Jeff Dorgay & TONEAudio Declare War on CA

[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? 

[plissken]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

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

 

BOOM!

[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

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

Posting private emails exchanges in a public forum, irrespective of their content, is pretty lame. Moreover, the title of this thread is clearly overdramatic. At the end of the day, this is just a minor dispute and not something that threatens the very existence of the forum! 

 

Big boys can handle their problems on their own without turning it into a public spectacle. 

[Allan F]

9 minutes ago, Jud said:

Quote

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

Damn. I'd never have thought of that. ?

 

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

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, hopkins said:

Posting private emails exchanges in a public forum, irrespective of their content, is pretty lame. Moreover, the title of this thread is clearly overdramatic. At the end of the day, this is just a minor dispute and not something that threatens the very existence of the forum! 

 

Big boys can handle their problems on their own without turning it into a public spectacle. 

 

No worries. I prefer to expose bullies who threaten to call lawyers and who literally say the war is on. 

 

This isn't about a spectacle. It's about shedding light on threatening behavior.

[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. 

[Allan F]

6 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

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. 

 

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

[Jud]

Just now, Allan F said:

 

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

 

?

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, Jud said:

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. 

I'd say that was a suitable response.

[Jud]

Just now, mansr said:

I'd say that was a suitable response.

 

?

[crenca]

We need to submit this to the W3C:

 

<!DOCTYPE html>

       <BOOM!>I'm also putting an ad in the paper telling everybody</BOOM!>

       <BOOM!>Posting private emails exchanges in a public forum, irrespective of their content, is pretty lame</BOOM!>

 

[EdmontonCanuck]

10 hours ago, crenca said:

 

 "I discovered this thing called the internet yesterday and I think it might be a good idea to..."

 

My internet connection went down yesterday and I had to put my phone down and talk to my family.

 

They seem like nice people...... ?

[jabbr]

34 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

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

 

Quote

 

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. 

 

By publishing a photo, it doesn’t automatically give the right of another publisher to republish ie copy the photo. That’s the point here. 

 

Of course its the intention of RSS, according to the designers and most users of RSS to allow republishing ie syndication. 

 

Unfortunately my understanding is that copyright law does not take into account that an RSS document is different than an HTML or text document or PDF.

 

You are not necessarily allowed to copy or republish a document which isn’t s copyrighted. Is the RSS copyrighted? That’s an important question.

Quote

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? 

 

Of course it shouldn’t be this way but the copyright law wasn’t written properly for the Internet (in my opinion)

[Solstice380]

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.  

[Indydan]

1 hour ago, phototristan said:

Boom - problem solved. 

 

 

Boom - Phototristan is the problem. 

 

Is this you?

 

https://www.youtube.com/user/phototristan/about

[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

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, phototristan said:

 

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

 

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!

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, wgscott said:

 

The relevant point here is that he is not representing the content as his own.

 

If the RSS feed pushed only the title, and he had some other mechanism to scrape the content and deposit it on his website, then maybe you would have a valid objection.  But the RSS feed itself pushed the content, whether out of intent or ignorance is not relevant.  The source is attributed, and it links back to the source, thus potentially generating internet traffic for the original site.

 

Aaron Swartz republished documents behind a paywall, not documents that were pushed by RSS.  

 

If Nature pushed its entire content by RSS feed, and Aaron Swartz aggregated and displayed that feed, he would not have committed an infringement (intentional or otherwise).

 

-- note that Aaron Swartz went on to commit suicide.

 

I know these details very well. I know the intention of designers of RSS very very well. I also know that people’s intentions about how the Web is supposed to work, and that information should be free, are not what the law says. Copyright is copyright and that can allow bad things.

 

I believe Aaron had great intentions but unfortunately got caught on the wrong side of the legal system. Terrible.

[Shadders]

Hi,

At this point, it is obvious the ToneAudio person does not want you to share his material.

 

I would remove the feed so he gets less clicks to his site, as on here, no one will know about it as the rss feed is missing.

 

It is not worth the ink on the computer screen.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[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. "

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, phototristan said:

 

How about from actual attorney's then? 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Did you actually read it before you sent it?

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, phototristan said:

 

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. "

 

 

 

Keep digging. 

 

Then please quote everything rather than the selected option that you think supports you. 

 

As of September 2006, when that was published,  "Jury may be out on this."

[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. 

[jtwrace]

Just now, phototristan said:

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. 

What is your actual point of posting as a new member on this thread only?  What agenda do you have?