2 GFY admins: appoint Robbie a mod in this section, with the permission to ban any one who's counter productive (from posting in this section only, not the whole GFY).

And let's also devise a stricter set of rules to follow, to keep bs out of here.

That would be a nice compromise - this section will still be viewable by all GFY members, but will have it's own mod (on top of the official GFY admins) and a stricter set or rules to follow, which will allow to keep non-business bs down to a minimum without cumbersome and logistically difficult procedures like e-mailing your credits to GFY admins who're I'm pretty sure already overloaded with other work.

Let's make it simple - if you talk sense, you're allowed to post here. If you talk nonsense, you're not. No credits required, just quality posts (although you're still more than welcome to state who you actually are).

Do we really need a copyright holders ghetto that doesn't actually influence shit? If we do not keep people both informed and involved in the copyright protection cause, we'll end up with the illegal tubes owners forum above, and the useless copyright holders Gulag below in the list of GFY's subforums.

Also I'm afraid there isn't the whole lot of copyright owners here to keep the collective wisdom of this section at an acceptable level - we'll all just be sharing same old ideas with each other in the end of it. Webmasters who're not copyright holders proved to have valuable ideas and skills for copyright protection cause, it'd be a waste to just throw this away.

I'm pretty sure it is equally important to involve people who're not copyright owners into constructive building of copyright friendly environment, as sharing ideas on actual copyright protection.

One illegal tube site's owner who converted his tube into a legal one, because he was shown the benefits of it and the technology to do that, or simply because he doesn't want to be a third-grade nearly pariah member on the marginal fringe of this wonderful community of ethical and honest individuals, is worth thousand DMCAs.

there is a new small board that is totally locked and keeps out non webmasters, if interested please contact me.

Locked for members with a postcount of 200 or more would be as nice filter.

Well it would be nice if one part of GFY had SOME SORT of qualification besides having the right type of email address, don't you think?

I agree with it

There is no way to determine who is a surfer and who is a webmaster.

Secret hidden forums that can be entered at 200 postcount will encourage more posts.

Oh yes there is. It's simple. You ask Eric for access, then you show him what you do. Pretty simple. If you can't show that you are actually in this business then you don't belong anyway.

I'm still waiting on this. I have a sh*t ton of security features I would discuss if I knew who was the appropriate individual.

For what it's worth: agreed. I'm afraid to even ask questions sometimes, knowing a slick reader could figure out from the responses what I was trying to avoid, if that makes sense. Anyway, agreed.

Eric Eric he's our pimp if he can't change it then no one can!


LOL Sry in a good mood today for the first time in 2 years. But I do agree I say anyone from the year 2000 to 2005 unless they are well known!

agreed, agreed, agreed:thumbsup

Agreed.
:)

papagmp and Nautilus,

Reading between the lines of your posts, it seems you're implying that webmasters are not copyright holders because most don't shoot their own content and therefore don't have anything worth protecting.

Let's keep in mind that copyrights extend beyond pictures and audio/videos to text. Books are copyrighted by their authors or publishers. Why shouldn't original content written for websites be treated the same? If some person or bot scrapes a website for pictures, audio, videos, text or even code, all of it is content theft.

For those reasons, webmasters large and small should definitely be able to participate in this forum.