Jeff Dorgay & TONEAudio Declare War on CA

[crenca]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

Hi Chris

 Publishing email conversations without first seeking the permission of the sender is a very grey area, and possibly not a good move.

Perhaps they should be removed and just an overview given ?

Jud may be able to assist with some general advice in this area. 

 

 Kind Regards

Alex

 

Your the guy with Hillary's email server in your basement aren't you ?

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

The email in and of itself is what is unprofessional. Not Chris turning it into a thread here. 

 

Here's a bit of advice for people when they use email: Assume it's going to be on the front page of the New York Times. 

 

There are certainly conversations that I've had that have taken place outside of electronic means. 

 

To add to this, here is a piece of advice I used to tell the porn addicts at the various corporate networks I managed:  

 

Assume NOTHING you do or see on your computer is "private" and not recorded/logged by some computer geek such as myself which in turn will be used against you in some form or fashion by a supervisor, law enforcement agent, "journalist", or your wife...

[crenca]

1 hour ago, arcman said:

Just abide by the copyright holder’s wish.

 

 

14 minutes ago, sandyk said:

when all Chris he has to do is remove the disputed content

 

You guys don't seem to get it. 

 

Chris IS abiding by the "copyright's holder's wish".  There is no "disputed" content - by using RSS ToneAudio and Jeff are asking Chris to do exactly what he is doing.

 

It is an automated system, and it is a "come and take me" technical and legal solution.  Jeff can't pick and choose who grabs his RSS feed any more than I can ask some individual not to post here simply because I don't wish them to...

[crenca]

17 minutes ago, HiFiInsider said:

 

I am also a content creator (YouTube) and I have to side with Jeff on this one. If someone embeds my videos on their website and use as content, I would be upset. Can they legally do it, yes but that doesn't mean it's ok with me. 

 

 

~Mike

 

I have a "what planet are you from" reaction to this. 

 

You do realize that they are not "your" YouTube videos, they are YouTube's.  Your using their service, not the other way around.  YouTube wants other "content providers" to embed their service into websites/blogs/social media because it makes them money!  You agree to YouTube's terms of service, not the other way around.  YouTube controls YouTube, not you.  All this is "ok" with you because you have agreed to YouTube's TOS and have chosen to do business with them!  

 

 

 

Think of this everyone... if someone walks up to you in public and takes a picture of you and what ever you're doing. Share that picture on a public website as content. Can this person legally do it? Yes, because you are in a public area. How would you feel about that?

 

~Mike

 

 

You have got to be joking.  Your analogy is all wrong.  Jeff is not walking around in public minding his own business.  He has created a publication.  Beyond this he has put it out on RSS.  The correct analogy is that Jeff has stripped naked and hired 12 piece brass band to follow him while he does cart wheels (naked) in Central Park.  He then complains - not about the fact that 1,000 people have taken his picture but that he does not want 1 of them taking his picture (the other 999 he is ok with).

 

What planet are you guys from?!?

[crenca]

5 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

https://www.analogplanet.com

 

 

 

 "I discovered this thing called the internet yesterday and I think it might be a good idea to..."

[crenca]

8 minutes ago, HiFiInsider said:

Chris, you didn’t answer this question. 

 

why is it so important to you to include Jeff's content in your RSS reader? 

 

Because he wants to aggregate Audiophile content in one place - his place, so that he drives eyeballs to his service (he of course $benefits$). Because he likes the color purple.  

 

The more interesting question is why are your scratching Jeff's back?  

 

 

[crenca]

Boom!

 

Hey, you guys Yahoo yet?  That Yahoo has everything

 

I'm going to pull my britches down and sit on a copier and post it here.  It's just between you and I because I know you guys will do the right thing. If anyone else sees it there will be war!

 

BOOM!

[crenca]

We need to submit this to the W3C:

 

<!DOCTYPE html>

       <BOOM!>I'm also putting an ad in the paper telling everybody</BOOM!>

       <BOOM!>Posting private emails exchanges in a public forum, irrespective of their content, is pretty lame</BOOM!>

 

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, phototristan said:

Jeff has already contacted you informing you that his intentions are/were not to allow his full article to be published 

 

Jeff can't publish, then say "my intention was not to publish".  You can't go into a public place and then say "my intention is privacy".  You can't drink and drive and then say "my intention was not to break the law".

 

BOOM!

[crenca]

8 minutes ago, phototristan said:

 

Actually, incorrect. Intention in a court of law matters. If you publish for example, nude photos of your wife online by accident, and then someone else republishes them on their website, that does not make it right for the other person to keep them up. 

 

Exactly.  RSS is "syndication" - it is intent.  So when you publish nude photos of your wife, ask everyone to syndicate it, and $collect$ because of it, your intention matters.  Then you find out about your neighbor who is leering at your wife using your service, and you ask him not to do so because you live next to him and your embarrassed but you continue your service to everyone else because you $benefit$.  The neighbor says "wwhhhaaatttt?!?" and you threaten to call the police and make a criminal complaint...

 

You don't get it...

[crenca]

We cannot second-guess this.

 

 

Yet that is what you are doing

 

 

 

What we can and do KNOW is he does not intend for it to be published here, from his email. 

 

 

 

Yes he did!  You don't get to drink, drive, and say "my intent was not to break the law or harm anyone"!

 

 

 

That CA refuses to do anything is telling for sure. 

 

 

 

Telling in the sense that he understands RSS, and you don't.

[crenca]

13 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

They aren't needed.  @phototristan has now spent approximately 2000% of the time necessary to fix this on raising spurious objections to having the person primarily responsible for the problem perform the simple fix. 

 

Christopher already knows all this and he was asking why?  Why has @phototristan gone down this silly road?  What is his personal connection with Jeff?  

[crenca]

1 minute ago, phototristan said:

 

There is none. I've literally never heard of him until a friend of mine forwarded me this thread.

 

So your just a guy who is unaware of RSS, publishing, internet and are jumping in with false assertions of intent, how to play nice, and the like.  At least your honest...

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, phototristan said:

 

Wrong. It's "you're". 

 

 

 

Your a comment box grammer policeman as well.

 

BOOM!

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, phototristan said:

 

Thanks, no. 

 

So you wag your finger at others about dignity and respect, but are unwilling to walk the walk yourself.  You are consistence in several ways...

[crenca]

4 minutes ago, Milt99 said:

Jeff D. used to post on SHF generally that a new edition of his webzine was available but also in response to reviews on his site.

I responded once to a new gear listing of device isolators, basically pucks of sorbothane with some kind of shiny metal.

The price listed was really expensive like in the thousands.

 

I posted that I thought for the price these pucks, customer were getting bent over.

No swearing, calling their mag a fake, nothing just about the picks.

 

Well, he ripped me a new one, MF'er the whole 9 yards. I was attacking his credibility and the credibility of site.

He also informed that the price on site was incorrect and that the pucks were only several hundred dollars.

This guy can put M. Lavorgna to shame

 

I tried to sincerely apologize and say that I never meant to call into question anything about his site.

Afterall, it wasn't even a review.

I think he told me shove my apology or something like that.

Sheesh.

 

Which brings us to voodooism in Audiophiledom and yet another mouthpiece for it in ToneAudio.  Scoundrels jealously guard their con...

[crenca]

1 hour ago, hopkins said:

I was just shocked by the fact that you would post private emails you had with him.

Anytime someone does the same thing, whining about a vendor and publishing private email conversations, it makes me cringe. 

 

 

Who ARE these guys? Are they all from the planet "Industry Insider"??

 

"I was just shocked & amazed when I grabbed his...."

 

BOOM!

 

[crenca]

 

"Then the Law is an Ass !

 Does it also permit dissemination of Mobile Phone Texts ???"

 

How very odd.  Where does this expectation of privacy - let alone that the law would be such - come from?  If you say something, to anyone, about anything, why would you think that person would keep it to themselves?  If you say "I like the color blue" or "your an m#^&#$f#@!#%" or "I am going to call my lawyer - war is on" who in their right mind keeps any of this to themselves? 

 

You are a social being.  Humans can not survive in isolation, and in all things (i.e. love, life, business, internet) we are social animals.  Even in space where we legally require a certain amount of discretion (not correctly termed "privacy") such as my business (medicine), someone knows and much is communicated because it has to be.  What good is communication if it is not communicated?

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, serendipitydawg said:

 

On another thread, someone joked about the Audiophile Liberation Front. Maybe it's time has come??

 

It's long past time for the consumer to have access to information about Audio that is not filtered through these eccentric characters who run these trade publications.

[crenca]

4 minutes ago, phototristan said:

 

Details, please. Apparently Darko didn't want his content on your site either. He contacted you and you took it down. Was that really that difficult? Was the difference just that Darko begged you and said "pretty please"? 

 

Are you an conscious or unconscious liar?

 

 

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

I gather you're not good at keeping secrets.

 

Besides I believe you answered your own question. It is a matter of discretion.

 

Even though I have you on ignore for some reason this post came through.  It reminded me why I put you there in the first place  - the secret is out ?

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

US Const. Amendments 1, 4, 5, 9

 

common law is much older - at least 5 torts have or imply it

 

some French code law may be germane; and then there are Justinian & Hammuradic codes...

 

very old

 

Well, perhaps the 9th as "not enumerated" means what people want it to mean. This (legal) philosophy is really quite new...

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

it is centuries or millennia old - not saying it cover this issue

 

Ok...I was referring to the issue here - a strange expectation of "privacy" around communication between persons   - not the rights of persons vis-a-vis the state, not that these rights are described by the modern concept of "privacy".

[crenca]

4 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

 

Oh dude - not cool

Chris ( if Chris doesn't mind to be called, well, Chris... if he does, will go back to Mr. Computer Audiophile) provides a great service... plus, I don't think the money is that big, if any... 

 

v

 

I don't follow "not cool".  We seem to be in agreement...

[crenca]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Understood. Thanks for the honest feedback.

 

I appreciate @4estand @mav52position, as well as others who have chimed in with essentially the same opinion.  I would note (not to denigrate them in any way) that is the "civility" argument in slightly different guise.  The "high road", the framing of this exposure of bullying being adolescent or "high school".  Once again the ambiguity and even basic disagreement of what civility (and in this case, maturity) even means is exposed.  Whose civility, which maturity?

 

Also, it appears that the most (all?) of those expressing this opinion are from the subjectivist side of the audio divide.  Probably not because of any inherent reason, other than the computer revolution and forums such as this one are still a bit of a "disruptive" force for some folks.  They tend to have a older or different expectations when it comes to things like the "privacy" of emails, electronic communication of threats, etc.

 

I send my children to the local private RC school, for a mix of academic and social/cultural reasons (i.e. no gangs, they learn to read, etc.) even though we are not Roman Catholic.  One of the issues has been smart-phones & screens, social media, etc.  The majority of the parents are very concerned about the hypothetical school shooter even though the statistics reveal that the chances of your child being harmed at school by a random deranged shooter are up there with them getting hit by a piece of falling space junk.  The two most harmful incidents in our school in the past 5 years was a male teacher (35, married with kids) having a sexual relationship with a 16 year old female, and a suicide of a very recent high school graduate.  Cell phones, social media, texting, and eletronic bullying were intimately involved in both cases.

 

So I have a different perspective than @4est and others.  Sometimes you can "take the high road", and at other times such an instinct would prove positively harmful to those involved.  Electronic communication is 'different', to pick a word - something relatively new and what ever it means, the old rules don't necessarily apply.