At 05:17 PM 2002-08-19 -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>On Monday, August 19, 2002, at 04:11 PM, Charlie Summers wrote:
>
>> Why are you so intent on placing the responsibility on the publisher and
>>not the archiver?
>
>because that's where I think it belongs?
In my neighborhood, we put garbage cans on the street for the garbagemen to
pick up (the contents, that is). No one steals them. Maybe we lose one
from the block every five years, it probably blows away. We don't label
the cans because of that. No one locks their pool doors (the standard is
that the handles are out of the reach of small children) and no one steals
our BBQs or even our gas bottles.
If someone did steal a bottle, I still might not start locking my pool
door. The value of a screen panel is more than anything that would be
likely to be stolen.
>I lock my door when I leave the house, too. I don't depend on passerbys
>not going in and checking out my bathrooom....
>
>Why are you so intent on pretending the owner of content has no
>responsibility to make their wishes for that content known?
Because even if you left your front door open, the person who comes in to
use your toilet is a trespasser, and your wishes are already apparent ---
you want to ventilate your house, or you want light or maybe you are trying
to add to your mosquito collection. This does not imply that the local
teenagers have permission to use it for a rave.
The presumption is that it is your property. You do not need to lock your
bicycle to make it theft for someone to steal it. You do not need to lock
your door to make your wishes known -- that only stops a certain class of
thief and would not stop any serious thief.
The whole concept that a copyright notice changes anything with regard to
ownership is rather doubtful.
For you or I to say, "I think it is a good idea to put a label on postings
and I am going to put some on mine" is one thing. For someone to propose,
as a standard, that you must have a notice or it is a free for all, well,
that is an attempt by a small group to make law that is in contradiction to
extant law.
If anything is formalized, what should be formalized is permission. Doing
nothing == no permission. The extant practice is not only rude but
arguably illegal. Another point is that there are no where near as many
archivers as there were search engines when robots.txt was put
forth. There is still time to change the practices of the two or three
extant archivers that are of any account ---- perhaps simply a letter
asserting that the polite and legal thing to do is to ask is all that it
would take.
I am going to repeat a point I tried to make earlier. From my point of
view, we are having this discussion because the number of active mailing
list archivers went from zero->one.
Now, we can draw a graph, and put two points on it, and this will
definitely form a trend.
However, I see no evidence that this number will ever accelerate. That is,
I see no evidence that the trend will continue and over some unit time, we
will add another one-several archivers.
Does anyone know of any projects that are on the horizon which would
indicate that this might happen? People have joked about google
groups. Does anyone have any evidence that there might be a google groups
on the horizon or is that a talking point?
Is this much ado about onething? That is, is this really a gmane issue as
opposed to a general problem with a plethora of public mailing list
archives? I went looking, and with the obvious search string, I found a
bunch of local archives for one or five mailing lists, but not a bunch of
listings for various mailing list archive services.
By the way, Chuq, did you make an assertion that google would not download
a page with a copyright notice on it?
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html
http://216.239.37.100/search?sourceid=navclient&q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2Fref%2Fmembercenter%2Fhelp%2Fcopyright.html
--
"Forgive him, for he believes that the customs of his tribe are the laws of
nature!"
-- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
Nick Simicich - njs@scifi.squawk.com
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
