I recall reading that question elsewhere. I understand, I think, why it's important and necessary for the forum moderators to be able to modify forum content, but the disclaim is very sweeping. It's not likely that a forum participant would want to retain copyright over what she or he has posted. But it's not inconceivable. What is Brad Willis or mne are asked to gather their ideas and put them in an article for AudiMagazine? The disclaimer would disallow their use of their own ideas and their own wording, without prior approval of the forum editors. That strikes me as odd. What if a Houston paper wants to run a picture of Janet's TT? She can't give them a picture that appeared here first, without the Forum editors consent. If Garrett Lim provides instruction about swapping out a chip, the Forum owns it.

Can't wording be worked out that would give the Forum and Forum editors all the legal powers necessary to moderate the Forum, but without claiming complete content ownership. In publishing, after a story is published, ownership reverts to the writer. Perhaps a statement affecting that would diminish my concern over copyright.

Again, I understand the need for the editors to have clear legal power to moderate the forum, and I support that.

...with the original author (implicitly) possessing the ownership and license rights as well (except that any postings under an author's post would not, by the virtue of the fact that they have been posted, vest any ownership or license rights in any of such followup postings to the original author of the main post).

Can you tell I'm a lawyer? This is my suggestion anyway from the poster's point of view.