1) All formerly banned users are invited back by the new owner
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63402\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Name one.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63411\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Andrew, you would make a damn good moderator at RG but my gut feel is you would rather stay here and help those of us lesser beings of the color world?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63414\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You put your soul into RG.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63419\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Getting Drew, the new owner, to agree that all banned users should be invited back was the best I could do.
No one has been able to convince Drew to keep old content free and open. It is a shame and I completely understand how you feel Andrew. You put your soul into RG.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63419\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If they reinstate me so I can delete all my posts (a huge job but that's not the issue), that's fine. So Drew can keep his archives but he better either delete my posts or let me in the door to do so.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63421\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Getting Drew, the new owner, to agree that all banned users should be invited back was the best I could do.
No one has been able to convince Drew to keep old content free and open. It is a shame and I completely understand how you feel Andrew. You put your soul into RG.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63419\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
On the positive side: maybe you shouldn't worry too much about old posts. At the rate this industry is currently going, especially medium format and professional printing, any answers older than say 6 months are virtually obsolete.
And to spice things up: aren't you guys overrating the value of your posts a wee bit? ;-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63454\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You put those images on your site for others to see but not for others to profit from.
On the positive side: maybe you shouldn't worry too much about old posts. At the rate this industry is currently going, especially medium format and professional printing, any answers older than say 6 months are virtually obsolete.
On the positive side: maybe you shouldn't worry too much about old posts. At the rate this industry is currently going, especially medium format and professional printing, any answers older than say 6 months are virtually obsolete.
And to spice things up: aren't you guys overrating the value of your posts a wee bit? ;-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63454\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You know full well that you have supplied a wealth of information for the benefit of the community
I don't know how familiar you are with MF backs, or the lack of information on them there is in the internet, but an archive packed with user reports on medium format digital is quite valuable, at least for me. Especially since MF backs are updated less frequently than anything else in digital photography, you might have confused that with '35mm' digital cameras....
"Benefit of the community" - not for the benefit of Rob or the new owners. Fact is that Rob Galbraith have sold something that doesn't actually belong to him - our knowledge and experience, and new owners are planing to get their money back by selling this content back to us.
So if anyone really cares for "community" - his duty is to insist that his posts should remain acessible for free and for anyone or be deleted.
And to anyone who thinks that erasing all your posts is overreacting - NO it's NOT. Freedom of information requires action!
You seem to turn into a negative state of mind. Seriously. You know full well that you have supplied a wealth of information for the benefit of the community, not for shameless self promotion. People consider you an expert because they know your information is valuable as is, not solely in connection with you. In your idiom, it is exactly the fact that they "profit" and benefit from your information, not just to see it.
Mind you, I'm not denying you your right to have your posts deleted. It would simply constitute common courtesy on their side. And considering they are in Canada, you even stand a chance legally. But I still believe that the "tone" of your postings around this topic is somewhat unlike you, or at least unlike your usual postings...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63458\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think Andrew has a legitimate gripe with the new forum owners. His posts are one of the reasons the archive has value, and the new owners need to either allow free access to the posts or else devise a way to compensate Mr. Rodney and the other experts. Or else delete them. Otherwise, they are deriving financial gain from the intellectual property of other people without their consent, and IMO ought to be thoroughly sued if they persist in that course of action. I've written a few posts that people have found educational and informative at RG, here, and Fred Miranda, and if some started charging money for access to my posts, I'd expect a piece of the action as well. If the new owners want to charge for posting privileges, fine. But charging for access to the writings of third parties who did not consent to such an arrangement is a big no-go.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63478\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But charging for access to the writings of third parties who did not consent to such an arrangement is a big no-go.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63478\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Does anyone have an email or way of contacting these new "owners"? Since I can't post or log in from the ban, I don't as yet have a way to even request my previous posts be deleted.
1) All formerly banned users are invited back by the new owner
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63402\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray
I think you're slightly missing the point as to why people were annoyed. Taking your line about profitability, no-one says Rob's a charity. If he wasn't covering his costs (maybe his bandwidth costs were unduly high because of all those Flash ads that I always blocked), he had every right to look for a way out. Equally no-one argues with his right to close his forums and transfer their name and reputation to whoever he chose.
John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63910\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A non-ad non-picture forum needs little bandwith -I know for sure because I run one and stress-tested it when I set it up . Rob's problem was he had all these blinkenlight ads and these chew up much more than forum text. Serve him right - what was a major annoyance to his readers ended up being a major problem for him.Yes, that's what I thought. I was amused to read that one of the new moderators was previously banned by RG. She was OK with static banners but had posted to say she found the flashing banners to be distracting (now there's a surprise) and gently questioned the need for them. In the handover period, she was appointed as a moderator and posted this story - which RG promptly deleted for "personal attack".
Edmund
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=63917\")
But we're certainly not overlooking the profit figure - what caused much of the fuss is that the new owners initially proposed to make money from making our freely-given contributions only available to paying subscribers.
Nor was Drew's agenda something we need to guess at. In his own words, the past postings were the "greatest asset" he was buying and he said they would only be available to those who subscribed. I'm another who was happy to take legal action (I get top drawer City of London IP advice for free) if he had proceeded and taken my freely-given contributions, whatever their value, and made them a revenue-generating private asset. Now they are being left publically available, even if it is to encourage subscriptions, I'm less outraged by his high-handed behaviour and no longer see it tantamount to naked copyright theft. But I won't think of subscribing and quite understand why Andrew Rodney might wish to have his postings removed.Just posted by Drew Strickland in a thread in the new forums:
John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63936\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just posted by Drew Strickland in a thread in the new forums:
" The current archive that started, I believe back in 2000, and going until April 21st, 2006 will remain freely viewable regardless of any votes.
What will be up for a vote is whether we continue to update the archive with 3 month old material going forward."
OK, who is going to pay for a homemade site that is missing the very thing that gave it value: Talent & experience.
The manner in which the owner is weaseling around with the archive posts is disappointing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63944\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If the owner of this site ever has issues where he needs money to operate the forums PLEASE ask the members so we can avoid what happened at RG . I would love to see a program on forums where there is a contributer program so the owner can make a decent living from his hard work .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63951\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Michael runs this site exclusively on the sale of the Luminous Landscape Video Journal. It's a quarterly DVD that has interesting interviews and beautiful location landscape photography. It's definitely worth purchasing, especially if you are looking to support the website or the forums.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63981\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]