Whether it will come to anything is another matter! It just gets me how people think it's always nonsense. We live in such a cynical world! Obviously the 'Facebook' and 'publicly traded' ones are just cut and pasted silliness. But people have got a right to underline their security. Fab isn't overly helpful in this area, and what harm can be done? If anyone is actually 'put off' by a well-written (ie non-Facebook) yadda then I'd be happy to see them go personally. pt I don't think that's how law works . 'Law' doesn't work in any 'specific' way! It's all in its letter. And I didn't even give a specific example! When I was a full time graphic designer (God I do find this particular one a little bit tedious and people have got so angry over this with me in the past too).... ok I used to occasionally have to use (ie pinch) other people's images from off the net. GD's will do this kind of thing when they feel they absolutely have to. Despite natural copyright, I always took the ones that had nothing at all on the website they were connected to, that said people couldn't do it. Always. I've detailed more in my own YADDA. When I see people get really angry about this part of Fab (amazingly this can happen) it's a HUGE red flag for me I'll tell ya. There is nothing wrong with people protecting themselves from the changes in terms of a website like Fabswingers too. If I was Sydney Uni (who I always like to think are actually reading - hi guys) - or maybe somewhere less prodigious - I'd even take the Facebook nonsense into account (ie if it was ever just about the intention for privacy). I would as a judge too, if that ever came into play (Fabswingers finally makes the 6 oclock news!!!). It's easy to steal anything from this site, that's the long and short of it. Why does Jimmy Wales ask for money all the time? When people built the Wikipedia for free? It's largely because WikiMedia (who specialise in Public Domain licensing and are always being sued for something) employ a load of lawyers! The Law has to cover everything remember, so when it needs to it can do all kinds of things. That's how the law works! pt Where to start......... How about Fab FAQ? From the horses mouth; "We've noticed a legal disclaimer paragraph that some people have on their profiles. Should we have one too? What are they about? Do they do any good? The "legal disclaimer" is pointless nonsense and all does is take up extra space on our servers. Please remove it if you have it on your profile. If you're worried about privacy please set your account to be hidden from non-registered users on your privacy page (this also hides it from search engines but may take a week or two to drop out of search) and remove the notice (and encourage others to do likewise)" If Fab FAQ says it's pointless nonsense, I'm going with........"it's pointless nonsense"
.
*THE* legal disclaimer!!!!!!!!!!!
It's about the original that one so many people copies and pastes (and certain were when they wrote it) - not anything you might write yourself!
How would they know what you have written????
They are not being 'macho' about "The Law!"
I do love Fab, by they are not at their best in this area (instructing people as to what Fab it). Hence the endless forum questions on just about everything to do with Fab. I often get the feeling people have been on here 10 years and a never used Search.
pt
I'll add to this that Fab generalises on this matter and goes into no detail at all. Fab are notoriously shoe-string and hard to contact too! I appreciate the reason for this is the site is free/cheap, fast, stable and very large.
But don't (oh the irony) talk about them like they are Facebook! Fab have the smallest Terms I've ever seen for a site this size!
pt
"it's pointless nonsense" isn't a generalisation.
.
.
"It's pointless nonsense" ("It's") is about the Facebook nonsense that was knocking about. It's *not* about anything that someone like me might write!
So it generalises in the sense of being ambiguous.
ALSO PEOPLE,
THESE ARE
*****NOT*****
"Legal Disclaimers"!!!!!
If someone says "My pics and content belong to me... you have no permission to re-distribute or-use them." they are CLAIMING not disclaiming something.
(They might be worried about their video being uploaded to PornoHub or whatever)
THEY ARE **CLAIMING** (consolidating essentially) THEIR OWN NATURAL COPYRIGHT, and stating what that means to them in a personal level (some say people can have it all, some say not).
This is *NOT* a legal disclaimer (look the word up), it more typically an actual Warning if they say they will take legal action!
Pornohub
(which people successfully have done over Pornohub and its constant acceptance of st*len pictures and videos - I've been following that legal action for a while, it's only one site but it's been huge and really telling).
SO WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND HERE?
***Digital content*** (ie as a copy) can end up on people's computers and phones in the caches on their hard drives for sure, but look at rules regarding illegal porn.... our law is very clear that this is seen as an illegal form of ownership (ie you do have it, but have it illegally) - if in trouble you then have to prove if it is unwitting or not.
Now that doesn't *exactly* correlate to the issue here obviously (about re-using content in general... sometimes even for nefarious purposes), but it clearly shows that this cynical idea that all of our of our online stuff somehow becomes owned by everyone when we upload it is actually the nonsense here. The law can and does factor in this.
Blocking people?
Regarding people's Fab profiles, I'd personally far rather see someone naively copy the nonsense line about Facebook being publicly traded (which is clearly what Fab refers to) than see a profile cynically comment on dumb sheeple etc. That stance couldn't be a bigger turn off for me. I've been with the former but never with the later in fact.
Fabswingers?
Can you sort this out. People think that your ambiguous take on the 'Facebook line' (you only say "it" and "the") discourages people affirming the terms of their own natural copyright. If that was the case it would be a free speech issue as much as anything else, and would be simply misleading legally (however weak at times personal copyright might realistically be). I also so something akin to bullying on this issue too.
I personally think people have a human right to try and protect against changing 'terms' too (though there is little merit in this I grant you!)
You have to deal with the ambiguity here - there are 3 different things going on here (non of which are 'disclaimers' apart from potentially no.3).
1) The Facebook 'publicly traded entity' nonsense. (You could clarify about this as it's clearly what you refer to.)
2) The Sydney Uni line. (This is up to individual people obviously as it's entirely about them.)
3) Whatever someone like me, with some experience, wants to write regarding their own content. (Again this is up to me not you.)
Seeming to conflate these 3 things into one "It" is clearly misleading to people.
No.3 could be anything, but nos 1 and 2 are *not* actually legal disclaimers, they are warnings essentially. So using more accurate language is important too.
pt"The "Legal Disclaimer" would refer to all the legal nonsense people post, Sydney University, Facebook, European Court of Human rights, et al. That's why the FAQ says "disclaimers". Plural not singular. I'll bet a pound to a pinch of pigshit Fabs owners spent a whole bunch of money writing the rules and FAQs. I'll take them over a poster on a thread any day of the week. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It *can* mean something if you word it properly for certain situations. Whether it will come to anything is another matter! It just gets me how people think it's always nonsense. We live in such a cynical world! Obviously the 'Facebook' and 'publicly traded' ones are just cut and pasted silliness. But people have got a right to underline their security. Fab isn't overly helpful in this area, and what harm can be done? If anyone is actually 'put off' by a well-written (ie non-Facebook) yadda then I'd be happy to see them go personally. pt I don't think that's how law works . 'Law' doesn't work in any 'specific' way! It's all in its letter. And I didn't even give a specific example! When I was a full time graphic designer (God I do find this particular one a little bit tedious and people have got so angry over this with me in the past too).... ok I used to occasionally have to use (ie pinch) other people's images from off the net. GD's will do this kind of thing when they feel they absolutely have to. Despite natural copyright, I always took the ones that had nothing at all on the website they were connected to, that said people couldn't do it. Always. I've detailed more in my own YADDA. When I see people get really angry about this part of Fab (amazingly this can happen) it's a HUGE red flag for me I'll tell ya. There is nothing wrong with people protecting themselves from the changes in terms of a website like Fabswingers too. If I was Sydney Uni (who I always like to think are actually reading - hi guys) - or maybe somewhere less prodigious - I'd even take the Facebook nonsense into account (ie if it was ever just about the intention for privacy). I would as a judge too, if that ever came into play (Fabswingers finally makes the 6 oclock news!!!). It's easy to steal anything from this site, that's the long and short of it. Why does Jimmy Wales ask for money all the time? When people built the Wikipedia for free? It's largely because WikiMedia (who specialise in Public Domain licensing and are always being sued for something) employ a load of lawyers! The Law has to cover everything remember, so when it needs to it can do all kinds of things. That's how the law works! pt Where to start......... How about Fab FAQ? From the horses mouth; "We've noticed a legal disclaimer paragraph that some people have on their profiles. Should we have one too? What are they about? Do they do any good? The "legal disclaimer" is pointless nonsense and all does is take up extra space on our servers. Please remove it if you have it on your profile. If you're worried about privacy please set your account to be hidden from non-registered users on your privacy page (this also hides it from search engines but may take a week or two to drop out of search) and remove the notice (and encourage others to do likewise)" If Fab FAQ says it's pointless nonsense, I'm going with........"it's pointless nonsense"
.
*THE* legal disclaimer!!!!!!!!!!!
It's about the original that one so many people copies and pastes (and certain were when they wrote it) - not anything you might write yourself!
How would they know what you have written????
They are not being 'macho' about "The Law!"
I do love Fab, by they are not at their best in this area (instructing people as to what Fab it). Hence the endless forum questions on just about everything to do with Fab. I often get the feeling people have been on here 10 years and a never used Search.
pt
I'll add to this that Fab generalises on this matter and goes into no detail at all. Fab are notoriously shoe-string and hard to contact too! I appreciate the reason for this is the site is free/cheap, fast, stable and very large.
But don't (oh the irony) talk about them like they are Facebook! Fab have the smallest Terms I've ever seen for a site this size!
pt
"it's pointless nonsense" isn't a generalisation.
.
.
"It's pointless nonsense" ("It's") is about the Facebook nonsense that was knocking about. It's *not* about anything that someone like me might write!
So it generalises in the sense of being ambiguous.
ALSO PEOPLE,
THESE ARE
*****NOT*****
"Legal Disclaimers"!!!!!
If someone says "My pics and content belong to me... you have no permission to re-distribute or-use them." they are CLAIMING not disclaiming something.
(They might be worried about their video being uploaded to PornoHub or whatever)
THEY ARE **CLAIMING** (consolidating essentially) THEIR OWN NATURAL COPYRIGHT, and stating what that means to them in a personal level (some say people can have it all, some say not).
This is *NOT* a legal disclaimer (look the word up), it more typically an actual Warning if they say they will take legal action!
Pornohub
(which people successfully have done over Pornohub and its constant acceptance of st*len pictures and videos - I've been following that legal action for a while, it's only one site but it's been huge and really telling).
SO WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND HERE?
***Digital content*** (ie as a copy) can end up on people's computers and phones in the caches on their hard drives for sure, but look at rules regarding illegal porn.... our law is very clear that this is seen as an illegal form of ownership (ie you do have it, but have it illegally) - if in trouble you then have to prove if it is unwitting or not.
Now that doesn't *exactly* correlate to the issue here obviously (about re-using content in general... sometimes even for nefarious purposes), but it clearly shows that this cynical idea that all of our of our online stuff somehow becomes owned by everyone when we upload it is actually the nonsense here. The law can and does factor in this.
Blocking people?
Regarding people's Fab profiles, I'd personally far rather see someone naively copy the nonsense line about Facebook being publicly traded (which is clearly what Fab refers to) than see a profile cynically comment on dumb sheeple etc. That stance couldn't be a bigger turn off for me. I've been with the former but never with the later in fact.
Fabswingers?
Can you sort this out. People think that your ambiguous take on the 'Facebook line' (you only say "it" and "the") discourages people affirming the terms of their own natural copyright. If that was the case it would be a free speech issue as much as anything else, and would be simply misleading legally (however weak at times personal copyright might realistically be). I also so something akin to bullying on this issue too.
I personally think people have a human right to try and protect against changing 'terms' too (though there is little merit in this I grant you!)
You have to deal with the ambiguity here - there are 3 different things going on here (non of which are 'disclaimers' apart from potentially no.3).
1) The Facebook 'publicly traded entity' nonsense. (You could clarify about this as it's clearly what you refer to.)
2) The Sydney Uni line. (This is up to individual people obviously as it's entirely about them.)
3) Whatever someone like me, with some experience, wants to write regarding their own content. (Again this is up to me not you.)
Seeming to conflate these 3 things into one "It" is clearly misleading to people.
No.3 could be anything, but nos 1 and 2 are *not* actually legal disclaimers, they are warnings essentially. So using more accurate language is important too.
pt
The "Legal Disclaimer" would refer to all the legal nonsense people post, Sydney University, Facebook, European Court of Human rights, et al.
That's why the FAQ says "disclaimers". Plural not singular.
I'll bet a pound to a pinch of pigshit Fabs owners spent a whole bunch of money writing the rules and FAQs.
I'll take them over a poster on a thread any day of the week."Self correction, it does say disclaimer, singular. My bad. As you were..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"one day I decided to check out Sydney uni. Their website has profiles for all the staff, just like Fab! They all have a face picture too. So I looked for any disclaimer on their website and couldn’t find it. Did you find any evidence of Sydney University using this site for research purposes ?" I did not but I wasn’t looking for that. One thing I have seen on profiles that I quite like is - Sydney Uni, knock yourselves out Yet to see one that says please everyone use my pictures anywhere for anything but I’m sure I will eventually. Maybe even - Sydney feel free to use so long as you send a tribute in acknowledgement | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It *can* mean something if you word it properly for certain situations. Whether it will come to anything is another matter! It just gets me how people think it's always nonsense. We live in such a cynical world! Obviously the 'Facebook' and 'publicly traded' ones are just cut and pasted silliness. But people have got a right to underline their security. Fab isn't overly helpful in this area, and what harm can be done? If anyone is actually 'put off' by a well-written (ie non-Facebook) yadda then I'd be happy to see them go personally. pt I don't think that's how law works . 'Law' doesn't work in any 'specific' way! It's all in its letter. And I didn't even give a specific example! When I was a full time graphic designer (God I do find this particular one a little bit tedious and people have got so angry over this with me in the past too).... ok I used to occasionally have to use (ie pinch) other people's images from off the net. GD's will do this kind of thing when they feel they absolutely have to. Despite natural copyright, I always took the ones that had nothing at all on the website they were connected to, that said people couldn't do it. Always. I've detailed more in my own YADDA. When I see people get really angry about this part of Fab (amazingly this can happen) it's a HUGE red flag for me I'll tell ya. There is nothing wrong with people protecting themselves from the changes in terms of a website like Fabswingers too. If I was Sydney Uni (who I always like to think are actually reading - hi guys) - or maybe somewhere less prodigious - I'd even take the Facebook nonsense into account (ie if it was ever just about the intention for privacy). I would as a judge too, if that ever came into play (Fabswingers finally makes the 6 oclock news!!!). It's easy to steal anything from this site, that's the long and short of it. Why does Jimmy Wales ask for money all the time? When people built the Wikipedia for free? It's largely because WikiMedia (who specialise in Public Domain licensing and are always being sued for something) employ a load of lawyers! The Law has to cover everything remember, so when it needs to it can do all kinds of things. That's how the law works! pt Where to start......... How about Fab FAQ? From the horses mouth; "We've noticed a legal disclaimer paragraph that some people have on their profiles. Should we have one too? What are they about? Do they do any good? The "legal disclaimer" is pointless nonsense and all does is take up extra space on our servers. Please remove it if you have it on your profile. If you're worried about privacy please set your account to be hidden from non-registered users on your privacy page (this also hides it from search engines but may take a week or two to drop out of search) and remove the notice (and encourage others to do likewise)" If Fab FAQ says it's pointless nonsense, I'm going with........"it's pointless nonsense"
.
*THE* legal disclaimer!!!!!!!!!!!
It's about the original that one so many people copies and pastes (and certain were when they wrote it) - not anything you might write yourself!
How would they know what you have written????
They are not being 'macho' about "The Law!"
I do love Fab, by they are not at their best in this area (instructing people as to what Fab it). Hence the endless forum questions on just about everything to do with Fab. I often get the feeling people have been on here 10 years and a never used Search.
pt
I'll add to this that Fab generalises on this matter and goes into no detail at all. Fab are notoriously shoe-string and hard to contact too! I appreciate the reason for this is the site is free/cheap, fast, stable and very large.
But don't (oh the irony) talk about them like they are Facebook! Fab have the smallest Terms I've ever seen for a site this size!
pt
"it's pointless nonsense" isn't a generalisation.
.
.
"It's pointless nonsense" ("It's") is about the Facebook nonsense that was knocking about. It's *not* about anything that someone like me might write!
So it generalises in the sense of being ambiguous.
ALSO PEOPLE,
THESE ARE
*****NOT*****
"Legal Disclaimers"!!!!!
If someone says "My pics and content belong to me... you have no permission to re-distribute or-use them." they are CLAIMING not disclaiming something.
(They might be worried about their video being uploaded to PornoHub or whatever)
THEY ARE **CLAIMING** (consolidating essentially) THEIR OWN NATURAL COPYRIGHT, and stating what that means to them in a personal level (some say people can have it all, some say not).
This is *NOT* a legal disclaimer (look the word up), it more typically an actual Warning if they say they will take legal action!
Pornohub
(which people successfully have done over Pornohub and its constant acceptance of st*len pictures and videos - I've been following that legal action for a while, it's only one site but it's been huge and really telling).
SO WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND HERE?
***Digital content*** (ie as a copy) can end up on people's computers and phones in the caches on their hard drives for sure, but look at rules regarding illegal porn.... our law is very clear that this is seen as an illegal form of ownership (ie you do have it, but have it illegally) - if in trouble you then have to prove if it is unwitting or not.
Now that doesn't *exactly* correlate to the issue here obviously (about re-using content in general... sometimes even for nefarious purposes), but it clearly shows that this cynical idea that all of our of our online stuff somehow becomes owned by everyone when we upload it is actually the nonsense here. The law can and does factor in this.
Blocking people?
Regarding people's Fab profiles, I'd personally far rather see someone naively copy the nonsense line about Facebook being publicly traded (which is clearly what Fab refers to) than see a profile cynically comment on dumb sheeple etc. That stance couldn't be a bigger turn off for me. I've been with the former but never with the later in fact.
Fabswingers?
Can you sort this out. People think that your ambiguous take on the 'Facebook line' (you only say "it" and "the") discourages people affirming the terms of their own natural copyright. If that was the case it would be a free speech issue as much as anything else, and would be simply misleading legally (however weak at times personal copyright might realistically be). I also so something akin to bullying on this issue too.
I personally think people have a human right to try and protect against changing 'terms' too (though there is little merit in this I grant you!)
You have to deal with the ambiguity here - there are 3 different things going on here (non of which are 'disclaimers' apart from potentially no.3).
1) The Facebook 'publicly traded entity' nonsense. (You could clarify about this as it's clearly what you refer to.)
2) The Sydney Uni line. (This is up to individual people obviously as it's entirely about them.)
3) Whatever someone like me, with some experience, wants to write regarding their own content. (Again this is up to me not you.)
Seeming to conflate these 3 things into one "It" is clearly misleading to people.
No.3 could be anything, but nos 1 and 2 are *not* actually legal disclaimers, they are warnings essentially. So using more accurate language is important too.
pt
The "Legal Disclaimer" would refer to all the legal nonsense people post, Sydney University, Facebook, European Court of Human rights, et al.
That's why the FAQ says "disclaimers". Plural not singular.
I'll bet a pound to a pinch of pigshit Fabs owners spent a whole bunch of money writing the rules and FAQs.
I'll take them over a poster on a thread any day of the week.
Self correction, it does say disclaimer, singular. My bad.
As you were.....
". So what are any of those actually *disclaiming*? Anyone?? Fab will have looked at legalities for sure, but no money was spent on that bit I tell you. But perhaps they are just being 'ironic', because so-many people on Fab either call them or (even more prevalently) bitterly refer to them as "Disclaimers"! pt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It *can* mean something if you word it properly for certain situations. Whether it will come to anything is another matter! It just gets me how people think it's always nonsense. We live in such a cynical world! Obviously the 'Facebook' and 'publicly traded' ones are just cut and pasted silliness. But people have got a right to underline their security. Fab isn't overly helpful in this area, and what harm can be done? If anyone is actually 'put off' by a well-written (ie non-Facebook) yadda then I'd be happy to see them go personally. pt I don't think that's how law works . 'Law' doesn't work in any 'specific' way! It's all in its letter. And I didn't even give a specific example! When I was a full time graphic designer (God I do find this particular one a little bit tedious and people have got so angry over this with me in the past too).... ok I used to occasionally have to use (ie pinch) other people's images from off the net. GD's will do this kind of thing when they feel they absolutely have to. Despite natural copyright, I always took the ones that had nothing at all on the website they were connected to, that said people couldn't do it. Always. I've detailed more in my own YADDA. When I see people get really angry about this part of Fab (amazingly this can happen) it's a HUGE red flag for me I'll tell ya. There is nothing wrong with people protecting themselves from the changes in terms of a website like Fabswingers too. If I was Sydney Uni (who I always like to think are actually reading - hi guys) - or maybe somewhere less prodigious - I'd even take the Facebook nonsense into account (ie if it was ever just about the intention for privacy). I would as a judge too, if that ever came into play (Fabswingers finally makes the 6 oclock news!!!). It's easy to steal anything from this site, that's the long and short of it. Why does Jimmy Wales ask for money all the time? When people built the Wikipedia for free? It's largely because WikiMedia (who specialise in Public Domain licensing and are always being sued for something) employ a load of lawyers! The Law has to cover everything remember, so when it needs to it can do all kinds of things. That's how the law works! pt Where to start......... How about Fab FAQ? From the horses mouth; "We've noticed a legal disclaimer paragraph that some people have on their profiles. Should we have one too? What are they about? Do they do any good? The "legal disclaimer" is pointless nonsense and all does is take up extra space on our servers. Please remove it if you have it on your profile. If you're worried about privacy please set your account to be hidden from non-registered users on your privacy page (this also hides it from search engines but may take a week or two to drop out of search) and remove the notice (and encourage others to do likewise)" If Fab FAQ says it's pointless nonsense, I'm going with........"it's pointless nonsense"
.
*THE* legal disclaimer!!!!!!!!!!!
It's about the original that one so many people copies and pastes (and certain were when they wrote it) - not anything you might write yourself!
How would they know what you have written????
They are not being 'macho' about "The Law!"
I do love Fab, by they are not at their best in this area (instructing people as to what Fab it). Hence the endless forum questions on just about everything to do with Fab. I often get the feeling people have been on here 10 years and a never used Search.
pt
I'll add to this that Fab generalises on this matter and goes into no detail at all. Fab are notoriously shoe-string and hard to contact too! I appreciate the reason for this is the site is free/cheap, fast, stable and very large.
But don't (oh the irony) talk about them like they are Facebook! Fab have the smallest Terms I've ever seen for a site this size!
pt
"it's pointless nonsense" isn't a generalisation.
.
.
"It's pointless nonsense" ("It's") is about the Facebook nonsense that was knocking about. It's *not* about anything that someone like me might write!
So it generalises in the sense of being ambiguous.
ALSO PEOPLE,
THESE ARE
*****NOT*****
"Legal Disclaimers"!!!!!
If someone says "My pics and content belong to me... you have no permission to re-distribute or-use them." they are CLAIMING not disclaiming something.
(They might be worried about their video being uploaded to PornoHub or whatever)
THEY ARE **CLAIMING** (consolidating essentially) THEIR OWN NATURAL COPYRIGHT, and stating what that means to them in a personal level (some say people can have it all, some say not).
This is *NOT* a legal disclaimer (look the word up), it more typically an actual Warning if they say they will take legal action!
Pornohub
(which people successfully have done over Pornohub and its constant acceptance of st*len pictures and videos - I've been following that legal action for a while, it's only one site but it's been huge and really telling).
SO WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND HERE?
***Digital content*** (ie as a copy) can end up on people's computers and phones in the caches on their hard drives for sure, but look at rules regarding illegal porn.... our law is very clear that this is seen as an illegal form of ownership (ie you do have it, but have it illegally) - if in trouble you then have to prove if it is unwitting or not.
Now that doesn't *exactly* correlate to the issue here obviously (about re-using content in general... sometimes even for nefarious purposes), but it clearly shows that this cynical idea that all of our of our online stuff somehow becomes owned by everyone when we upload it is actually the nonsense here. The law can and does factor in this.
Blocking people?
Regarding people's Fab profiles, I'd personally far rather see someone naively copy the nonsense line about Facebook being publicly traded (which is clearly what Fab refers to) than see a profile cynically comment on dumb sheeple etc. That stance couldn't be a bigger turn off for me. I've been with the former but never with the later in fact.
Fabswingers?
Can you sort this out. People think that your ambiguous take on the 'Facebook line' (you only say "it" and "the") discourages people affirming the terms of their own natural copyright. If that was the case it would be a free speech issue as much as anything else, and would be simply misleading legally (however weak at times personal copyright might realistically be). I also so something akin to bullying on this issue too.
I personally think people have a human right to try and protect against changing 'terms' too (though there is little merit in this I grant you!)
You have to deal with the ambiguity here - there are 3 different things going on here (non of which are 'disclaimers' apart from potentially no.3).
1) The Facebook 'publicly traded entity' nonsense. (You could clarify about this as it's clearly what you refer to.)
2) The Sydney Uni line. (This is up to individual people obviously as it's entirely about them.)
3) Whatever someone like me, with some experience, wants to write regarding their own content. (Again this is up to me not you.)
Seeming to conflate these 3 things into one "It" is clearly misleading to people.
No.3 could be anything, but nos 1 and 2 are *not* actually legal disclaimers, they are warnings essentially. So using more accurate language is important too.
pt
The "Legal Disclaimer" would refer to all the legal nonsense people post, Sydney University, Facebook, European Court of Human rights, et al.
That's why the FAQ says "disclaimers". Plural not singular.
I'll bet a pound to a pinch of pigshit Fabs owners spent a whole bunch of money writing the rules and FAQs.
I'll take them over a poster on a thread any day of the week.
Self correction, it does say disclaimer, singular. My bad.
As you were.....
.
So what are any of those actually *disclaiming*?
Anyone??
Fab will have looked at legalities for sure, but no money was spent on that bit I tell you.
But perhaps they are just being 'ironic', because so-many people on Fab either call them or (even more prevalently) bitterly refer to them as "Disclaimers"!
pt"It makes for a bloody long thread when you quote the whole lot each time. You wouldn't get me doing that. No! Hang on a minute! Hoisted by my own petard | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
