Jump to content
IGNORED

Jeff Dorgay & TONEAudio Declare War on CA


Recommended Posts

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.  

The Truth Is Out There

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, mav52 said:

 

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.  

 

Understood. Thanks for the honest feedback.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
1 hour 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. 

Right. If you look at the XML namespace definition for “RSS” it is a URI which links to a document describing the RSS specification (there are several versions). In the RSS specification there is the possibility of a copyright value. When an explicit copyright is included in an RSS document, the intention of the copyright holder is clear. When the value is not present, the copyright is not clear. However email clarification would hold a certain weight. The fact that the spec itself provides fro a copyright field would indicate that RSS documents are intended to be at the very least possibly copyrighted. I can’t imagine you’d advise anyone to fight this unless for publicity.

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, arcman said:

I say we start a big protest for Tone Audio magazine for being mean to Chris. Real simple

 

1. find out the address of main office or owner's home

 

2. Call these people...yes a big chunk of protesters you see on TV are hired https://crowdsondemand.com/

 

3. Pick a date...get permits

 

4. Print signs that maybe read (or something similar) "stop being mean to me" ... "my feelings got hurt"...."you are going down you big, mean, bully"

 

5. publish the protest all over the internet

 

LOL..I love this...so silly.....

 

There are too many protests in Portland  everyday for this to work.

Link to comment
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.

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

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.

Hi,

I disagree that old rules do not apply.

 

In all the progress we have made, we are still human beings, and privacy and decent behaviour is important. This is despite the current culture being to take photographs of oneself and send it anywhere and everywhere, and behave differently behind a keyboard. 

 

All the internet has done is to give greater anonymity to the bully (bullies are of all ages).

 

My take is that the bully has been exposed, let him have his wish, remove the RSS subscription, and do not give the ToneAudio site and the person any publicity. Why waste your time on someone you would never want to be friends with ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

I disagree that old rules do not apply.

 

In all the progress we have made, we are still human beings, and privacy and decent behaviour is important. This is despite the current culture being to take photographs of oneself and send it anywhere and everywhere, and behave differently behind a keyboard. 

 

All the internet has done is to give greater anonymity to the bully (bullies are of all ages).

 

My take is that the bully has been exposed, let him have his wish, remove the RSS subscription, and do not give the ToneAudio site and the person any publicity. Why waste your time on someone you would never want to be friends with ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

Which rules?  I can agree with you rather easily (too easily) that "privacy and decent behavior is important".  But this is in the abstract.  You yourself admit that the internet has changed things - it "give(s) greater anonymity to the bully".  Well that "greater anonymity" has consequences - consequences which force you individually (or in my case, as a parent) to adjust my response, tweak the rules, etc.

 

It's not the principles behind the rules that are so much in dispute, as to how to effectively apply those rules in the changed situation of the internet...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

Essentially - in real life if there is someone down the road you do not get on with, you avoid them.

 

If you would never say a derogatory comment to someone's face, the don't say it on the internet.

 

The old rules helped people get along, and we should adhere to them on the internet - but what is happening, because the internet provides anonymity, people discard the old rules.

 

So in this case, there has been an argument between two parties - seen by all, and maybe it is time to move on.

 

The same rules of behaviour still apply to the internet - but the internet allows people to get away with more due to anonymity - but still following the old rules (walk away, don't interact) still apply.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

Given that there is zero anonymity involved in this scenario, let's move on. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I just checked my temperature. I thought something was seriously wrong because I've agreed with @crenca way more than my brain can comprehend :~)

 

Uh oh, I better start talking about Audiophile culture again...  ?

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Would not the copyright issue (let's just assume that ALL RSS documents are inherently copyrighted) be besides the point in that by using RSS you legally intend to syndicate and that by doing so you don't have a legal claim against someone (such as Chris) who utilizes your syndication (in this case, a particular technical implementation - RSS)?

 

Err no. One could intend to syndicate for individual consumption only. Just because someone provides an RSS does not mean that they intend to allow another site to republish. For example the RSS could include these different examples:

 

<copyright>(c) John Smith 2018, all rights reserved. Not for republication</copyright>

 

or

 

<copyright>(c) John Smith 2018. For personal consumption only</copyright>

 

or

 

<copyright>(c) John Smith 2018. May be used freely for noncommercial purposes</copyright>

 

Now aside from a copyright notice, where is the "legal intention" of the author described? That's the point.

Regarding syndication, do you really think that when a TV show is syndicated, for example, that you can record and then republish it?

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I thought folks proposing some ulterior motive were being conspiracy theorists. With these continued ludicrous attacks, one has to wonder.

 

Jud it is no conspiracy. Chris has been and will be attacked openly from parts of the industry and the audio press. I've seen it at shows personally. 

 

I tried yesterday. I left a message for the webmaster and talked to Jeff before lunch. Full RSS feed is not a mistake. If Jeff pursues this it will cost some money to get a law firm to write a letter to Chris. And it is an interesting question of whether Computer Audiophile is a public aggregator  or not. 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Err no. One could intend to syndicate for individual consumption only. Just because someone provides an RSS does not mean that they intend to allow another site to republish. For example the RSS could include these different examples:

 

<copyright>(c) John Smith 2018, all rights reserved. Not for republication</copyright>

 

or

 

<copyright>(c) John Smith 2018. For personal consumption only</copyright>

 

or

 

<copyright>(c) John Smith 2018. May be used freely for noncommercial purposes</copyright>

 

Now aside from a copyright notice, where is the "legal intention" of the author described? That's the point.

 

Behind your argument is that there is a difference between "individual consumption" and "another site" in relation to RSS.  I tend toward (you might be able to convince me otherwise) that is a distinction without a difference practically, legally, etc.  So Flipbook is not "site", and CA is not simply an app or "portal" for my individual consumption?  Does any of this really make a difference to RSS and the determination of intent when a content provider proactively (how else could they do it - besides, say some rogue web employee setting up RSS without permission) enabling an RSS feed.  Also, again, copyright is assumed in ALL cases I think...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Err no. One could intend to syndicate for individual consumption only. Just because someone provides an RSS does not mean that they intend to allow another site to republish. For example the RSS could include these different examples:

 

<copyright>(c) John Smith 2018, all rights reserved. Not for republication</copyright>

 

or

 

<copyright>(c) John Smith 2018. For personal consumption only</copyright>

 

or

 

<copyright>(c) John Smith 2018. May be used freely for noncommercial purposes</copyright>

 

Now aside from a copyright notice, where is the "legal intention" of the author described? That's the point.

 

You're getting into the weeds now. 

 

What is individual consumption? Read by a person?

 

If you believe individual consumption is not what we are doing here, what's your take on Feedly. A service that charges people to read RSS feeds?

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Behind your argument is that there is a difference between "individual consumption" and "another site" in relation to RSS.  I tend toward (you might be able to convince me otherwise) that is a distinction without a difference practically, legally, etc.  So Flipbook is not "site", and CA is not simply an app or "portal" for my individual consumption?  Does any of this really make a difference to RSS and the determination of intent when a content provider proactively (how else could they do it - besides, say some rogue web employee setting up RSS without permission) enabling an RSS feed.  Also, again, copyright is assumed in ALL cases I think...

 

The world is going to hell in a hand basket. You took many of the words out of my mouth.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I tried yesterday. I left a message for the webmaster and talked to Jeff before lunch. Full RSS feed is not a mistake.

 

So there you have it.  Jeff just does not want to syndicate to this site CA, probably because of that time Chris commented how he does not like Superman (Jeff was wearing Superman undies like he always does).  Yet, RSS is a free and open syndication method TO ALL.  

 

Jeff's only solution is to not use RSS, or use RSS in such a way (through a VPN for example) that restricts it.  He does not have a legal leg to stand on as I see it, besides being a bully...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...