Jeff Dorgay & TONEAudio Declare War on CA

[phototristan]

If you look at the actual RSS feed, it does NOT include the full text of the article, as most RSS feeds do not. It includes a summary and link to the source. Anyone can view this here, (2nd item down): 

 

http://www.feedbucket.com/?src=http://www.tonepublications.com/feed/&start=30

 

I think CA is a bit disingenuous with attribution for sure. 

[phototristan]

12 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Absolutely false. We enter the RSS feed address into our software. That’s it. 

 

It's pretty easy to view the raw RSS feed for any website. I suggest you do so. 

 

Their raw feed is here (use an RSS reader of your choice, or use the link i provided above) : http://www.tonepublications.com/feed/

[phototristan]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Trust me, I know how to use RSS. 

 

 

 

I don't, and you don't. Why do I say this? Because just take a look at the RAW RSS feed data and you will see exactly what is in their RSS feed. Hint- it's not the full article. 

[phototristan]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I understand if you admit you don’t. But please, if you don’t understand how it works, stop suggesting your single example is the way it must work. 

 

 

Just now, christopher3393 said:

 

Are you affiliated with the industry in any way? Are you an audio journalist? If so, you need to declare that up front. If not, why not introduce yourself and why this concerns you?

 

Sometimes the truth hurts and people don't like to be actually shown the truth.

[phototristan]

5 minutes ago, church_mouse said:

I think you may be wrong because the TONEAudio rss feed I just pulled in to my InoReader account gets the same length articles as CA.

 

Did you try anything other than feedbucket before making your statement?

 

You need to look at the actual RAW RSS data. Some RSS readers will essentially click on the included link in the feed to bring up the entire article. This does not mean the entire article is in the RSS feed. 

[phototristan]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

And here's Feedly showing a full article:

 

Bragging about his BMWs (plural).

 

You need to look at the actual RAW RSS data. Some RSS readers will essentially click on the included link in the feed to bring up the entire article. This does not mean the entire article is in the RSS feed.  Plus, that's not even the same article. 

[phototristan]

Seems telling that CA even created this '...declare war on CA' topic. They like this sort of thing. 

[phototristan]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Absolutely not. I used Jeff's words, "Consider the war on."

 

You chose to create this thread and go public with it, you also chose the title, clickbait.

[phototristan]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Keep digging Tristan.

 

It isn't clickbait if it's true. 

 

You're discrediting someone with your comments, but it isn't me. 

 

 

 

You stated in one of your replies to Jeff that you actually prefer to just post a summary of articles. If that is the case, why did you not just edit it to be a summary?  Boom - problem solved. 

[phototristan]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Again, you don't understand how RSS works. I have no control over what is syndicated to CA. I can only accept the feed as it is. 

 

So you really don't have the ability to edit the post on CA? I doubt that's true. 

[phototristan]

1 minute ago, plissken said:

 

You're a fucking idiot. 

 

If Chris is so bent out of shape over this, I'm sure he could edit or even remove the post. It's clear he likes the attention he's getting about it though. 

[phototristan]

7 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

You just don't get it. Why would Chris even consider editing the RSS content? 

 

Because he himself stated he prefers a summary (versus full article), and the content creator complained to him about it. If he actually prefers it the way the content creator does, why not fix it? Boom - problem solved. 

[phototristan]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Keep digging Tristan.

 

You're doubling-down on the extremely backwards way of putting a band-aide on this one. 

 

Did you see the single button Jeff needs to click on his site to resolve the issue he created?

 

He's not complaining about his site, he's complaining about yours, as are you too. Since you BOTH don't like how YOUR site is displaying it, why not just fix it? Again, boom - problem solved for both of you. 

 

Further, even if Jeff changes a setting on his site, you still have the full article on your site, which is now indexed on search engines, etc. So that still doesn't resolve the issue for you. 

[phototristan]

2 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

 

Thank you very much for posting that, and more generally, for telling the truth, and exposing lies.

 

 

 

This is not even the article in question...

[phototristan]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

hey want Chris to cut out the articles from each issue of the newspaper and just leave the headlines.  However, *with one mouse click*, they can deliver a newspaper to Chris with just the headlines.

 

This gets near to describing the different levels of effort necessary by Chris and anyone else to clean up this feed on the receiving end, versus Tone Audio making the entire problem go away with a click of the mouse.

 

Not really. Even if they change a setting, the full article would still remain on CA, and indexed as such on search engines. 

[phototristan]

26 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

The stuff *that has already been sent in full form* could remain, or could be taken down if Tone Audio wanted to have a reasonable conversation and that is what both parties decide.  But why, on Tone Audio's side, continue to create the problem?  As I've pointed out, they are driving people away from their own website with the current configuration for anyone who bothers to use an RSS reader and pick up their feed.  So why wouldn't they wish to change just for that reason, irrespective of what anyone else does with their full text feed?

 

Also, as a consumer, I can tell you it's rather a PITA to have to look through full text in a feed.  Everyone's time is limited.  Give me a summary and a link (i.e., Tone Audio, click that button!).

 

It's still a choice. Unless I'm mistaken and someone is holding a gun to CA/Chris's head telling him - 'you must publish this article, in full, or else'. 

 

 

[phototristan]

11 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Since you still don't get it. let me give you a simple example. You screw up in dealing with me. You can easily fix it in seconds. I can fix it too, but it would require a great deal of time and effort on my part. Query: Who should fix the problem?

 

Easy.  Perhaps the other guy doesn't know how to set his site, or set it incorrectly by accident. I wouldn't try to second-guess that especially when it's abundantly  clear he does not intend for the full content to be published. With that, it's clear what I would do to do the right thing. If I wanted to be a good citizen, I'd fix it on my site, or just delete it.  

 

Boom - problem solved. 

[phototristan]

4 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

The other guy has been told how to fix it and it's a very easy fix. All he has to do is follow what he was told if he really does not intend the full content to be published. If we are talking about good  citizens, why is the person responsible for the screw up threatening to call his lawyer? OTOH, perhaps he could ask his lawyer to help him fix it.

 

He could be totally incompetent for all I know. That's beside the point. If it's clear he does not want his stuff on my site, I'd simply remove it from my site rather than 'Nope, you left the keys in your car so it's mine now. I'm also putting an ad in the paper telling everybody"

[phototristan]

7 minutes ago, Solstice380 said:

Why is everyone discussing how it would be “easier” to fix one way or the other?  Standing up for what’s right isn’t always easy.  It would appear that Chris is in the right on this one.  

 

Actually, it's pretty clear he's wrong:

 

https://medium.com/@Haje/copyright-just-because-i-have-an-rss-feed-it-doesnt-mean-you-get-to-steal-my-content-c8ea505a8b07

 

 

https://medium.com/@Haje/copyright-what-is-it-and-why-are-infringements-harmful-c13f17397ab0

[phototristan]

11 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I read it on the internet, it must be true.

 

- Abraham Lincoln

 

 

 

 

P.S. From the article you linked to:

Disclaimer

I have rudimentary legal training in UK media law, but my training is several years old, and you’d be insane to take legal advice from some random bloke off the internet anyway. Nothing in this post is meant as actual legal advice — talk to your solicitor, that’s what they are there for!

 

How about from actual attorneys then? 

 

https://kevin.lexblog.com/2006/09/18/law-on-using-others-rss-feeds/

 

 

"The content of RSS feeds, including the headline and the article or story, is protected by copyright, and retransmission, distribution, or other uses without permission is copyright infringement. "

 

 

[phototristan]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Did you actually read it before you sent it?

 

 

Yep, and the more you try to defend your stance given that Jeff has already contacted you informing you that his intentions are/were not to allow his full article to be published on your site, the more indefensible your stance becomes. 

[phototristan]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

@phototristan What is your affiliation with Jeff or Tone Audio / Tone publications?

 

None, other that I've read some of the articles. 

[phototristan]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Interesting. You just felt the need to come on CA to defend him religiously?

 

 

Nope, I'm an atheist. 

[phototristan]

8 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

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".

 

 

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, when you asks them not to. 

[phototristan]

5 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

You misspelled xxxxxxx.  

 

Nope: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

 

Try again.