Jeff Dorgay & TONEAudio Declare War on CA

[mav52]

Tone Audio knows they are providing a RSS feed, but it appears to me, its set up to allow all content not just shorts of a article.  IF this was my site, I'd take the high road and move on.

[mav52]

52 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

It appears as if he doesn't want to change his RSS feed but expects Chris not to publish it. Why?

Makes one wonder why its  ok for the the Daily Audiophile to feed Tone,   but CA isn't.  https://www.dailyaudiophile.com/

[mav52]

2 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

You just don't get it. Why would Chris even consider editing the RSS content? The feed is syndicated, i.e. published to all subscribers, with the content consisting of what the publisher chooses to include, i.e. what the publisher intends subscribers to receive.

So correct. Jeff controls the content and he is letting all the content to be published.

[mav52]

1 hour ago, phototristan said:

 

It's not the links that are the problem. CA re-published the article in it's entirety. 

Wrong , BOOM !

[mav52]

6 minutes ago, 4est said:

I doubt it.

 

I happen to agree with them, and I will challenge anyone who calls me a troll after the length of time I have been around here. What I feel you and many others are missing is that although it is your right and you are right, the high road would have been to apologize and remove all of TA feeds after he refused your suggestion. Sure he was a bully, and likely a dumb ass, but it is not an excuse to make a scene nor push back publicly with this high school BS. It is his feed and his decision however stupid it might be. Don't you have better things to do than attempt to school a nitwit? I expect this crap from some of the posters here, but I thought you were better than that.

 

I'll not post further on this stupid topic.

I starting thinking about copyright laws.  And read this:

 

https://www.lifewire.com/legal-side-of-rss-feeds-3469296

 

https://jux.law/are-rss-feeds-copyrighted/

 

[mav52]

55 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Then you understood it. Really. Because they're making the point that copyright law is not settled regarding republication of RSS feeds.  

I tell ya Jud, I would not want to be on the other side of the table in a hearing and attempt to  explain why I didn't contact the owner of the material and get permission to use it in its entirety.  IN this case, copyright infringement has to be proven by the owner of the material. Interesting case for IP atty's.

[mav52]

44 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It is my intention to shine a light on them and create a public track record of their behavior. 

 

\But at what cost Chris. I think you have already shown the darkness that lies in the owner of Tone Audio.. And its now public record. 

[mav52]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Correct, I've shown it in this thread.

 

Perhaps I'm not following you.

 

Do you continue to keep the trolling by the troll of tone Audio going, it proves nothing.  You have made your point in the online documentation that is now resident on this site.  Anyone can pick u[p the Tone Audio information, so its a mute point to those that enjoy Computer Audio going forward. Like I noted, you have proven your point about the true personality of the owner of Tone Audio. . I say take the high road and move on to CA topics that impact computer audio.  

[mav52]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

I've never heard the term used in this way. It usually refers to an effort to get other sites to link to your site in order to improve your SEO results.