Jeff Dorgay & TONEAudio Declare War on CA

[Jud]

26 minutes ago, jhwalker said:

Wow.  He (or his tech guy) has misconfigured his RSS feed to publish the whole thing instead of just this headline / summary - and he blames YOU for using standard RSS functionality to aggregate content.

 

I've never been a fan of TONEAudio, in any case, but this little contretemps makes me want NOT to read their content at all going forward.

 

Sounds to me as if Mr. Dorgay has accomplished what he wanted - no one reading his content on CA. 

[Jud]

5 minutes ago, Cary said:

 

We have a winner.  Unless the email was correspondence solely with counsel or sent with the expectation of privacy and protected under a right of privacy (i.e. personal financial information), it is generally not considered priveledged.  

 

Well, despite mixing up concepts of privilege, confidentiality of correspondence, and privacy of personal financial information, the conclusion remains correct. No right not to have your correspondent pass along this information.

[Jud]

2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Jud

 As tmtomh said :

 

 

I find angry and unreasonable people tend to see offers of accommodation as a sign of weakness, since it is the sort of thing they would never do unless the situation forced them to.

 

This fellow has in effect electronically sent the full contents of his magazine to any random person on the Web, and is demanding people refuse to take delivery, rather than simply ceasing to send out the content.

 

Even if Chris stopped, that potentially leaves every other person in the world with Web access. It seems far more effective to resolve the issue at the source. 

[Jud]

11 minutes ago, plissken said:

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. 

 

 

A lesson we try to teach all the people sending email or letters out of our organization, but a difficult one to learn. 

[Jud]

9 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Hi Jud

 Sometimes in life, it doesn't always pay to stand up to BULLIES !

 It isn't always worth the wasted time and expense with the preparations, legal consultations, , court cases and all the additional worry just to prove that you are in the right.

Court cases can also  be scheduled for a time that is inconvenient, where you may have already made plans to be elsewhere.

 

Kind Regards

Alex

 

 

Hey Alex.  ?

 

Depending on someone who's being unreasonable to quietly go away if you *don't* stand up may or may not work.

[Jud]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

 Who gives a stuff, certainly not the vast majority of C.A. members.

 Chris has previously had a long held policy of not permitting full copies of C.A. threads to be posted elsewhere, just a brief resume and a link to the original thread.

Surely in this case, it should also apply to other Forum's/Vendors' material being posted in C.A. too ?

 

Hi Alex - This is where the technology difference comes in. 

 

When you provide material for an RSS feed, it is automatically gathered by the "feed readers" of everyone who subscribes to it. If it is not your intent to have this content disseminated to and by the millions of people with feed readers, the elementary step is not to make it available in your RSS feed. 

 

It's as if you sent millions of people the full contents of your magazine in an email with no password protection, then hollered at them for not treating the contents as protected.

[Jud]

It's a very simple thing for anyone who is reading this to install a feed reader and see how they work.  It would really help you to see what this is all about.

 

Plus you get a free subscription to all the content in Tone Audio!  ? 

[Jud]

7 hours ago, sandyk said:

Is it worth getting all hot under the collar for such a trivial issue,

 

I do understand what you're saying.  First, it seems to me Chris is trying to do a good thing for us, his readers, using an automated tool that has existed on the Web for a very long time.  To the extent other folks are trying to interfere with Chris making this a valuable web site for us, it's not trivial.  What is trivial is the two seconds it should take anyone competent to configure the RSS properly on the content provider's end. 

 

With regard to getting hot under the collar, one person got bothered at something ridiculous and of his own making, another person got bothered that someone is threatening him over something ludicrous.  I can certainly see myself in the latter role, hopefully not in the former. 

[Jud]

59 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Something to do with hits on competitors websites?

 

Yes, except the problem is that the way Tone Audio's RSS is configured, for anyone with a feed reader or web browser with feed reader capabilities, they are taking away hits from *their own* website. They can solve that problem for themselves *and for everyone else, including Chris*, with one click in the WordPress settings!

[Jud]

8 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

I know nothing of this "RSS" other than what's is described in this thread. Heck, I can't even see anywhere on this site how/where to access content from other websites.

 

But it seems easy to comply with Jeff Dorgay's request, even if the real "problem" is his ignorance of how RSS works.

 

Hi Beetle - so here's the critical thing you need to know to understand why what at first glance seems reasonable to you in fact isn't:

 

Tone Audio is delivering a free newspaper to a whole lot of people.  They 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.

[Jud]

Just now, phototristan said:

 

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

 

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!).

[Jud]

Just now, phototristan said:

 

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'. 

 

 

 

Is it more efficient for Chris and the hundreds or thousands of others who subscribe to this feed to painstakingly edit each article for themselves, or for someone at Tone Audio to click a mouse once and solve the problem forever?

[Jud]

24 minutes ago, phototristan said:

 

Easy.  Perhaps the other guy doesn't know how to set his site, or set it incorrectly by accident. It's 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. 

 

Let's see if I can provide a hypothetical closer to home.

 

Suppose there is a photo sharing service called "PSS" that takes photos from your website and sends them out to people who are interested in your work, including private parties, dealers who may display photographers' work on their sites, etc. 

 

You can set your PSS to share a couple of photos as a teaser and a link to your own site, or to share every last photo. Either intentionally or accidentally, you set your PSS to send all your photos. The traffic to your website drops. 

 

Is the better solution *for you* to start contacting people who've been getting your PSS feed and demand they each take down all the photos you send, or all but a couple, or to click a mouse and set your PSS to share a couple of photos and a link? 

[Jud]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

Maybe he did, and the lawyer hired a forum troll.

 

Damn. I'd never have thought of that.  :-D

[Jud]

5 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Neither would I. Evidently, you don't do divorce law (I didn't).

 

Actually I have, and I *still* wouldn't have thought of it.  ?

 

I do remember one case, not in our office, involving the divorce of an overweight attorney whose suit jackets strained to stay closed against a single button in front of his belly.  When his wife got served with the papers, she went through his closet and snipped that button off of all of his suits. 

[Jud]

Just now, Allan F said:

 

It could have been a lot worse. He was lucky not to have been married to Lorena Bobbitt.

 

?

[Jud]

Just now, mansr said:

I'd say that was a suitable response.

 

?

[Jud]

17 minutes ago, phototristan said:

 

How about from actual attorney's then? 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

They say "jury may be out on this." Another firm says the same at greater length:

 

"In general, copying material without permission of the copyright owner is copyright infringement. However, there is an interesting legal question raised by RSS. By making your website available by RSS, are you granting permission for others to republish your RSS feed?

 

"In other words, RSS is an abbreviation, which includes the word “Syndication.” Syndication generally means that the owner is making the material available to be accessed in other locations, which is essentially republishing. To my knowledge, the courts have not come up with a clear answer to whether republishing an RSS feed is actually copyright infringement."

 

So the situation is in fact the opposite of how you described it - the answer is unclear. 

[Jud]

3 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

They say "jury may be out on this." Another firm says the same at greater length:

 

"In general, copying material without permission of the copyright owner is copyright infringement. However, there is an interesting legal question raised by RSS. By making your website available by RSS, are you granting permission for others to republish your RSS feed?

 

"In other words, RSS is an abbreviation, which includes the word “Syndication.” Syndication generally means that the owner is making the material available to be accessed in other locations, which is essentially republishing. To my knowledge, the courts have not come up with a clear answer to whether republishing an RSS feed is actually copyright infringement."

 

So the situation is in fact the opposite of how you described it - the answer is unclear. 

 

Just now, 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

 

And as we have just seen, the answer in a court of law isn't at all clear.

 

I think your relationship to Jeff is this: After each of you had gone on at some length about Chris's actions, the revelation of the way RSS actually works and that the best way to resolve the entire situation is for someone at Tone Audio to click a mouse one single time was embarrassing to him and to you.  Your ego is now getting in the way of saying "Gee, there's a simple answer and we all get back to our lives again," just as I'm guessing might be true of Jeff. 

[Jud]

Just now, phototristan said:

 

We cannot second-guess this. He could have hit a wrong button by mistake on his web app or something, or maybe he's a total idiot and doesn't even know what RSS is. Who cares the reasons. 

 

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

 

That CA refuses to do anything is telling for sure. 

 

The way he has his RSS feed configured, he's taking views away from *his own* website.  In other words, whatever he might complain about Chris doing, he is also doing to himself.

 

Doesn't this suggest to you that being a good citizen, both in regard to Mr. Dorgay and anyone else he might contact about this, might consist of attempting to educate him once he calms down sufficiently to listen?

[Jud]

1 minute ago, phototristan said:

 

It's also not CA's responsibility to publish ToneAudio content. Which leads me to believe, why does CA want to do so badly, even against ToneAudio's wishes? 

 

I think asking nicely and being willing to listen and learn counts for a lot, don't you? 

[Jud]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that?

 

I don't think any personal insinuations are necessary.  To me, they are innuendo and out the other.

[Jud]

7 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

 

So Jeff has never used any of your photos?

 

https://www.tristantom.com/About-Me/n-XPnxx

 

Christopher, do you know in fact of any of this photographer's photos that have been used by TA? If not, I think we should stay well away from personal attacks.

 

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. 

[Jud]

4 minutes ago, phototristan said:

I have done sound for bands like Starship and The Platters in in a past work life. 

 

Now there's a variety.  

[Jud]

1 minute ago, wgscott said:

May I suggest the following remedy:

 

1.  Jeff Dorgay, the publisher of TONEAudio, should write to Chris (CA), apologize for the spurious accusations and threats, and agree to indemnify and hold harmless CA for the RSS posts.

 

2.  CA should remove ToneAudio from from the list of RSS feeds on his website.

 

3.  Jeff Dorgay, the publisher of TONEAudio, should change the Wordpress setting (in the unlikely event that this was a genuine error of intent).

 

Or as a possible substitute for #2, bring the feed back when and if the WordPress setting is changed. 

 

How much of a chance do you give  it?