[Imc-aotearoa-ed] policy probs

[finn c.]

Hi

> This reminds me about an obvious problem in our policy:
> 
> if three people agree and then after the 24hr period someone objects -
> what do we do?

Leave it, I was only voicing my opinion. 
 
> also - why the f* do we say no copyright breaches allowed? i can't find
> any similar reference in the policies of uk, melbourne or seattle.
> aren't we asking for trouble? isn't a footer which makes explicit the
> responsibility of the person posting much better? 

I was gonna add something like this when I set up but didn't get around to it. I'm not sure what legal standing it has, if any. It certainly won't help us for any defamtory type stuff. It cannot hurt.

Your misunderstanding the problem though - it's got nothing to do with getting sued or anything. It's highly unlikely that a media organisation is going to sue a semi-anonymous non-profit collective with no assets. Defamation is different.

My problem has more to do a few things:

- The more their copyright is abused, the more likely that they will abuse our copyleft. Ditto if indymedia resembles a glorified email list.
- Commercial media does not need our promotion - the more cutnpaste, the quicker original writing gets lost. It hardly encourages people to speak with their own voices if they can cutnpaste several articles off the net quicker.
- Reposting commercial media is at odds with our aims.

Have ya had a look at slashdot.org? They have a good model. We should be encouraging people to engage with comercial media by adding commentary and linking rather than just posting up stuff that they agree/disagree with.  

I'm not saying that we should hide cr work, but we should *strongly encourage* original stories.

finn