MESSAGE
| DATE | 2015-11-09 |
| FROM | Rick Moen
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [Hangout-NYLXS] ransomware - attacking apache
|
Oh, just an afterthought on that: I was intending to simply delete and
ignore your excuse of 'it might vanish off the Web in two weeks', but a
couple of things about that rankled and, like most techies, I tend to
take it personally when people try to feed me _blatantly_ bad
justificaitons.
1. The 'it might vanish off the Web in two weeks' thing is not
particularly credible on a strict basis of ephiphenomena:
(a) News-story pages are highly unlikely to be absent from _both_
the original site and from obvious caching locations such as
Google cache and Internet archive, unless
(b) It's a site that specifically discourages caching because it
_wants_ the content to vanish after a time.
An example of point b would be _Los Angeles Times_ stories, which become
subscriber-only after a few weeks by corporate policy. (You do not
happen to link to _LA Times_ articles, in my experience.
Case b examples are quite rare. In practically all cases, obvious cache
copies can be consulted.
2. There's a vital pair of words that apply to works published
elsewhere including ones that vanish in a few weeks from the Web in
accordance with the owner's policies: Not Yours.
My sister Michele refused to comprehend the concept of Not Yours
throughout the last five years of our mother's life, when Michele and
her brood moved into Mom's house to live off her for free and refused to
move out when Mom demanded they do so. Every time Mom sought to give
things away to people including me, knowing she wouldn't live much
longer, Michele would throw screaming fits and act as if my mother had
no right to give away Mom's own belongings. (No, Michele is not 13.
She is 56.) During one of my semi-monthly visits (90 miles each way) to
ensure that Mom's bills got paid and banking done, I found Michele
rummaging through my knapsack and bags in the vesibule, and rather than
apologise or look embarrassed, she went on a 5 minute justification
speech where every sentence began with the word 'I'. At the end, I made
no comment, moved my bags out to my car, and made a point of always
leaving them locked inside my car on subsequent visits.
I was so appalled, that I made very sure I was entirely clear on what
was Not Mine, just because when life gives you an example of behaviour
to contrast with, you might as well go to town on eradicating any shadow
of a resemblance.
Which brings me back to you. You have a pervasively sucky attitude
towards what is Not Yours. If an author/publisher puts an article up on
the Web, and then it vanishes in a few weeks, here is what you could
ethically do about it -- and you already know this: You can grab the
private archive copy you made, or grab a copy out of Google cache, or
grab it from Internet Archive, and write to the author, saying 'I loved
this piece and mourn for its absence from the Web. May I have
permission to re-host it on my Web site with full attribution to you and
preserving your copyright notice?'
If the guy says yes, you go ahead, and point your readers to the archive
copy. If not, then you do nothing further because it's Not Yours.
As someone who gets paid for writing, I find your cavalier and
contemptuous treatment of a large number of Not Yours works offensive.
No, by deliberate copyright violation, you are not Sticking It to the
Man. You are merely behaving like a spoiled child with what is Not Yours,
and, like Michele's infantile behaviour, I disavow yours and wish to
state that I am not part of it.
3. Taking as given, for the sake of discussion, that you have no
problem ignoring authors' rights and redistributing Not Yours works,
your assumption that you must therefore _push copies_ in their entirety
out to all subscribers is obvious bullshit.
This part was particularly offensive, because it suggests you think
somehow I've suddenly become stupid. Mama Moen didn't raise any stupid
children, Ruben. _Obviously_, you 'it might vanish off the Web in two
weeks' justification combined with a lack of morals concerning Not Yours
property might justify you making a copy onto your Web site. And then
you would publish to the mailing list 2-3 sentences to show why it's of
interest, plus the URLs of the original article plus the URL of your
archive copy.
We know you can do this because you have, y'know, a Web site. You
_choose_ to hurl entire Not Yours articles at all of your subscribers
anyway, but your (bad, ill-mannerered) excuse does not in any way
require doing so.
You knew all of the above before you posted the bullshit excuses.
The real background is that you behave like a jerk because you can, and
because copyright stakeholders haven't yet caught up with you -- not
because any compelling real-world needs require you to be that kind of
jerk.
And no, I do not wish to have personal telephone calls at this
ridiculous hour. Because it's late, and because I'm staying up only
long enough to finish the tasks ongoing while I wait for them to finish
and writing this while waiting. When I'm done, I'm going to bed.
Taking a personal call from you would mean staying up later. Call at a
reasonable hour like any sensible person.
Sheesh.
_______________________________________________
hangout mailing list
hangout-at-nylxs.com
http://www.nylxs.com/
|
|
