Objectionable uses of information on this website

[Titanium Dome]

Wow, someone was up late last night and in a posting mood.

To me, whether someone breaks a rule or violates some other clearly-stated principle is irrelevant to A.H. status. In addition, why should it be necessary for the site to have to define every bit of bad form in a rule or sticky?

Everyone who comes here is literate to a degree; it's required to be able to participate, although there's no rule that one needs to be literate. Literate people understand that words have power, and they also understand that some words have more power than others. Here on this site they find words that are often the most authoritative available on a Lansing-related topic.

They understand that the use of these words will enhance their ability to sell an item for profit, or enhance their ability to appear authoritative on a topic, or improve their appearance of being literate, or simply will save them time and effort and the tedium of doing any honest intellectual work themselves. Some even enjoy the fact that it's unguarded and easy to steal.

So they just take it.

There's no "Please" or "Thank you."

This is deliberate. It's not an accident. They know that it's a form of theft, that it's dishonest. But they're lazy, or greedy, or ethically dead—whatever.

We can't stop it, though educating them might help some. Education usually has helped me. However, my point isn't about stopping it. It's that these people live in A.H.-dom, as you put it, and I'm just calling it as I see it.

I don't mind seeing information from this site included in honest auctions or postings on other sites if it's credited to the site or to the original poster. That at least is intellectually honest.

[X_X]

So it seems the biggest concern is when information is exploited for profit. Am I correct? I have trouble with that one. I can find the construction plans for various models free of charge on this site, and if I sell these plans somewhere else for profit- it's wrong. I can see that one. However, what if I used those same plans to construct a speaker and I sell that for profit? Is that wrong, too? Since I am adding a service, I certainly don't think so. Yet, some people would consider their sourcing of the information, compiling it into printed pages, and shipping to your door, as part of their 'services'. It's a grey area.

And what about reproduction foilcals? While not a violation of this site's information, per se- it is definately dipping into unauthorized use of a company logo. HK doesn't seem to mind that one, either. Strange. The foilcal is the signature of the company. The company builds a product and the badge says to the world that this is a bonafide product produced by "us". Throughout history, when imitation products were produced- it was only when the imitators started faking the logos that they were prosecuted.

In the case for this site and it's information: Unless the rules and punishments are clearly outlined- there is no violation. If exploitation of (and/or other mistreatments of) information is a concern- the admin need only place a simple disclaimer on material that he wishes to be protected. A general disclaimer for the entire site is too vague. An opaque overlay or even a right click warning window would do the trick. Then, if and when a "violation" occurs- it is obvious and beyond excuse.

Vanimal at Manley uses her eBay ID's to bid on bogus auctions of her products. One of her ID's is:

Do_not_bid_bogus_auction

Maybe we need a few bidding ID's like these:

this_information_free_at_audioheritage_dot_org

or (my favorite)

seller_is_an_idiot

[Zilch]

Are you thinking of a case where a copyrighted article from this site is quoted somewhere (presumably without permission)?

Yes, in particular the recent wholesale lifting of an article in the Library.

That's clearly copyrighted material, and I'm saying, even if site administration does not have the resources to pursue that sort of violation, the membership certainly can clue the seller in via "Ask seller a question."

A seller receiving one of those might ignore it as coming from a crackpot. If they receive twenty, they might start to consider that their sale is being impacted by the mere lack of a simple credit of the source.

That wouldn't satisfy the letter of the law, of course, which also requires permission to reprint, but it would be less of an insult.

I'm with TiDome. They know full well what they're doing, and their "Internet is public domain" rationalization is merely convenient coverup for their intellectual dishonesty....

[glen]

Wow, someone was up late last night and in a posting mood.

Up late, posting, soo sleepy Zzzzzz Zzzzzz

To me, whether someone breaks a rule or violates some other clearly-stated principle is irrelevant to A.H. status. In addition, why should it be necessary for the site to have to define every bit of bad form in a rule or sticky?

I started the thread because I felt that the principles being violated were NOT clearly stated and if the membership is going to gripe about it then it is OUR RESPONSIBILITY to communicate clear rules to website visitors. I have been surprised at just how upset and violated some folks here feel and I am sure that some (not all) "transgressors" would be more careful if there some guidelines offered about how to use info WITHOUT stepping on someones toes. I just think it's good etiquette, like informing a visitor to your home who comes from another culture what the ground rules are in your house, and being gracious when a visitor offends out of ignorance. Of course there will always be a "Borat" or two, but I think most would make some effort to toe the line if they were made aware of some clear and reasonable guidelines up front. I would like for them to have that opportunity so maybe some of bruising and battering can be avoided.

Everyone who comes here is literate to a degree; . . . They know that it's a form of theft, that it's dishonest. But they're lazy, or greedy, or ethically dead—whatever.

We can't stop it, though educating them might help some.

A lot of members on this site are intellectually and ethically exceptional people and certainly a cut or two above the web-surfing masses who made Napster the biggest phenomenon on the internet (until it was forced to observe copyright laws). When Moses went to the mountain top he didn't get handed a stone tablet that said "You're Literate, You should know this stuff already...", it got spelled out. That's probably a good example for dealing with our own golden-calf worshippers.

I don't mind seeing information from this site included in honest auctions or postings on other sites if it's credited to the site or to the original poster. That at least is intellectually honest.

Credit, recognition, acknowledgement, attribution. The desire for this keeps recurring.
And I have seen several ebay auctions that specifically cite our site as the authoritative source. Maybe we should explore what form that should take in another thread and leave this open for other objectionable issues?

[Titanium Dome]

Hi Nathan. At least from my viewpoint, it's not just about profit.

I wrote

They understand that the use of these words will enhance their ability to sell an item for profit, or enhance their ability to appear authoritative on a topic, or improve their appearance of being literate, or simply will save them time and effort and the tedium of doing any honest intellectual work themselves. Some even enjoy the fact that it's unguarded and easy to steal.

(snip)

I don't mind seeing information from this site included in honest auctions or postings on other sites if it's credited to the site or to the original poster. That at least is intellectually honest.

You wrote

So it seems the biggest concern is when information is exploited for profit.

[Titanium Dome]

Sorry Glen. I swear this is it.

When Moses went to the mountain top he didn't get handed a stone tablet that said "You're Literate, You should know this stuff already...", it got spelled out. That's probably a good example for dealing with our own golden-calf worshippers.


Maybe we should explore what form that should take in another thread and leave this open for other objectionable issues?

It wouldn't matter what the tablets said, they were all illiterate except for the priests. Theirs was an oral tradition at that point. It had to be written down to be stablelized, I suppose, since oral tradition drifts over time. By chiseling out those tablets, Moses forced everyone, priests included, to toe the line. No more creative license for priests in their sermonizing. ("Crap. I can't change it now, it's written down.")

Today, Jehovah could just email everybody.

Anyway that's way OT. Your point is taken. This is my last comment on this topic in this thread.

[glen]

Sorry Glen. I swear this is it.

I really don't know what you're apologizing for? I have not been offended by anything you said, hope I didn't come across like I was.

Anyway that's way OT. Your point is taken. This is my last comment on this topic in this thread.

You were very much on topic and honest about your feelings and maybe more in tune with other members than I am. It's a topic that seems to touch a bit of a raw nerve in a way I don't think I fully appreciate, makes it hard to boil it down to simple solutions. Your last comment on any topic would be a sad occasion, but thanks for your participation.

Today, Jehovah could just email everybody.

Actually emailing a welcome message to new members sounds like a great method to aquaint them with expected forum etiquette in a direct way that requires no effort or intelligence on their part.

[glen]

Yes, in particular the recent wholesale lifting of an article in the Library.

That's clearly copyrighted material, and I'm saying, even if site administration does not have the resources to pursue that sort of violation, the membership certainly can clue the seller in via "Ask seller a question."

That sounds pretty reasonable. In a few cases it might help if the copyright was more prominent, of if there was an authors by-line: "article by Don McRitchie ©2005 All Rights Reserved". But that probably would not stop most of those violators.

they might start to consider that their sale is being impacted by the mere lack of a simple credit of the source.

If it's copyrighted material it would need to have that copyright © notice reproduced in addition to crediting the source. Is that enough consideration to satisfy the copyright holder?
Also Ebay is a big multi-million dollar entity with a lot at stake, they might have enforcement procedures against reproduction of copyrighted material without permission. Worth checking out next time it occurs.

That wouldn't satisfy the letter of the law, of course, which also requires permission to reprint, but it would be less of an insult.

It would satisfy one key part of the law: If you do not assert your rights eventually it's is as if you are surrendering them. Magazines catering to professinal writers often carry ads from manufacturers of trade-marked brand names like "Kleenex" and "Band-Aid" asking that those names that are the property of the makers not be used in a generic manner. It doesn't stop it from happening, but it does help maintain a legal basis for the maker to go to court if their trademarks are used in a detrimental way.
So objecting IS useful.

A seller receiving one of those might ignore it as coming from a crackpot.

Does anybody here have a lawyer in the family? Preferably one with a web prescence.
My Dad was a lawyer (passed away) and I will tell you that a simple phone call or letter from someone that actually has the power to take them to court will definitely make them think twice. Some kind of officious email under the name of a bona-fide lawyer would stop at least some of these jokers.

[Zilch]

Also Ebay is a big multi-million dollar entity with a lot at stake, they might have enforcement procedures against reproduction of copyrighted material without permission. Worth checking out next time it occurs.

eBay has a system, yes, "VeRO."

http://pages.ebay.com/help/tp/vero-rights-owner.html

LH Site administration must register there as copyright holder. Once that is complete, eBay will end any auctions reported by the registered VeRO. That relieves eBay of any involvement.

The dispute, if any, is then between the seller and the VeRO.

The registration must be in place ahead of time, so waiting for the next occurance would not be the optimum strategy.

Multiple representatives are accommotated by VeRO, so all moderators and administrators could be empowered to report violations via a single registration....