On 8/1/02 10:58 PM, "Charlie Summers" <charlie@lofcom.com> wrote:
> At 1:17 AM -0400 8/2/02, Chuq Von Rospach is rumored to have typed:
>
>> If my list rules DON'T tell them what they can and can't do, my bad.
>
> I'm not certain I buy that argument.
It's probably arguable. My stuff usually is.. (giggle)
>If you go on vacation to Yellowstone
> and post photos from your trip onto your personal web page, and I want to use
> one of those photos on my pages about geisers, I don't just take it because
> you don't post a "Please do not steal these photos" disclaimer on your page.
Okay, here's where I think we disconnect.
If I don't put up a set of rules on using my photos, then what you say is
exactly right. On the other hand, if I DO put up a list of rules, I feel
it's safe for you to assume that there are no hidden rules. So if I do post
rules, and you're not violating them, why should you ask anyway?
Now, there are going to be ambiguities where you aren't sure and need to
ask, but if I post that you can't use my photos without giving me credit and
can't use them for commercial purposes, if you meet those criteria, I don't
see why you need to ask. Now, a courtesy call is always nice, but that I've
put up a page explaining usage indicates I'm saying you don't need to,
because I'm setting up the agreement upfront. If you agree to it, go ahead
and use it...
> I don't have a sign on the front lawn saying, "Do not break into this
> house while I'm gone," yet that doesn't prevent a break-in from being treated
> as improper.
But that's a "no rules" case. I'm actually talking about a case where rules
exist.
> But here the assumption appears to be, "if I may subscribe to a list, I
> may do whatever I d*mned well choose to do with that list,"
Which is a different case at all.
Back to your sign on the front lawn, which now says "do not disturb".
If the sign doesn't exist, the person has no way to know you don't want to
be disturbed, so it's rather tough to yell at them when they knock.
Assuming the sign exists, The good case is someone who sees the sign and
doesn't disturb you.
The spammer case is where they blow by the sign, pound on the door, and
stuff a gag in your mouth so you can't interrupt their sales pitch.
Gmane's position seems to be, on the other hand, to go up and knock on the
door, because they didn't bother to read the sign, assuming that if you
really didn't want to be disturbed, you'd notice the knock, come down, open
the door, and tell them. And they seem to expect you to be polite about
it... (grin)
> I'd argue that, regardless of
> the legalities (which lord only knows could get _really_ muddled depending on
> the type of list, etc.), it's just plain impolite for someone to archive,
> post, and gateway someone's list without asking permission first, no matter
> how cool the technology (although I don't quite understand the coolness
> factor here, since this has all been done before anyway).
>
I dunno. If I put up another sign on that yard, one that says "free
peaches", and it's next to a table with peaches on it, I think I'm saying
that you can take the peaches, not that you need to come up to the door,
knock, and ask if it's okay to take some peaches. On the other hand, "free
peaches" doesn't imply you can crawl over the fence into the backyard and
use the hot tub before stripping the apple tree clean...
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Architech
chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.chuqui.com/
He doesn't have ulcers, but he's a carrier.
References:
|
|
