I am amazed how much speculation the "new" rules have generated. Just post what you would be ok with your mom reading and use common sense. But they are much easier to read now, thanks Admin.
It's been there from the beginning, but posting them like this encourages some public discussion. That's all. At least for me.
Ack. I haven't been aware of the rules that well, presuming they were more general netiquette-rules that apply to most internet-forums. However, I wasn't aware of the broad claim on the copyright of my posts. This does have some serious effect on me continuing (or starting) AARs, which I will have to think hard about.
We do not intend to take any information as is and use it for our own purposes. However, this is our legal protection if we happen to use things that have been mentioned in threads on the forum. As someone pointed out the rule has been in there since the start and our general policy of use has not changed.
We have also allowed several AAR writers (who wanted to use Paradox trademarks) who asked specifically if they could use their AARs for different purposes.
We do not intend to take any information as is and use it for our own purposes. However, this is our legal protection if we happen to use things that have been mentioned in threads on the forum. As someone pointed out the rule has been in there since the start and our general policy of use has not changed.
We have also allowed several AAR writers (who wanted to use Paradox trademarks) who asked specifically if they could use their AARs for different purposes.
First 3 are okay, although I don't think the Europa links work anymore, you need to change those to Paradoxplaza.
The bottom 3 you need to remove. Gather the MP people in the Paradox MP forums, that is why we have them.
We have just encountered too many problems with allowing links to especially 3rd party forums that are designed for subset and clichés of our members.
really unhappy with this - think most ppl are not aware as all of your game's mp forums have such links... no to mention links to wiki or historic resources on the net when discussing historic stuff....
so now when you want to point something out about the build of a tiger you cant copy the text from the page that its on as its copywrited and you cant post a link to it what are u to say? PM me for the link?? Can you clarify this? maybe i should move this conversation to PM?
What a silly rule. So you can't even paste an address here even if it is not an actual link?
You can't make any external links? So if I'm in a historical discussion about say... the First World War and I want to link to the Wikipedia article to show something (Like this: World War I) I'm not allowed to?
I doubt anyone is going to follow a rule like that, good luck enforcing it.
5. {Post On Topic} You will only post messages that are within the particular forum’s scope or topic. You will use descriptive subject titles when posting new threads. You will not hijack threads for your own purpose but, rather, will begin a new thread with the new subject. Except for the specially designated "other language" forums all posts are to be in English as that is the common language of the Moderators.
We do not intend to take any information as is and use it for our own purposes. However, this is our legal protection if we happen to use things that have been mentioned in threads on the forum. As someone pointed out the rule has been in there since the start and our general policy of use has not changed.
We have also allowed several AAR writers (who wanted to use Paradox trademarks) who asked specifically if they could use their AARs for different purposes.
Could this not be accomplished by something along the lines of: "Paradox has a worldwide, irrevocable and perpetual license to all material... etc. etc."
I'm no lawyer, certainly not a Swedish one, but I did at one point read a lot of Groklaw... I'm pretty sure the actual assignment of copyright by forum Ts&Cs would be impossible under US law - a specific written instrument would be needed to transfer a copyright that was not created as a work for hire. I was under the impression this came from the Bern Convention.
I know this is something of a nitpick - I realise you aren't trying to do anything under hand and I'm not trying to be purposefully annoying. But surely there is something wrong with the idea that an AAR writer would need a license from Paradox to distribute their own work (in a case where no actual Paradox authored intellectual property was involved)?
More to the point, there doesn't seem to be anything else about copyright beyond the assertion of Paradox's ownership. If this was invalid in some jurisdictions, would Paradox still have any sort of explicit license to it?