ON Wed, 09 Jul 1997 22:16:24 -0700: Aron Travis <atravis@spacey.net>
Wrote:
>Trevor Boicey wrote:
>>
>> Aron Travis wrote:
>> >
>> > Hey, the internet is a free for all
>>
>> No, not true. The internet is certainly not a free for all..
>>
>> A similar but accurate statement would be that the internet
>> polices itself. The netizens generally know what's right and
>> will pool efforts to keep it that way..
>
>Yes, I agree. But the internet is, for lack of better words, more 'open
>minded', than other media forums. Which means to me, posting a list
>of humorous tool definitions, that I recieved from another list, that
>had other list members additions, is way too trivial of an issue to
>get the attention of the netizen police. If I were posting cookie
>recipies, racist slang, bawdy humor, etc, I can see it, but
>talking about how not crediting Road and Track is an 'actionable offense'
>is just absurd.
>
Most of the people here on the net are, as you say, more "open minded" than
in other media, but not all. Most of the people on this list are a little
off or they wouldn't be driving the cars they do. That's not to say that
anything goes. No one expects you or anyone else to track down credits for
a humorous list before posting it here. But if you are informed that a
piece posted is a copyrighted work, then it IS incumbent on you to at least
acknowlede the credit. Having had the opportunity to double and even triple
invoice several companies for publishing my photographs without credit or
payment or even notice (it's written into the acceptance clause on the back
of my invoice), I CAN say that if Road & Track wanted to, they could take
action against you for publishing the material without credit or
permission. That's known as an "actionable offense". It's not trivial if
that's how you make your living.
>> When somebody is telling you that what you are doing is wrong,
>> whether it's spamming, or posting to the wrong list, or stealing
>> quotes from Road and Track, that is the internet policing itself..
>
>No, I think that that was not the internet policing itself, I think
>that was one person, with that persons opinions. Now if everybody on the
>MG list says what I did was wrong.......
>
Okay, that was one person. Now here's another. And this is not an opinion.
It's a fact, Jack. If they wanted to, R&T could come after you and demand
reparation. Of course that's like saying that Bill Gates could come after
your firstborn for the pirated copy of Office 95 you're using, but they CAN
come after you. And for you to say that's one person's opinion and it
doesn't matter is irresponsible. Read the boilerplate at the begginning of
any issue and then tell me it's opinion.
What you did may not have been theft per se, but it WAS receiving and
distributing stolen goods. If the police turn up the rightful owner of a
car you just recieved you still have to give the car back even if you
bought it in good faith. And telling the owner that you don't care won't
get you very far.
I'm not upset with you for posting the list in the first place, but your
responses to Trevor were, In My Opinion, way out of line.
Glenn Schnittke
-----------------------------------------
No one in Tuna knows what I do for a livivng.
Glenn Schnittke I'm cured. Leave me alone.
Nashville TN 615-385-2800
schnittke@mindspring.com
-----------------------------------------
|