Jeff Dorgay & TONEAudio Declare War on CA

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, 4est said:

I doubt it.

 

I happen to agree with them, and I will challenge anyone who calls me a troll after the length of time I have been around here. What I feel you and many others are missing is that although it is your right and you are right, the high road would have been to apologize and remove all of TA feeds after he refused your suggestion. Sure he was a bully, and likely a dumb ass, but it is not an excuse to make a scene nor push back publicly with this high school BS. It is his feed and his decision however stupid it might be. Don't you have better things to do than attempt to school a nitwit? I expect this crap from some of the posters here, but I thought you were better than that.

 

I'll not post further on this stupid topic.

 

No worries 4est. I respect your opinion. 

 

Bullies thrive in darkness. It is my intention to shine a light on them and create a public track record of their behavior. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, mav52 said:

 

\But at what cost Chris. I think you have already shown the darkness that lies in the owner of Tone Audio.. And its now public record. 

 

Correct, I've shown it in this thread.

 

Perhaps I'm not following you.

[The Computer Audiophile]

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.

[The Computer Audiophile]

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

[The Computer Audiophile]

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. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

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

 

"F" You @crenca ?

[The Computer Audiophile]

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?

[The Computer Audiophile]

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.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute 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. ? 

 

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

[The Computer Audiophile]

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. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

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.

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

And there's even ads in the mix with services like Feedly.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

That looks like someone is selling ad space in their RSS feed. Feedly does not inject ads.

 

Yes, Feedly serves advertisements.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

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.

 

Totally agree. My point was that what CA does with RSS is happening everywhere and some people are charging for it. If one believes his content shouldn't be consumed via RSS, then he should also go after Feedly and the like. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Another interesting aspect of this is when we talk about user generated content. 

 

YouTube is the largest host of user generated content and has set the standard (like it or not) for how to deal with copyright infringements on its sites. This standard ranges from do nothing - to take it down.

 

What if CA doesn't import RSS feeds and members of the community add their own feeds here at CA? It only gets murkier. 

 

Interesting but not authoritative article:

https://www.socalinternetlawyer.com/dmca-user-generated-content/

[The Computer Audiophile]

23 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

The Electronic Frontier Fnd. ought to know about this issue with RSS.

Perhaps you noticed the EFF logo at the bottom of CA?

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

Yes.  Did you send them a short write-up?

Working on it now.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Guys - This one ends in a lose / lose for everyone. Here is the email I sent to Tone Audio’s representative. 

 

 

“I have to say I’m out. I can’t, in good conscience, send traffic (in essence give free advertising) to Jeff and Tone Audio. 

 

I can’t help out bullies or those who explode at me and threaten legal action. 

 

I’m disabling the feed.”

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Em2016 said:

 

You mean the Tone feed only right? Not the overall feed feature?

 

I like this feature. It serves as a bit of a central hub, linking to interesting articles elsewhere.

 

Yes. Just the Tone feed. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I would spill some additional anti-consumer BS but @crenca‘s head would explode and this thread would go on forever. 

 

Now back to audio. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, HiFiInsider said:

 

@thecomputeraudiophile

 

Perhaps Darko's reason for not wanting to take part in your RSS feed is the same reason as Jeff's. Could Jeff been nicer at the first exchange without accusations and threats, yes. But in my opinion, you're the bully. You took Jeff's lunch money and told him I took it because you didn't lock it down like everyone else. That's a bully move.

 

That's all from me... moving on.

Huh?

 

Very strange to me. 

 

No need for analogies. We have facts here. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

26 minutes ago, HiFiInsider said:

 

@thecomputeraudiophile

 

Perhaps Darko's reason for not wanting to take part in your RSS feed is the same reason as Jeff's. Could Jeff been nicer at the first exchange without accusations and threats, yes. But in my opinion, you're the bully. You took Jeff's lunch money and told him I took it because you didn't lock it down like everyone else. That's a bully move.

 

That's all from me... moving on.

I assure you, Jeff’s reasoning was all over the board, accusatory and much of it built on items I proved to him to be false. 

 

He accused me of scraping content and removing his copyright notice in his latest email. That’s just not possible if one understands how RSS works. 

 

I could go on about the false assertions that were made one after the other, but I won’t. 

 

Perhaps you'd also like to know that for years Jeff wanted to “cross pollinate” (his words not mine) content on our sites. 

 

I was also told that if I just had asked before importing the content it would have been OK. That blows me away on many levels. So he’s OK with all of this but he wanted to be asked for something he is giving away? 

 

Its all crazy to me. I really wish HiFi could embrace technology to expand its audience. 

 

All we we want is a simple RSS summary to show CA readers. We want to send traffic to all the sites. And, we want to provide a place to leave comments because many sites have disabled that feature or censor comments heavily. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

This is so frustrating for me. I really should take a break and listen to some music. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

26 minutes ago, phototristan said:

I think it's called link harvesting, and it's nothing new. You get free original content from others for your site without having to really do anything. 

 

This makes zero sense. 

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, phototristan said:

 

It will actually be more about commenting on what an idiot the reviewer is or that the particular publication sucks, etc.

 

Similar to your your comments that we allow here on CA. 

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, phototristan said:

Also, most of the review sites moderate their comments section, if they even allow comments. Why would they want a third-party renegade site allowing comments on their reviews that they cannot moderate? 

 

This makes zero sense. Think about it please. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I don't think HiFi really wants to expand the audience at the press level anyway. When HiFi was everywhere in the United States (the 70's) the press had little power and audiophiles were a minority of people who liked good sound from their equipment. I really wonder if the old guard wants an expanded market where it would have to adapt to a larger audience.

 

I agree 100% with you.