Jump to content
IGNORED

Jeff Dorgay & TONEAudio Declare War on CA


Recommended Posts

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

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?

 

Not really. First of all, I'm totally sympathetic and feel that that guy is acting like a d*ck.

 

That said, a copyright allows an author to determine how their document can be used. An SACD copyright holder can require that the SACD be played back only on specific hardware. There is also the issue of fair use and the exception for the library of congress -- that's getting into the weeds.

 

All I'm saying is that the RSS document is an XML document like any other XML document. You guys seem to think that enclosing an article in an <rss> tag somehow changes the copyright. Implicit is the idea that use of the <rss> tag carried a "meaning" or "intention". From a practical sense, that's the case. From a legal sense not so clear.

 

Folks seem to be arguing that because some guy publishes an article in an RSS document, that he grants everyone the ability to take the RSS document, reformat it and display it on their own website ... err no.

 

Now the copyright examples I've given are just examples and you can argue that I've not written them precisely -- fine -- but the point is that the author of the document can limit the use of the document with a copyright notice. That's the best way. Lack of a copyright notice doesn't mean the document isn't copyrighted and yeah you'd fight that out in court -- or not cause it would be a waste of time for everyone except for the lawyers.

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

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

 

In the words of David Byrne,  "Stop making sense."

 

Here's a David Byrne lyric I've always liked:

 

I see your sadness
Like birds in the air
I see them all
Flying away

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Jud said:

Guys - Judges and attorneys who actually *know the law* haven't come to any settled conclusion, so even if you all agreed we'd have a few guys agreeing on an Internet forum, right?  ?

 

The only thing I can think of less gripping than continuing the conversation is a long discussion by "amateur lawyers" about the copyright aspects. ?  

 

Ha! Judges and attorneys never come to any settled conclusion about anything even apparently decades after the supreme court has ruled! So apparently the distinction between amateur and professional lawyers is what they get to charge in hourly rates and what they get to call themselves O.o

 

... but on this specific topic, my comments are intended to describe that the intended "meaning" or semantics that ought be associated with an RSS document, eg expert witness ;)

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, jabbr said:

 

Ha! Judges and attorneys never come to any settled conclusion about anything even apparently decades after the supreme court has ruled! So apparently the distinction between amateur and professional lawyers is what they get to charge in hourly rates and what they get to call themselves O.o

 

I am guessing that more than a couple of things that constitute the current standard of care in medicine won't stay settled. For some odd reason, though, not as many people like to play amateur brain surgeon as amateur lawyer. ? 

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I am guessing that more than a couple of things that constitute the current standard of care in medicine won't stay settled. For some odd reason, though, not as many people like to play amateur brain surgeon as amateur lawyer. ? 

 

Most of the people who are involved in the semantics of documents aren't lawyers. http://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/

One of the original RSS specifications: http://web.resource.org/rss/1.0/spec which describe one of its main intended usages as a way to describe websites.

 

If someone wanted to say that someone's intention is x,y or z when creating a document there could be a phenomenal amount of very technical details that would go into determining this. or not.

 

Normally folks don't need to get this technical when they are simply publishing information and consuming information (as opposed to designing specifications and large scale software). Normally when there is a miscommunication folks get together and sort it out in a friendly fashion.

 

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment

Time to take a neurotypical landing on the subject.

 

RSS is for public broadcast of content, and everyone knows it. If someone is broadcasting their own content accidentally, than the liability for broadcasting the content remains squarely on the shoulders of the party broadcasting — everyone knows that, too. Hiding willful ignorance behind anger because you’re going through sone kind of personal crisis doesn’t make anyone else at fault.

 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, 4est said:

I get what you are saying, but can we please not bring the Ob vs Sub thing in to this? I consider myself a moderate. I also happen to have some background in EE and run the type of business that requires both objective and subjective skills. This business also requires long term relationships with people of varying back grounds. Civility may be passe in your view, but not mine nor most of the people I deal with in the real world. Chris has stated that this site is to be viewed as the local pub. My question is, do we want this place to be a biker bar in the hood or the English pub around the corner where you wouldn't be scared or ashamed to bring your spouse or kid. I grew up in the hood. I know what I would choose.

 

I hear you.  However, respectfully, you are making some assumptions about "this place", forums, and the internet in general that are "outdated" to pick a term.  Do you open doors for ladies who are not your wife and daughters?  Why not?  Does not Civility and being a gentleman demand it?  It is not a yes or no question, because the answer is really "it depends".  100 years ago, even 50 years ago the answer and expectation was one thing.  Today things are different.  If you insist that "civility" demands opening the door (or standing when a lady walks into the room) today you are revealed to be a Victorian anachronism.  

 

"This place" might be like a local pub, but this is a local pub on the internet.  Respectfully, your morals, your version of Civility that you assume should be reflected here and elsewhere, is positively dangerous.  I don't say that lightly, but I believe it to be true.  You appear (and only appear - perhaps not really and we are having a miscommunication) to support the kind of morality and civility that would sweep bullying underneath the "maturity" rug in a false effort to hide the real biker in our midst.  I would not willingly bring my kids to such a pub, even if it had the artificial air of friendly banter and English civility.

 

In other words, you are not really considering an alternative perspective - a different kind or aspect of civility.  You just assuming that Chris has overreacted or is being "high school", etc.  You are assuming the threat is not real.  You are assuming that your perspective is right and that it should be obvious what the mature thing is in relationships and persons of various backgrounds "in the real world".

 

When the biker walks into your friendly local pub and starts grabbing asses, puffing his chest, throwing bottles, what do you do?

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

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Time to take a neurotypical landing on the subject.

 

RSS is for public broadcast of content, and everyone knows it. If someone is broadcasting their own content accidentally, than the liability for broadcasting the content remains squarely on the shoulders of the party broadcasting — everyone knows that, too. Hiding willful ignorance behind anger because you’re going through sone kind of personal crisis doesn’t make anyone else at fault.

 

Right. Just like any website: everyone knows that "stereophile.com" is for the public broadcast of information.

The question isn't whether the information was intended to be published, it was. The question is whether the publisher intends to allow a third-party (http://computeraudiophile.com) to republish the article on a page within http://computeraudiophile.com

 

Now lets take a document published by http://www.stereophile.com :

it is an HTML document i.e. enclosed with

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en" dir="ltr">

...

</html>

 

It was public broadcast of content. Everyone knows that. Is Chris allowed to take this article and republish it under http://computeraudiophile.com ?

 

Folks seem to think that a document enclosed in <rss> is allowed to be freely republished but understand that a document enclosed in <html> isn't, right? So where is this supposed conclusion that "everyone knows" written down? Where is this assumption made? @Jud of course there are no specific laws that say this...

 

 

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment
On 7/16/2018 at 3:22 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi Joel - John Darko and I had a disagreement about his RSS feeds being published here. He suggested a phone call to which I agreed. 

 

We resolved the situation and remain friends. 

This thread has inspired me to check out some RSS feeds... Now I’m wondering if Darko’s “*** NO PART OF THIS RSS FEED TO BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT PERMISSION ***” (twice) warning has anything to do with your resolution, which sorta makes his feed a bit lame? Sites should just turn their feeds off if they don’t want people using them...

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Right. Just like any website: everyone knows that "stereophile.com" is for the public broadcast of information.

The question isn't whether the information was intended to be published, it was. The question is whether the publisher intends to allow a third-party (http://computeraudiophile.com) to republish the article on a page within http://computeraudiophile.com

 

Now lets take a document published by http://www.stereophile.com :

it is an HTML document i.e. enclosed with

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en" dir="ltr">

...

</html>

 

It was public broadcast of content. Everyone knows that. Is Chris allowed to take this article and republish it under http://computeraudiophile.com ?

 

 

 

But but but...but that is not an RSS tagged document.  RSS is designed for syndication - it is a technical implementation of intent.  If stereophile.com put out an RSS feed (perhaps they already do) then what would it mean for them to ask CA not to syndicate it and ToneAudio to?  It would be meaningless.

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

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, mjb said:

This thread has inspired me to check out some RSS feeds... Now I’m wondering if Darko’s “*** NO PART OF THIS RSS FEED TO BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT PERMISSION ***” (twice) warning has anything to do with your resolution, which sorta makes his feed a bit lame? Sites should just turn their feeds off if they don’t want people using them...

 

I believe that his statement (i.e. NO PART OF THIS...) is meaningless.  Short of him putting a control (e.g. encrypting/restricting access to his RSS feed behind a VPN, etc.) if a company with resources and deep pockets decided to aggregate his feed (e.g. Google's new front page service) they would ignore his personal appeals and eat his lunch in court.

 

Edit:  John Dark has no more standing to define the legal meaning of RSS, HTML, TCP/IP, etc. etc. than any of us do...

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

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

But but but...but that is not an RSS tagged document.  RSS is designed for syndication - it is a technical implementation of intent.  If stereophile.com put out an RSS feed (perhaps they already do) then what would it mean for them to ask CA not to syndicate it and ToneAudio to?  It would be meaningless.

 

Have you read the RSS specifications? I've read each and every one of them over the years. RSS was not originally designed for syndication, rather to describe websites. Dave Winer realized that RSS would be a great way to syndicate and the rest is history. That said there is nothing that requires RSS to be used only for syndication, nor does use of the <rss> tag alone determine the intention of the author.

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Have you read the RSS specifications? I've read each and every one of them over the years. RSS

 

No, not to any level that you have.  Is there language in there that defines a novel use of syndication?

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

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, mjb said:

This thread has inspired me to check out some RSS feeds... Now I’m wondering if Darko’s “*** NO PART OF THIS RSS FEED TO BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT PERMISSION ***” (twice) warning has anything to do with your resolution, which sorta makes his feed a bit lame? Sites should just turn their feeds off if they don’t want people using them...

 

Interesting. 

 

Our resolution was that I removed John's content after a public back & forth on Twitter. He suggested a phone call which I agreed to. The timing was really bad for me because I was in the middle of a family function when this happened and was heading to Maine at 5 am the next day. We disagreed then and still disagree, but I just didn't have time to continue going back and forth and I think Jon is a really nice guy so I just removed his content. 

 

Under different circumstances I would have talked to him a bit more to understand his perspective, but that in no way changes my view that I did nothing wrong. 

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

Link to comment

I really hope John and Jeff contact all the sites like Feedly who charge a fee to read their RSS feeds. 

 

P.S. With zero interest in supporting the HiFi community.

 

P.P.S. I will contact John to let him know his feed is misconfigured, as evidenced by the duplicate content. One with the warning and one without.

 

Screen Shot 2018-07-17 at 1.03.49 PM.png

 

Screen Shot 2018-07-17 at 1.04.02 PM.png

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

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

I really hope John and Jeff contact all the sites like Feedly who charge a fee to read their RSS feeds. 

 

P.S. With zero interest in supporting the HiFi community.

Don't forget those dastardly IPSs that eagerly aid and abet in this vile theft. And charge a fee for it too.

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Now lets take a document published by http://www.stereophile.com :

it is an HTML document i.e. enclosed with

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en" dir="ltr">

...

</html>

 

It was public broadcast of content. Everyone knows that. Is Chris allowed to take this article and republish it under http://computeraudiophile.com ? 

 

I assume your question was rhetorical, but the answer is no, third parties are not allowed to reprint such content posted on stereophile.com without permission, other than in cases of defensible use under the Fair Use provision of US copyright law. Were Chris to do so, it would be an open-and-shut infringement of our copyright. And it is fair to note that Chris has always been supportive of our copyright when posters to this site post Stereophile's content to CA without permission.

 

For reprinting of an RSS feed, the answer is "it depends."

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

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

Yes, Feedly serves advertisements.

 

Screen Shot 2018-07-17 at 1.17.16 PM.png

Oh, I didn't know that. I only look at my subscribed feeds, not the mix pages. Anyway, who cares? It's a service like any other. Got to be paid for somehow.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

I assume your question was rhetorical, but the answer is no, third parties are not allowed to reprint such content posted on stereophile.com without permission, other than in cases of defensible use under the Fair Use provision of US copyright law. Were Chris to do so, it would be an open-and-shut infringement of our copyright. And it is fair to note that Chris has always been supportive of our copyright when posters to this site post Stereophile's content to CA without permission.

 

For reprinting of an RSS feed, the answer is "it depends."

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

 

I’ve said it above, Chris seems to have a double standard for sure. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, John_Atkinson said:

For reprinting of an RSS feed, the answer is "it depends."

I subscribe to your RSS feed. Maybe one in ten articles seems interesting enough that I click through for the full thing. If you didn't have the RSS feed, I would probably visit your site much less frequently.

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



×
×
  • Create New...