OT: Anyone can add to your site!
Birdra
is a plugin out for IE 4.0 that allows people to post 'notes' to your
web site, without your permission. The web site owner has no way of
editing or removing these 'notes'. Right now the software is only for
Windows machines, but none the less this is something as a web site
owner and designer I can not see to be allowable. If I were to have a
message board, fine, after all that is what a message board is generally
for. But for someone to be able to post what ever they want on a web
site, without the site owners permission is not right, correct or
moralistic. Go by and check out their information on their site at
http://www.thirdvoice.com
If someone has the plug in installed in their browser, and there
are 'notes' left on your page, the entire layout of the site becomes
cluttered with 'note markers'. This alone should be enough to infuriate
most web site owners. I do consider this to be a defacement of a web
site, and thus not legal in the least bit.
If you don't have the plug in, you will be clueless as to what
notes have been posted on your web site, and thus, you will have no idea
that anyone has posted a 'note' to your site. You will be totally
oblivious to the content of these note too (good, bad, indifferent,
slanderous or otherwise).
I for one will be contacting them and trying to find out if there
is any way to block this from happening to ones web site. If there is no
way of blocking this my next step will be to contact my lawyer, and to
let him contact thirdvoice.
--
Sincerely,
Birdra
Creator of Everglades National Parks 50th Anniversary Logo
Artboard restoration for...
"Pages from the Past; A Pictorial History of Fort Jefferson"
ISBN 0-945142-06-4
Logos - Graphics - Print Media Layout
http://www.sesraw.com/Birdra/
http://www.Sesraw.com/
http://www.concentric.net/~Sesraw/
Ronald Vick
>I just found out something I consider to be highly disturbing. There
>is a plugin out for IE 4.0 that allows people to post 'notes' to your
>web site, without your permission.
First mis-conception. It's not posted to your web site. It's posted to The
Thirdvoice website, and if you have the plugin, the plugin to IE4 looks in the
Thirdvoice web site for notes about your site. The plugin just allows an
automatic check of another location to see if anything has been posted about
your site.
>The web site owner has no way of
>editing or removing these 'notes'. Right now the software is only for
>Windows machines, but none the less this is something as a web site
>owner and designer I can not see to be allowable. If I were to have a
>message board, fine, after all that is what a message board is generally
So... If I were to put up a web site, that allows people to post notes about
your web site, you'd scream bloody murder? That's what you're doing.
>
>But for someone to be able to post what ever they want on a web
>site, without the site owners permission is not right, correct or
>moralistic. Go by and check out their information on their site at
>http://www.thirdvoice.com
Again, what's posted IS NOT on your website, so what's the hurrah?
> If someone has the plug in installed in their browser, and there
>are 'notes' left on your page, the entire layout of the site becomes
>cluttered with 'note markers'. This alone should be enough to infuriate
>most web site owners. I do consider this to be a defacement of a web
>site, and thus not legal in the least bit.
> If you don't have the plug in, you will be clueless as to what
>notes have been posted on your web site, and thus, you will have no idea
Do you really care what people in another web site write about yours?
>
>that anyone has posted a 'note' to your site. You will be totally
>oblivious to the content of these note too (good, bad, indifferent,
>slanderous or otherwise).
Ditto for a news group you don't look at. Does that bother you, too? If
someone posts a note about your site, unless you look at it, you'll be totally
oblivious to the content of the note.
> I for one will be contacting them and trying to find out if there
>is any way to block this from happening to ones web site. If there is no
>way of blocking this my next step will be to contact my lawyer, and to
>let him contact thirdvoice.
>Sincerely,
>Birdra
I'd save my money if I were you. You're just going to learn that you have no
control over what people say about your website, unless it's illegal, such as
slanderous. Even then, you cannot stop Thirdvoice, only the person that
slandered you. (my lawyer charges $100 an hour for consultations, telling me
stuff like that.)
Ron
PSP terrorist- D'Lan de Caresk Chapter - Executive Officer
William Schnakenberg
> I just found out something I consider to be highly disturbing. There
> is a plugin out for IE 4.0 that allows people to post 'notes' to your
> web site, without your permission.
Been there, done that! See the following threads here in this NG.
1. Third Voice--is IE5.0 compatible..I have it...and d/l'd it today
2. Third Voice--ugliest thing to hit the net
3. Anyone can add graffiti to your site
> Sincerely,
> Birdra
> Creator of Everglades National Parks 50th Anniversary Logo
> Artboard restoration for...
> "Pages from the Past; A Pictorial History of Fort Jefferson"
> ISBN 0-945142-06-4
> Logos - Graphics - Print Media Layout
> http://www.sesraw.com/Birdra/
> http://www.Sesraw.com/
> http://www.concentric.net/~Sesraw/
--
PSP Terrorist - D'Lanok de Caresk chapter - Anti-Troll Unit 235
Serial Numbers-R-Us!
The USS Salem, CA-139. The World's only preserved Heavy cruiser,
Quincy, MASS: http://members.xoom.com/ltwes329/salem.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
Remove OUTSPAMMEDDOT from my e-mail address when replying directly.
Ronald Vick
<ltwe...@rockland.net> wrote:
>Birdra wrote:
>
>> I just found out something I consider to be highly disturbing. There
>> is a plugin out for IE 4.0 that allows people to post 'notes' to your
>> web site, without your permission.
>
>Been there, done that! See the following threads here in this NG.
>
>1. Third Voice--is IE5.0 compatible..I have it...and d/l'd it today
>2. Third Voice--ugliest thing to hit the net
>3. Anyone can add graffiti to your site
>
>
>> Sincerely,
>> Birdra
>> Creator of Everglades National Parks 50th Anniversary Logo
>> Artboard restoration for...
>> "Pages from the Past; A Pictorial History of Fort Jefferson"
>> ISBN 0-945142-06-4
>> Logos - Graphics - Print Media Layout
>> http://www.sesraw.com/Birdra/
>> http://www.Sesraw.com/
>> http://www.concentric.net/~Sesraw/
>
>--
>PSP Terrorist - D'Lanok de Caresk chapter - Anti-Troll Unit 235
>Serial Numbers-R-Us!
>
The fact that two of these threads, 'Anyone can add graffiti..' and this one
are by the same person makes me think I'm getting a wiff of vendetta.
Especially when there are false claims about the service.
IM Cool
By reading Ron V's posts thoroughly you should now realize that no one will be
able to post anything to "your" site.
I say again, I see this as a Web Communications Tool. Like-minded folk can get
together via this service and communicate about a web site. Instead of
denigration, I tend to believe that much good can come from it.
Birdra, suppose you would "like" to have people comment on and critique your
site. They could do it via this service.
I'm now trying to see how it can "add" to my communications business.
IM
--
IM Cool™
http://www.imcool.com
imc...@imcool.com
Birdra wrote in message <375BEBF5...@concentric.net>...
>I just found out something I consider to be highly disturbing. There
>is a plugin out for IE 4.0 that allows people to post 'notes' to your
>web site, without your permission.
snip
ZuluNiner
indicate that notes have been posted. While (AFAICT) it doesn't alter
the CONTENT of your site, the appearance of your site is, in many cases,
just as well-protected under intellectual property law.
I have no intention of beginning to design my pages so they'll look
decent with little red arrows all over the place, just in case somebody
writes a note.
--
ZuluNiner {dbd}
(aka Calin/Runesinger)
ZuluNiner at fuckyou dot co dot uk
Ronald Vick <Ronald...@kmail.ksc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:375bee1c...@news.ksc.nasa.gov...
> On 07 Jun 1999 08:53:38 PDT, Birdra <Bir...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >I just found out something I consider to be highly disturbing. There
> >is a plugin out for IE 4.0 that allows people to post 'notes' to your
> >web site, without your permission.
>
> First mis-conception. It's not posted to your web site. It's posted
to The
> Thirdvoice website, and if you have the plugin, the plugin to IE4
looks in the
> Thirdvoice web site for notes about your site. The plugin just allows
an
> automatic check of another location to see if anything has been posted
about
> your site.
>
> >The web site owner has no way of
> >editing or removing these 'notes'. Right now the software is only for
> >Windows machines, but none the less this is something as a web site
> >owner and designer I can not see to be allowable. If I were to have a
> >message board, fine, after all that is what a message board is
generally
>
> So... If I were to put up a web site, that allows people to post notes
Ronald Vick
wrote:
>There is the issue that it DOES alter the appearance of your website, to
>indicate that notes have been posted. While (AFAICT) it doesn't alter
>the CONTENT of your site, the appearance of your site is, in many cases,
>just as well-protected under intellectual property law.
Only if you've installed the plugin. You can install plugins that will do
anything you want to a web page. That doesn't alter your original, so what's
the worry?
>
>I have no intention of beginning to design my pages so they'll look
>decent with little red arrows all over the place, just in case somebody
>writes a note.
>
>--
>ZuluNiner {dbd}
>(aka Calin/Runesinger)
>ZuluNiner at fuckyou dot co dot uk
Don't load the plugin, then. Nobody is forcing you to do that. Just ignore
the plugin, and anyone advising you to install it. Believe me, sooner or
later, someone, somewhere is going to say something about your web site.
If it's constructive, they'll contact you. If it's not, what do you care? If
someone in Alt.Flames.warefare says nasty things about your site, your best
policy is to just ignore it.
Birdra
> On Mon, 7 Jun 1999 13:35:36 -0400, "ZuluNiner" <ZuluNiner*@*fuckyou.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >There is the issue that it DOES alter the appearance of your website, to
> >indicate that notes have been posted. While (AFAICT) it doesn't alter
> >the CONTENT of your site, the appearance of your site is, in many cases,
> >just as well-protected under intellectual property law.
>
> Only if you've installed the plugin. You can install plugins that will do
> anything you want to a web page. That doesn't alter your original, so what's
> the worry?
You do not have to install the plugin in order for others to post to your site.
You have to have the software installed to read notes left, or to post. There is
no way to stop people from leaving notes.
> >
> >I have no intention of beginning to design my pages so they'll look
> >decent with little red arrows all over the place, just in case somebody
> >writes a note.
> >
> >--
> >ZuluNiner {dbd}
> >(aka Calin/Runesinger)
> >ZuluNiner at fuckyou dot co dot uk
>
> Don't load the plugin, then. Nobody is forcing you to do that. Just ignore
> the plugin, and anyone advising you to install it. Believe me, sooner or
> later, someone, somewhere is going to say something about your web site.
Again...read previous. It would have helped if you read all documentation at
ThirdVoice.
> If it's constructive, they'll contact you. If it's not, what do you care? If
> someone in Alt.Flames.warefare says nasty things about your site, your best
> policy is to just ignore it.
>
> Ron
> PSP terrorist- D'Lan de Caresk Chapter - Executive Officer
--
Birdra
> Birdra, your paranoia is showing.
Not paranoid, but offended that people can leave input overlayed on my site. If I
came to your house and put post it notes all over (which you can not remove) or
spray painted your house (which you can not remove), would you not feel violated,
to a certain degree?
>
>
> By reading Ron V's posts thoroughly you should now realize that no one will be
> able to post anything to "your" site.
I understand, completely, how the product works. Again, there is information
overlayed on my information, which I, or my clients, did not authorize as an
adition to my content.
> I say again, I see this as a Web Communications Tool. Like-minded folk can get
> together via this service and communicate about a web site. Instead of
> denigration, I tend to believe that much good can come from it.
I do not disagree...however, I would like a way to control whether I want this
information posted over my information.
> Birdra, suppose you would "like" to have people comment on and critique your
> site. They could do it via this service.
They could also do this by a message board, or just send me email. If I choose to
display this information, it should be my choice.
>
>
> I'm now trying to see how it can "add" to my communications business.
> IM
> --
> IM Cool™
> http://www.imcool.com
> imc...@imcool.com
> Birdra wrote in message <375BEBF5...@concentric.net>...
> >I just found out something I consider to be highly disturbing. There
> >is a plugin out for IE 4.0 that allows people to post 'notes' to your
> >web site, without your permission.
> snip
Ronald Vick
>Ronald Vick wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 7 Jun 1999 13:35:36 -0400, "ZuluNiner" <ZuluNiner*@*fuckyou.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >There is the issue that it DOES alter the appearance of your website, to
>> >indicate that notes have been posted. While (AFAICT) it doesn't alter
>> >the CONTENT of your site, the appearance of your site is, in many cases,
>> >just as well-protected under intellectual property law.
>>
>> Only if you've installed the plugin. You can install plugins that will do
>> anything you want to a web page. That doesn't alter your original, so what's
>> the worry?
>
>You do not have to install the plugin in order for others to post to your site.
>You have to have the software installed to read notes left, or to post. There is
>no way to stop people from leaving notes.
Except there is no way they can post to your site. They're posting to a
different site that the plugin can post to. Why do you keep insisting the
posting is to a individual's website?
>
>> >
>> >I have no intention of beginning to design my pages so they'll look
>> >decent with little red arrows all over the place, just in case somebody
>> >writes a note.
>> >
>> >--
>> >ZuluNiner {dbd}
>> >(aka Calin/Runesinger)
>> >ZuluNiner at fuckyou dot co dot uk
>>
>> Don't load the plugin, then. Nobody is forcing you to do that. Just ignore
>> the plugin, and anyone advising you to install it. Believe me, sooner or
>> later, someone, somewhere is going to say something about your web site.
>
>Again...read previous. It would have helped if you read all documentation at
>ThirdVoice.
Nowhere in the description does it state that everyone is forced to download
the plugin. Where does it say that every web browser must be equiped with
this plugin?
If you have a site up, there's nothing preventing me from posting information
about it on a news group or another web site. It would help if you'd
understand what's being done, rather than wage a vendetta about the site.
>
>> If it's constructive, they'll contact you. If it's not, what do you care? If
>> someone in Alt.Flames.warefare says nasty things about your site, your best
>> policy is to just ignore it.
>>
>> Ron
>> PSP terrorist- D'Lan de Caresk Chapter - Executive Officer
>
>
>
>--
>Sincerely,
>Birdra
>Creator of Everglades National Parks 50th Anniversary Logo
>Artboard restoration for...
>"Pages from the Past; A Pictorial History of Fort Jefferson"
>ISBN 0-945142-06-4
>Logos - Graphics - Print Media Layout
>http://www.sesraw.com/Birdra/
>http://www.Sesraw.com/
>http://www.concentric.net/~Sesraw/
>
>
Ron
Ronald Vick
>IM Cool wrote:
>
>> Birdra, your paranoia is showing.
>
>Not paranoid, but offended that people can leave input overlayed
A different site, which a plugin you load may allow the notes to be
displayed...
>on my site. If I
>came to your house and put post it notes all over (which you can not remove) or
>spray painted your house (which you can not remove), would you not feel violated,
>to a certain degree?
False analogy. The Post It Š notes are not in your house, but someone else's.
By linking computer virtual glasses to that other person's house, you can see
the notices in your own. Nobody is forcing you to wear those glasses and see
the other house.
>
>>
>>
>> By reading Ron V's posts thoroughly you should now realize that no one will be
>> able to post anything to "your" site.
>
>I understand, completely, how the product works. Again, there is information
>overlayed on my information, which I, or my clients, did not authorize as an
>adition to my content.
>
>> I say again, I see this as a Web Communications Tool. Like-minded folk can get
>> together via this service and communicate about a web site. Instead of
>> denigration, I tend to believe that much good can come from it.
>
>I do not disagree...however, I would like a way to control whether I want this
>information posted over my information.
>
>> Birdra, suppose you would "like" to have people comment on and critique your
>> site. They could do it via this service.
>
>They could also do this by a message board, or just send me email. If I choose to
>display this information, it should be my choice.
But being on a linked site is bad news, eh? How is that different from having
an automatic linker to a news group about your site?
With a special plugin, you could see notices about the site in the newsgroup.
Birdra
> On 07 Jun 1999 11:53:24 PDT, Birdra <Bir...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >Ronald Vick wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 7 Jun 1999 13:35:36 -0400, "ZuluNiner" <ZuluNiner*@*fuckyou.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >There is the issue that it DOES alter the appearance of your website, to
> >> >indicate that notes have been posted. While (AFAICT) it doesn't alter
> >> >the CONTENT of your site, the appearance of your site is, in many cases,
> >> >just as well-protected under intellectual property law.
> >>
> >> Only if you've installed the plugin. You can install plugins that will do
> >> anything you want to a web page. That doesn't alter your original, so what's
> >> the worry?
> >
> >You do not have to install the plugin in order for others to post to your site.
> >You have to have the software installed to read notes left, or to post. There is
> >no way to stop people from leaving notes.
>
> Except there is no way they can post to your site. They're posting to a
> different site that the plugin can post to. Why do you keep insisting the
> posting is to a individual's website?
Again, I have full comprehension of how this software operates. They do post over my
information, which, in reality alters my content.
> >> >
> >> >I have no intention of beginning to design my pages so they'll look
> >> >decent with little red arrows all over the place, just in case somebody
> >> >writes a note.
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >ZuluNiner {dbd}
> >> >(aka Calin/Runesinger)
> >> >ZuluNiner at fuckyou dot co dot uk
> >>
> >> Don't load the plugin, then. Nobody is forcing you to do that. Just ignore
> >> the plugin, and anyone advising you to install it. Believe me, sooner or
> >> later, someone, somewhere is going to say something about your web site.
> >
> >Again...read previous. It would have helped if you read all documentation at
> >ThirdVoice.
>
> Nowhere in the description does it state that everyone is forced to download
> the plugin. Where does it say that every web browser must be equiped with
> this plugin?
No, but the idiots that do are able to post over my site. At that point, I am forced
to have this information posted over my information.
> If you have a site up, there's nothing preventing me from posting information
> about it on a news group or another web site. It would help if you'd
> understand what's being done, rather than wage a vendetta about the site.
But, this is not directly over my information. I'm not waging a vendetta. I
dissaprove of the fact that there is no way for me to stop people from posting porn
and other distasteful information to a 'G' rated site, etc. I can see the upside of
ths new program. However, I can see a bigger downside.
>
>
> >
> >> If it's constructive, they'll contact you. If it's not, what do you care? If
> >> someone in Alt.Flames.warefare says nasty things about your site, your best
> >> policy is to just ignore it.
> >>
> >> Ron
> >> PSP terrorist- D'Lan de Caresk Chapter - Executive Officer
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Sincerely,
> >Birdra
> >Creator of Everglades National Parks 50th Anniversary Logo
> >Artboard restoration for...
> >"Pages from the Past; A Pictorial History of Fort Jefferson"
> >ISBN 0-945142-06-4
> >Logos - Graphics - Print Media Layout
> >http://www.sesraw.com/Birdra/
> >http://www.Sesraw.com/
> >http://www.concentric.net/~Sesraw/
> >
> >
>
> Ron
> PSP terrorist- D'Lan de Caresk Chapter - Executive Officer
--
Ronald Vick
>Ronald Vick wrote:
>> Except there is no way they can post to your site. They're posting to a
>> different site that the plugin can post to. Why do you keep insisting the
>> posting is to a individual's website?
>
>Again, I have full comprehension of how this software operates. They do post over my
>information, which, in reality alters my content.
In order to post over your information, they'd have to alter the stored
information you use for your website. Since this is not done, they're not
altering your content. They're providing an overlay service which people may
subscribe to. There is nothing you can do to stop this, legally, since the
service is requested.
>> Nowhere in the description does it state that everyone is forced to download
>> the plugin. Where does it say that every web browser must be equiped with
>> this plugin?
>
>No, but the idiots that do are able to post over my site. At that point, I am forced
>to have this information posted over my information.
Demonstrate to me how they're altering the information in your stored data in
any way!
Birdra
Ronald Vick wrote:
> Demonstrate to me how they're altering the information in your stored data in
> any way!
Do you not read what is written? I understand the information is being stored on the TV
server. Due to the plugin, it does overlay information, which I do not provide, over the
content of my site. What part of this is unclear to you?
>
>
> Ron
> PSP terrorist- D'Lan de Caresk Chapter - Executive Officer
--
Ronald Vick
>
>
>Ronald Vick wrote:
>
>> Demonstrate to me how they're altering the information in your stored data in
>> any way!
>
>Do you not read what is written? I understand the information is being stored on the TV
>server. Due to the plugin, it does overlay information, which I do not provide, over the
>content of my site. What part of this is unclear to you?
Nothing, except your obcession with it, and your misconception.
TV server? I don't understand that reference.
You create a web site on an computer site. Information on that site is
available to an ISP, which may send out packets of data to a requesting site.
If the requesting site is collecting data from your site and another, by
virtue of a plugin they're running, and the plugin merges that data, then
they're not effecting your data in any way, except the way they display it.
You have no control over that, nor have you ever had the ability to totally
control the way a person views your site. Can you force a EGA monitor to
display VGA data? Can you prevent me from displaying a different web site in a
window over your website?
Birdra
> On 07 Jun 1999 12:55:41 PDT, Birdra <Bir...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Ronald Vick wrote:
> >
> >> Demonstrate to me how they're altering the information in your stored data in
> >> any way!
> >
> >Do you not read what is written? I understand the information is being stored on the TV
> >server. Due to the plugin, it does overlay information, which I do not provide, over the
> >content of my site. What part of this is unclear to you?
>
> Nothing, except your obcession with it, and your misconception.
No obsession, but thanks. Where did you get your Psychology degree in order to make that
educated assessment?
>
>
> TV server? I don't understand that reference.
TV=ThirdVoice
>
>
> You create a web site on an computer site. Information on that site is
> available to an ISP, which may send out packets of data to a requesting site.
>
> If the requesting site is collecting data from your site and another, by
> virtue of a plugin they're running, and the plugin merges that data, then
> they're not effecting your data in any way, except the way they display it.
> You have no control over that, nor have you ever had the ability to totally
> control the way a person views your site. Can you force a EGA monitor to
> display VGA data? Can you prevent me from displaying a different web site in a
> window over your website?
No, but I can control, to a degree, how my site performs on different browsers, platforms,
etc. Having a window open overtop of another window is different than displaying that same
information over mine, in the same browser window. If you have the plugin, you can see the
alterations to your site, due to the content the plug-in is providing. Why don't you educate
yourself on a subject before making non-educated input pertaining to that subject?
> What part of this is unclear to you?
Your lack of knowledgeable information.
>
>
> Ron
> PSP terrorist- D'Lan de Caresk Chapter - Executive Officer
--
Sincerely,
Birdra
James Ballard
> If the requesting site is collecting data from your site and another,
> by virtue of a plugin they're running, and the plugin merges that
> data, then they're not effecting your data in any way, except the way
> they display it. You have no control over that, nor have you ever
had > the ability to totally control the way a person views your site.
I've been following this fun little argument with interest and fwiw I'm
on Ron's side, but I just now did some second thinking about copyright
issues.
It is true, I think, that TV takes material that Birdra has created and
posted to his (hers? sorry, Birdra, I can't tell.) site and then
re-posts it on its own site, with a few additions. TV does this for
profit, since it collects revenues from advertisers who pay it to do
this.
What's the difference between this and my, for example, printing out the
material on your site, making some grammar corrections, and then selling
the hard copy in a bookstore?
--
- Best regards
- Jim Ballard
- For email reply, please RE*MOVE the obvious.
ZuluNiner
visit my own web site, anyway, so how to looks TO ME is not the issue.
How do you thing Stephen King would respond if he discovered that
someone at his publisher was marking up or editing his work before it
went to press?? By your logic, there's nothing wrong with it, because
it doesn't alter his original manuscript, but it DOES alter the way the
work is seen and perceived by the audience.
If somebody has something they want to say about my website or about the
content on my site, they can e-mail me, or tell their friends about it.
If they want to publish it to the entire world, let them lease their
owned damned website and publish it. I don't want them piggy-backing
off the popularity of MY site to distribute their message.
Let them develop their own audience. I don't want to develop an
audience for them, unless they're paying me to do it.
--
ZuluNiner {dbd}
(aka Calin/Runesinger)
ZuluNiner at fuckyou dot co dot uk
Ronald Vick <Ronald...@kmail.ksc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:375c0e58...@news.ksc.nasa.gov...
> On Mon, 7 Jun 1999 13:35:36 -0400, "ZuluNiner"
<ZuluNiner*@*fuckyou.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >There is the issue that it DOES alter the appearance of your website,
to
> >indicate that notes have been posted. While (AFAICT) it doesn't
alter
> >the CONTENT of your site, the appearance of your site is, in many
cases,
> >just as well-protected under intellectual property law.
>
> Only if you've installed the plugin. You can install plugins that
will do
> anything you want to a web page. That doesn't alter your original, so
what's
> the worry?
>
> >
> >I have no intention of beginning to design my pages so they'll look
> >decent with little red arrows all over the place, just in case
somebody
> >writes a note.
> >
> >--
> >ZuluNiner {dbd}
> >(aka Calin/Runesinger)
> >ZuluNiner at fuckyou dot co dot uk
>
> Don't load the plugin, then. Nobody is forcing you to do that. Just
ignore
> the plugin, and anyone advising you to install it. Believe me, sooner
or
> later, someone, somewhere is going to say something about your web
site.
>
> If it's constructive, they'll contact you. If it's not, what do you
care? If
> someone in Alt.Flames.warefare says nasty things about your site, your
best
> policy is to just ignore it.
>
>
>
>
John Forrest Tomlinson
Ron Vick, give it up -- Birdra doesn't seem to understand how the
www works (or want to understand for that matter).
JT
****************************************
Remove "removethis" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com/
Cycling, Food and Stories
****************************************
Ronald Vick
>Ronald Vick wrote:
>
>> On 07 Jun 1999 12:55:41 PDT, Birdra <Bir...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Ronald Vick wrote:
>> >
>> >> Demonstrate to me how they're altering the information in your stored data in
>> >> any way!
>> >
>> >Do you not read what is written? I understand the information is being stored on the TV
>> >server. Due to the plugin, it does overlay information, which I do not provide, over the
>> >content of my site. What part of this is unclear to you?
>>
>> Nothing, except your obcession with it, and your misconception.
>
>No obsession, but thanks. Where did you get your Psychology degree in order to make that
>educated assessment?
None, I'm an engineer. I'm into more solid problems than tweaking
brain cells.
>
>>
>>
>> TV server? I don't understand that reference.
>
>TV=ThirdVoice
Ok, didn't catch the switch to slang.
Yes, the comments are stored on the TV server, just as your data is
stored on your server. A person that installes the TV plugin is
making dual requests, both to your site and TV. The plugin then
overlays your site information with the TV notification. Upon
activating the notification, the viewer can see other people's
remarks. The overlay takes place at the viewer's location, at his
request. No violation of your site has taken place, since the viewer
of the data is free to do to it whatever he pleases. You can
recommend ways to display your data in what you consider the best
method, but you cannot control it, as you wish.
>> You create a web site on an computer site. Information on that site is
>> available to an ISP, which may send out packets of data to a requesting site.
>>
>> If the requesting site is collecting data from your site and another, by
>> virtue of a plugin they're running, and the plugin merges that data, then
>> they're not effecting your data in any way, except the way they display it.
>> You have no control over that, nor have you ever had the ability to totally
>> control the way a person views your site. Can you force a EGA monitor to
>> display VGA data? Can you prevent me from displaying a different web site in a
>> window over your website?
>
>No, but I can control, to a degree, how my site performs on different browsers, platforms,
>etc. Having a window open overtop of another window is different than displaying that same
>information over mine, in the same browser window.
So, if I write and distribute a plugin to do it in the same window....
>If you have the plugin, you can see the
>alterations to your site, due to the content the plug-in is providing.
Which the viewer installs and operates. It's his choice.
>Why don't you educate
>yourself on a subject before making non-educated input pertaining to that subject?
I believe I have, thank you. Please try to stay civil.
>
>> What part of this is unclear to you?
>
>Your lack of knowledgeable information.
Tsk, tsk, no insults, please. I've answered you with reasoned
thought, which you've ignored and decided to resort to the insult.
To claim that your data is altered is an outright lie. You're trying
to panic people into a position of controling their actions. I find
that to be overly pushy.
Ron- PSP Terrorist - D'Lanok de Caresk chapter, Executive Officer.
Before posting your questions, please read the FAQs at http://www.alphageo.com/psp/faq.html
Ronald Vick
(James Ballard) wrote:
>On June 07 1999, Ronald...@kmail.ksc.nasa.gov (Ronald Vick) wrote:
>> If the requesting site is collecting data from your site and another,
>> by virtue of a plugin they're running, and the plugin merges that
>> data, then they're not effecting your data in any way, except the way
> > they display it. You have no control over that, nor have you ever
>had > the ability to totally control the way a person views your site.
>
>I've been following this fun little argument with interest and fwiw I'm
>on Ron's side, but I just now did some second thinking about copyright
>issues.
>
>It is true, I think, that TV takes material that Birdra has created and
>posted to his (hers? sorry, Birdra, I can't tell.) site and then
>re-posts it on its own site, with a few additions. TV does this for
>profit, since it collects revenues from advertisers who pay it to do
>this.
>
>What's the difference between this and my, for example, printing out the
>material on your site, making some grammar corrections, and then selling
>the hard copy in a bookstore?
A good point, better than any Birdra has managed. The way I see it,
they're not reselling the book. If we want to use the book analogy,
it's more like someone buying a book, then paying someone to print new
information into the book, with remarks by different people. Since
you're unable to resell this book, or alter the way the book is
printed at the press, no copyright infringment has occurred.
The buyer of the book has elected to have the new information added.
(sort of a fancy way to scribble in the book.) Although the author of
the book may detest the new scribbles in the book, he has no right to
prohibit it.
Certainly, the author wouldn't like the crib notes in the book he
wrote, but every student likely does it.
Remember that this is a process that the viewer must perform.
Ronald Vick
<ZuluNiner*@*fuckyou.co.uk> wrote:
>What difference does it make if _I_ load the plugin or not?? I never
>visit my own web site, anyway, so how to looks TO ME is not the issue.
>
>How do you thing Stephen King would respond if he discovered that
>someone at his publisher was marking up or editing his work before it
>went to press?? By your logic, there's nothing wrong with it, because
>it doesn't alter his original manuscript, but it DOES alter the way the
>work is seen and perceived by the audience.
Ah, but how about AFTER the work is purchased? Since each member of
the audience must add that to the work they're viewing, and the
original work is unchanged, what harm has been done?
I can buy a book, then add all the notes and remarks in it I wish, and
nobody can say I can't.
>
>If somebody has something they want to say about my website or about the
>content on my site, they can e-mail me, or tell their friends about it.
>If they want to publish it to the entire world, let them lease their
>owned damned website and publish it. I don't want them piggy-backing
>off the popularity of MY site to distribute their message.
>
>Let them develop their own audience. I don't want to develop an
>audience for them, unless they're paying me to do it.
I won't load the plugin, because I suspect it only interests those
that have the childish desire to toss 'Cute' remarks out to prove how
clever they are. The examples I've examined are sneers or ads, and I
suspect the fad will be self limiting.
I certainly won't get upset by it.
fran...@nospamconcentric.net
wrote:
>Suppose you run a website for a business. Someone from a competing
>company uses this 'web notes' plugin to put notes all over your site
>saying that _your_ products aren't as good or as inexpensive as
>_their_ products, and directs them to _their_ website. Your website
>just became a billboard for _them_ without your permission.
>
And wouldn't the person who had downloaded, installed and activated TV
KNOW what was going on? Do you really think, after they installed,
activated and used it, they wouldn't have any idea what kind of
plug-in it was?
f
Please remove NO SPAM to reply
Sally Ann Vinke
more like the only copy of a book in the public library...and every
person who checks it out (at least if they have the glasses)sees an
altered version of the book. I'm not fully sure which, if either, side
of the fence I'm on with this issue, but it does give me pause if
something I produce can be to whatever extent altered in it's
presentation. Whether or not changes are made to my data is not my
concern. What is published on a site is authored specifically by the
site designer. It is meant to be experienced in a certain context. I
have the same reservations I have when a director's film has bits added
or taken away by a studio exec....it is no longer the artist's work.
Perhaps I am a bit of a control freak, but I am uncomfortable with the
idea of having my site(s) viewed with associated content that I did not
intend. It seems to strip me of my creative control. Of course people
can say anything they want about my site in a newsgroup, but in that
case it is a seperate and distinct forum. The point about pornographic
(or otherwise offensive) material being appended to a site is a good
one. If I publish a site for children, I would not be comfortable having
obscene comments associated with my page against my wishes. I can
certainly see the benefits of such a plugin, however I question the
ethics, if not legality, of giving webmasters no way to opt out of such
a system.
> Ron- PSP Terrorist - D'Lanok de Caresk chapter, Executive Officer.
> Before posting your questions, please read the FAQs at http://www.alphageo.com/psp/faq.html
--
_.-'''-._
.' .-'``|'.
/ / -*- \
; <{ | ; Bellaluna Designs
| _\ | | Creative web design & hosting
; _\ -*- | ; http://www.bellalunadesigns.com
\ \ | -*- / in...@bellalunadesigns.com
'._ '.__ |_.'
'-----'
Sally Ann Vinke
couldn't find.
Sean Malloy wrote:
>
> Ronald...@kmail.ksc.nasa.gov (Ronald Vick) wrote:
> >On 07 Jun 1999 12:55:41 PDT, Birdra <Bir...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >>Ronald Vick wrote:
> >>> Demonstrate to me how they're altering the information in your stored data in
> >>> any way!
> >>
> >>Do you not read what is written? I understand the information is being stored on the TV
> >>server. Due to the plugin, it does overlay information, which I do not provide, over the
> >>content of my site. What part of this is unclear to you?
> >
> >Nothing, except your obcession with it, and your misconception.
>
> I can understand his position, and you appear to be deliberately
> obtuse about recognizing it.
>
> As an analogy, suppose you are an artist, and you have your art
> hanging in an art gallery. Someone else goes to the gallery owner, and
> says "I propose to hang these sheets of plexiglass in front of the art
> in your gallery, and give visitors marker pens to doodle on the
> plexiglass to express how they are affected by the art."
>
> The plexiglass sheets are hung, and one day you go to the gallery, and
> see that the plexiglass sheets have been marked up so that your
> landscapes have been turned into toxic waste dumps, your female
> figures all sport 48FF boob jobs prominently exposed to view while
> they amuse themselves with huge pink dildos, and your male figures are
> all cornholing barnyard animals and wearing Nazi armbands.
>
> The markings on the plexiglass have _grossly_ distorted your art as
> you created it, and you complain to the gallery owner, who replies
> "What's on the plexiglass doesn't do anything to _your_ art; it's
> still exactly as it was. And anyone can raise the plexiglass to see
> what your art is _really_ like, anyway; you've got nothing to complain
> about."
>
> --
> Sean R. Malloy | American Non Sequitur
> Naval Medical Center | Society
> San Diego, CA 92134-5000 |
> srma...@home.net | "We may not make sense,
> srma...@nmcsd.med.navy.mil | but we do like pizza"
> FORMAL NOTICE: unsolicited commercial email will be read
> at a charge of $500 per item. Receipt of such email shall
> be considered to constitute acceptance of contract, and
> will be billed immediately.
Shena Delian O'Brien
>
> But I find your analogy flawed in a very key element. <snip>
> One must go somewhere to fetch the plexiglass
> and there would need be some manner to automatically return the
> plexiglass to some hidden place so those with no knowledge of its
> existence, or no desire to see it could never be exposed to it.
However, the artwork is still the copyrighted work of the artist, and it
doesn't matter what select part of the audience is going to be seeing its
presentation altered in such a manner - the altering should only be allowed,
period, if the artist agrees.
This is the problem here. There should be an option to disallow use of the
ThirdVoice plugin on your site. Then, it can be used on sites who appreciate
it or just don't care one way or the other, and sites who object to it do
not have to be subject to the "graffiti".
--
Get Paid to Surf the Web!
http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=ALZ490
Shena Delian O'Brien * http://www.darklock.com/shena/
Co-Founder, Web Guard * http://www.darklock.com/webguard/
The Graphics Kitty! * http://www.darklock.com/abstract/
Let's Get WET! * http://www.darklock.com/wet/
Fantasy Age * http://www.darklock.com/fantasy/
James Ballard
wrote:
> it's more like someone buying a book, then paying someone to print new
> information into the book, with remarks by different people.
..and then reselling the resulting mutilated book. Remember that TV is
supported by paid advertising. I don't know whether the plugin is
free(?).
Ronald Vick
(James Ballard) wrote:
>On June 07 1999, ronal...@removethis.mindspring.com (Ronald Vick)
>wrote:
>> it's more like someone buying a book, then paying someone to print new
>> information into the book, with remarks by different people.
>
>..and then reselling the resulting mutilated book. Remember that TV is
>supported by paid advertising. I don't know whether the plugin is
>free(?).
How can a person sell a web page he's viewing? Remember that no
copying of the original takes place.
M. Wetmore
>
>
>Ronald Vick wrote:
>
>> Demonstrate to me how they're altering the information in your stored data in
>> any way!
>
>Do you not read what is written? I understand the information is being stored on the TV
>server. Due to the plugin, it does overlay information, which I do not provide, over the
>content of my site. What part of this is unclear to you?
>
TV Server? I think this alone tells us that you are really "unclear
on the concept". The concept is that only people who download the
plugin will observe your site with the "overlay information" and they
know that will happen when they use the plugin. Get a grip and calm
down. It's the internet and things are not always going to be what
you want or what you expect. Pick your battles and save them for the
things that are really important.
Mardi
Real e-mail address spelled out to prevent spam. mardi at mardiweb dot com.
____________________
Come visit my Web Graphics on a Budget home page for Paint Shop
Pro tutorials, free graphics and fonts. http://www.mardiweb.com/web
_________________
Come visit my Low-Fat Lifestyle Forum for low-fat eating and
cooking tips and lots of low-fat recipes. http://www.mardiweb.com/lowfat
James Ballard
wrote:
> no
> copying of the original takes place.
That's what I am not so sure of. What does the end user download from
TV? Just the stickies? I doubt it. How do the TV posters know where
to stick each note?
In my ignorance, I have imagined that TV copies the site in question to
its own server, makes the copy available for the posting of stickies and
then serves the "stickied" site to the subscriber in place of the
original.
I can think of impracticalities to this approach, mostly concerning what
happens if the site author revises the site. Hmmm. I guess anyone can
talk from ignorance, including me. Does anyone really know the details
of how the "service" works?
Oxford Systems
Birdra wrote in message <375C24AF...@concentric.net>...
>
>
>Ronald Vick wrote:
>
>> Demonstrate to me how they're altering the information in your stored
data in
>> any way!
>
>Do you not read what is written? I understand the information is being
stored on the TV
>server. Due to the plugin, it does overlay information, which I do not
provide, over the
>content of my site. What part of this is unclear to you?
I think that YOU are the one that is unclear. You have your undies in a wad
over nothing.
NOTHING is being posted to your site. Period.
USERS make the choice to download, install, use and view the plugin.
Now please....shut up. It IS off topic.
R. Lacey
wrote on the thread that wouldn't die:
>And if someone decides to post notes all over Netscape's website about
>how Netscape is trash and Internet Explorer is the only _real_
>browser, with a URL pointing to download sites for IE, that Netscape
>just has to sit there and take it, because even though they are having
>advertisements for Microsoft products being displayed with their
>website against their will, it's not really _on_ their website, so
>they have no grounds to complain?
Precisely! If this thing really takes off the big boys will
definitely get involved. I can imagine Disney's lawyers salivating
even as I type this, at the prospect of thousands of copy write
infringement lawsuits, when people start writing naughty things on
Mickey's website :-)
Seriously though, I think, as someone has already pointed out, that if
this thing becomes popular it will be a spammers dream and shortly
thereafter will be deleted from hard drives around the world.
Just my 3 cents Cdn.
Ron
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Ron Lacey Murillo Ont.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Ronald Vick
>Ronald...@kmail.ksc.nasa.gov (Ronald Vick) wrote:
>>On 07 Jun 1999 11:49:32 PDT, Birdra <Bir...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>>> Birdra, suppose you would "like" to have people comment on and critique your
>>>> site. They could do it via this service.
>>>
>>>They could also do this by a message board, or just send me email. If I choose to
>>>display this information, it should be my choice.
>>
>>But being on a linked site is bad news, eh? How is that different from having
>>an automatic linker to a news group about your site?
>>With a special plugin, you could see notices about the site in the newsgroup.
>
>Suppose you run a website for a business. Someone from a competing
>company uses this 'web notes' plugin to put notes all over your site
>saying that _your_ products aren't as good or as inexpensive as
>_their_ products, and directs them to _their_ website. Your website
>just became a billboard for _them_ without your permission.
>
>--
The notes are not in my site, they're in a site other than mine. I may have
legal recourse against the person that made the remarks, but not the carrier.
If I put up a web site, and someone in a newsgroup makes snide remarks, do I
have any right to close down the newsgroup? If that were legal, the net
would collapse overnight.
Ronald Vick
>In the United States, there are 7 basic rights that the copyright code
>recognizes - and that the copyright holder ALONE controls:
>
>1) The reproductive right: the right to control reproduction of the
> work in whatever form it would copy.
>
>2) The distribution right: that is the right to control distribution
> of copies of the work (in whatever form you include or exclude.)
>
>3) The adaptive right: the right to produce (or allow others to
> produce) derivative works based on the copyrighted work.
>
>4) The performance right: that is the right to perform the
> copyrighted work publicly (generally reserved for music, plays,
> operas, etc...)
>
>5) The display right: that is the right to display the copyrighted
> work publicly (which separately refers to display of an original
> OR display of reproductions.)
>
>6) The integrity right: that is the right of an author to prevent the
>
> use of his or her name as the author of a distorted version of the
>
> work, to prevent intentional distortion of the work, and to
> prevent destruction of the work (in reference to one of a kind or
> extremely limited edition works, generally artistic. When dealing
>
> with destruction, special conditions apply, check with the
> Copyright Office.)
>
>7) The attribution right (also referred to as the paternity right):
> that is the right of the author to claim authorship of the work
> and to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of a work
>
> he or she did not create (or in reference to an altered work...)
>
>A copyright allows you control of all of these rights, and they cannot
>be taken from you (except in VERY LIMITED legal actions.) Only you
>have the right to control how these are applied.
>
>By enabling _anyone_ to use someone else's copyrighted website -- and
>the Berne convention, which the U.S. is a signatory to, states that
>the mere creation of the work places it under copyright protection,
>meaning that _every_ web page is copyrighted, even if no formal
>copyright notice appears -- Third Voice is in violation of copyright
>law every time someone attaches a note to a website without the
>website owner's express permission.
You're attempting the same thing Birdra was trying to say. That the notes are
attached to the website. That's simply not so. The original website is
unaltered. The notes are attached to a second website. Special software is
require to view the two sites simultaneously. This software must be installed
and activated by the viewer.
>
>You say "But it's the people _posting_ the notes who are violating the
>copyright, not Third Voice!"
First, you must demonstrate a violation of the copyright laws as listed in
your list. I don't see any violation of the laws. It is common practice in
modern computers to view more than one source simultaneously on one screen.
To display one site over another is the choice of the viewer. The service in
debate provides automatic display of two sites simultaneously, as selected by
the operator, utilizing special software as provided by Third Voice
> Well, unfortunately, that doesn't work. A
>major copy company recently was severely fined for attempting to
>classify the wholesale lifting of material for publication for
>ultimate use on college campuses as "Fair Use." While the initial
>violations were by the many teachers & professors that used the copy
>company to make their class readers (without getting permission from
>the copyright holders initially,) it was ruled that since the copy
>company knew the rules and did it anyway, they were held responsible.
How does this apply? Nobody is copying any information from the original
site.
Ronald Vick
>Ronald...@kmail.ksc.nasa.gov (Ronald Vick) wrote:
>>On 07 Jun 1999 12:55:41 PDT, Birdra <Bir...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>>Ronald Vick wrote:
>>>> Demonstrate to me how they're altering the information in your stored data in
>>>> any way!
>>>
>>>Do you not read what is written? I understand the information is being stored on the TV
>>>server. Due to the plugin, it does overlay information, which I do not provide, over the
>>>content of my site. What part of this is unclear to you?
>>
>>Nothing, except your obcession with it, and your misconception.
>
>I can understand his position, and you appear to be deliberately
>obtuse about recognizing it.
>
>As an analogy, suppose you are an artist, and you have your art
>hanging in an art gallery. Someone else goes to the gallery owner, and
>says "I propose to hang these sheets of plexiglass in front of the art
>in your gallery, and give visitors marker pens to doodle on the
>plexiglass to express how they are affected by the art."
>
>The plexiglass sheets are hung, and one day you go to the gallery, and
>see that the plexiglass sheets have been marked up so that your
>landscapes have been turned into toxic waste dumps, your female
>figures all sport 48FF boob jobs prominently exposed to view while
>they amuse themselves with huge pink dildos, and your male figures are
>all cornholing barnyard animals and wearing Nazi armbands.
>
>The markings on the plexiglass have _grossly_ distorted your art as
>you created it, and you complain to the gallery owner, who replies
>"What's on the plexiglass doesn't do anything to _your_ art; it's
>still exactly as it was. And anyone can raise the plexiglass to see
>what your art is _really_ like, anyway; you've got nothing to complain
>about."
>
>--
>Sean R. Malloy | American Non Sequitur
A good analogy, Sean. More accurate than the book analogy.
Let's expland upon it, however. The paintings are displayed in the store
window.
A viewer walks up, holds a sheet of plexiglass in front of the picture and
scribbles away. He then takes the sheet of plexiglass with him, and offers
it to others that wish to hold it up to the painting and add their own
scribbles.
People that don't want to look through the plexiglass sheet are free to view
the original painting, they don't have to hold up that cover.
Now, what law has been violated? The original is unaltered in any way, the
only thing changed is the plexiglass, which is optional to the viewer.
A purist might demand that the painting be viewed as he did it, but can he
force a viewer to take off a set of sunglasses to view it?
PnJnCA
>
Hey, did you read the subject line.
It was clearly posted as OT = off topic. Why in the world open and respond to
an OT and then start acting like the hall monitor?
Even subject lines in other threads currently running in a similar vein without
an OT are easy enough to identify and pass by.
Porter
...........always appreciative of proper quoting, OT's, and 'an air of
camaraderie' when bickering
ZuluNiner
Why don't you share your wisdom about exactly what the www is, then?
--
ZuluNiner {dbd}
(aka Calin/Runesinger)
ZuluNiner at fuckyou dot co dot uk
John Forrest Tomlinson <j...@notthesewordsjt10000.com> wrote in message
news:7jhh6k$g...@chronicle.concentric.net...
ZuluNiner
This software DOES alter the way the site is "printed at the press."
Here is yesterday's "Quote of the Day" from TV's own web site:
"If you use this product in the U.S.A. you should be arrested for
defacing private property...."
I __OWN__ my web site. I pay for the hosting. I pay annually to hold
the domain name. Anything you do that changes the way my website
appears TO ANYONE OTHER THAN YOURSELF is defacement of my private
property. It's not the private notes that we're complaining about, it's
the public notes. For the most part, I'm not even overly concerned with
the group notes.
If TV had their server set up so I could register my site not to allow
PUBLIC notes, then it wouldn't be an issue.
--
ZuluNiner {dbd}
(aka Calin/Runesinger)
ZuluNiner at fuckyou dot co dot uk
Ronald Vick <ronal...@removethis.mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:375d515e...@news.mindspring.com...
> A good point, better than any Birdra has managed. The way I see it,
> they're not reselling the book. If we want to use the book analogy,
> it's more like someone buying a book, then paying someone to print new
ZuluNiner
is attempting to make??
The point is that TV can turn your website into a billboard for your
competitors, or anyone else that thinks YOUR customers will be
interested in what THEY have to offer.
If I want advertising on my page, I'd sell space. I certainly wouldn't
allow people to post billboards all over my page FOR FREE!!!
--
ZuluNiner {dbd}
(aka Calin/Runesinger)
ZuluNiner at fuckyou dot co dot uk
<fran...@NOSPAMconcentric.net> wrote in message
news:375c7544...@news.concentric.net...
> On Tue, 08 Jun 1999 01:09:59 GMT, srma...@home.com (Sean Malloy)
> wrote:
>
> >Ronald...@kmail.ksc.nasa.gov (Ronald Vick) wrote:
> >>On 07 Jun 1999 11:49:32 PDT, Birdra <Bir...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >>>> Birdra, suppose you would "like" to have people comment on and
critique your
> >>>> site. They could do it via this service.
> >>>
> >>>They could also do this by a message board, or just send me email.
If I choose to
> >>>display this information, it should be my choice.
> >>
> >>But being on a linked site is bad news, eh? How is that different
from having
> >>an automatic linker to a news group about your site?
> >>With a special plugin, you could see notices about the site in the
newsgroup.
> >
> >Suppose you run a website for a business. Someone from a competing
> >company uses this 'web notes' plugin to put notes all over your site
> >saying that _your_ products aren't as good or as inexpensive as
> >_their_ products, and directs them to _their_ website. Your website
> >just became a billboard for _them_ without your permission.
> >
>
ZuluNiner
> On Mon, 7 Jun 1999 16:51:47 -0400, "ZuluNiner"
> <ZuluNiner*@*fuckyou.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >What difference does it make if _I_ load the plugin or not?? I never
> >visit my own web site, anyway, so how to looks TO ME is not the
issue.
> >
> >How do you thing Stephen King would respond if he discovered that
> >someone at his publisher was marking up or editing his work before it
> >went to press?? By your logic, there's nothing wrong with it,
because
the
> >work is seen and perceived by the audience.
>
> Ah, but how about AFTER the work is purchased? Since each member of
> the audience must add that to the work they're viewing, and the
> original work is unchanged, what harm has been done?
>
> I can buy a book, then add all the notes and remarks in it I wish, and
> nobody can say I can't.
Yes, but I seriously doubt more than 10 people will ever see your notes.
They aren't being published to the PUBLIC. I don't have a problem with
TV's private notes or group notes. It's the PUBLIC notes that I have a
problem with. And that fits much more closely to my example of
pre-print modification than it does to your example of post-purchase
mark-up.
> >
> >If somebody has something they want to say about my website or about
the
> >content on my site, they can e-mail me, or tell their friends about
it.
> >If they want to publish it to the entire world, let them lease their
> >owned damned website and publish it. I don't want them piggy-backing
> >off the popularity of MY site to distribute their message.
> >
> >Let them develop their own audience. I don't want to develop an
> >audience for them, unless they're paying me to do it.
>
> I won't load the plugin, because I suspect it only interests those
> that have the childish desire to toss 'Cute' remarks out to prove how
> clever they are. The examples I've examined are sneers or ads, and I
> suspect the fad will be self limiting.
>
> I certainly won't get upset by it.
And what will you do when some brilliant asshole uses the <OBJECT> tag
to cause an automatic installation of the plugin?? It can easily be
done in MSIE, you know. You may or may not install it yourself, because
you're probably too computer literate to fall for the "you must install
this plugin to view this site as intended" line, but Joe Schmoe the
average user is NOT.
ZuluNiner
<SNIP>
> You're attempting the same thing Birdra was trying to say. That the
notes are
> attached to the website. That's simply not so. The original website
is
> unaltered. The notes are attached to a second website. Special
software is
> require to view the two sites simultaneously. This software must be
installed
> and activated by the viewer.
One of two things is happening here:
1) You have the plugin active. You go to my website. Your browser
makes the request to the TV proxy. The TV proxy requests the page(s)
from my server. My server sends the page to the TV proxy. THE TV PROXY
ADDS CODE TO MY PAGE TO DESIGNATE WHERE NOTES ARE POSTED. THE TV PROXY
REDISTRIBUTES THE MODIFIED VERSION OF MY PAGE TO YOUR BROWSER.
2) You have the plugin active. You go to my website. Your browser
makes the request to the TV proxy and my server at the same time. You
get my page and the TV markup information "simultaneously" from two
different servers. THE TV PROXY ADDS CODE TO MY PAGE TO DESIGNATE WHERE
NOTES ARE POSTED. Your browser displays the modified code.
In either case, the portion in all caps signifies the action(s) that
is/are copyright infringement(s).
<SNIP>
> How does this apply? Nobody is copying any information from the
original
> site.
In case (1) above, the server is copying my page(s) IN THEIR ENTIRETY.
In either case, the page that the browser is displaying has HTML code
with unauthorized modifications.
ZuluNiner
notes. It does not take into account the concept of PUBLIC notes.
Let's look at it from that angle. You have a painting. Over the
painting hangs a glass screen with embedded electronics like the HUD in
an aircraft. Let's get futuristic, and assume there is a system in the
gallery where everyone has an electronic identifier. The electronic ID
stores data on whether you want to see the markup or not. By default,
it's off, but you have the option to turn it on.
People who don't turn it on or don't know about their options will never
see anything but the art "under glass."
Anyone who has configured their ID to give them the OPTION to read
markup notes will see the art with little red arrows all over the glass
screen. They may or may not actually read any or all of the notes, but
they will NEVER see the work without the little red arrows.
To get back to the point you've been pushing all along, let's look at
black-and-white movies that have been modified to make them work with
3-D glasses. I have the option of getting a pair of 3-D glasses and
watching the 3-D version of the movie, or I can simply forego the
glasses and watch the original. (Or, I can forego the glasses and
attempt to watch the 3-D version, which will be of highly degraded
quality due to the 3-D mods not being filtered by the glasses. But this
scenario (hopefully) doesn't apply to this debate.)
The difference?? Only one: The actors, actresses, author, director,
publisher, etc all RECEIVED PAYMENT for the right to reproduce a
slightly modified version of their work. Simply put, someone bought
copyright access to the original work, with permission to modify it.
So, is TV going to pay me royalties every time their modified version of
my page(s) is viewed??
--
ZuluNiner {dbd}
(aka Calin/Runesinger)
ZuluNiner at fuckyou dot co dot uk
Ronald Vick <Ronald...@kmail.ksc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:375d15d7...@news.ksc.nasa.gov...
<SNIP>
Ronald Vick
wrote:
>Ronald Vick <Ronald...@kmail.ksc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
>news:375d0b7c...@news.ksc.nasa.gov...
>
><SNIP>
>
>> You're attempting the same thing Birdra was trying to say. That the
>notes are
>> attached to the website. That's simply not so. The original website
>is
>> unaltered. The notes are attached to a second website. Special
>software is
>> require to view the two sites simultaneously. This software must be
>installed
>> and activated by the viewer.
>
>One of two things is happening here:
>
>1) You have the plugin active. You go to my website. Your browser
>makes the request to the TV proxy. The TV proxy requests the page(s)
>from my server. My server sends the page to the TV proxy. THE TV PROXY
>ADDS CODE TO MY PAGE TO DESIGNATE WHERE NOTES ARE POSTED. THE TV PROXY
>REDISTRIBUTES THE MODIFIED VERSION OF MY PAGE TO YOUR BROWSER.
>
>2) You have the plugin active. You go to my website. Your browser
>makes the request to the TV proxy and my server at the same time. You
>get my page and the TV markup information "simultaneously" from two
>different servers. THE TV PROXY ADDS CODE TO MY PAGE TO DESIGNATE WHERE
>NOTES ARE POSTED. Your browser displays the modified code.
>
>In either case, the portion in all caps signifies the action(s) that
>is/are copyright infringement(s).
>
Let's let everyone see what the notes look like-
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/sample.jpg
Now, ZuluNiner, you keep stating that "THE TV PROXY
ADDS CODE TO MY PAGE...". It doesn't alter a bit of your stored code, or even
write into your storage area, so it cannot add code to your page. You seem to
believe that your web page is on my display, therefore I cannot do anything to
my display. (including new windows, altering the color, brightness, etc.)
The plugin allows users to call up windows that can overlay your page when
it's displayed. Without the plugin, nobody sees any difference in your page.
The big problem that I see here, is that if your side could conceivably win,
it would become illegal for a common user to bring up a new window on top of a
displayed web page, or to even display two web sites at once. I see this as a
intrusion on my rights.
Ronald Vick
wrote:
>Your modification of Sean's analogy only accounts for private and group
>notes. It does not take into account the concept of PUBLIC notes.
>
>Let's look at it from that angle. You have a painting. Over the
>painting hangs a glass screen with embedded electronics like the HUD in
>an aircraft. Let's get futuristic, and assume there is a system in the
>gallery where everyone has an electronic identifier. The electronic ID
>stores data on whether you want to see the markup or not. By default,
>it's off, but you have the option to turn it on.
One also has the option of not wearing the HUD at all.
>
>People who don't turn it on or don't know about their options will never
>see anything but the art "under glass."
>
>Anyone who has configured their ID to give them the OPTION to read
>markup notes will see the art with little red arrows all over the glass
>screen. They may or may not actually read any or all of the notes, but
>they will NEVER see the work without the little red arrows.
>
>To get back to the point you've been pushing all along
I'm not pushing any point. I just maintian that I have the freedom to do to
MY screen what I want. If that means painting on the glass with a magic
marker, that's my option, not yours. If your web page is under it, then
tough. Your group is pushing to control what and how I see something, and
that smacks of petty dictatorship.
> let's look at
>black-and-white movies that have been modified to make them work with
>3-D glasses. I have the option of getting a pair of 3-D glasses and
>watching the 3-D version of the movie, or I can simply forego the
>glasses and watch the original. (Or, I can forego the glasses and
>attempt to watch the 3-D version, which will be of highly degraded
>quality due to the 3-D mods not being filtered by the glasses. But this
>scenario (hopefully) doesn't apply to this debate.)
>
>The difference?? Only one: The actors, actresses, author, director,
>publisher, etc all RECEIVED PAYMENT for the right to reproduce a
>slightly modified version of their work. Simply put, someone bought
>copyright access to the original work, with permission to modify it.
I think this analogy is really pushing it.
If you care to expound upon a real situation I'd be glad to read it, but let's
drop the above anology as being too far outside the fold.
>
>So, is TV going to pay me royalties every time their modified version of
>my page(s) is viewed??
Are you going to get more money if TV doesn't have any notes about your page?
Will you get more money if there isn't any TV? Less?
Do you get royalties every time your web site is mentioned in the news groups?
Lose any?
I don't understand the point you're trying to make, sorry.
IM Cool
<09990507203540.OUI99.jamesballard@RE*MOVEworldnet.att.net>...
snip
>That's what I am not so sure of. What does the end user download from
>TV? Just the stickies? I doubt it. How do the TV posters know where
>to stick each note?
>In my ignorance, I have imagined that TV copies the site in question to
>its own server, makes the copy available for the posting of stickies and
>then serves the "stickied" site to the subscriber in place of the
>original.
A poster attaches a text message to text portions of a site.
Take a walk through the demo, it show everything.
http://www.thirdvoice.com/demo/index.htm
IM
--
IM Cool™
http://www.imcool.com
imc...@imcool.com
James Ballard
> it does not make a copy of the site
If the site doesn't get copied, then I withdraw my copyright concerns.
John Forrest Tomlinson
>Eloquent explanation, oh enlightened one.
>
>Why don't you share your wisdom about exactly what the www is,
then?
>
>ZuluNiner {dbd}
>(aka Calin/Runesinger)
>ZuluNiner at fuckyou dot co dot uk
>
>
message
>news:7jhh6k$g...@chronicle.concentric.net...
>>
>>
>> Ron Vick, give it up -- Birdra doesn't seem to understand how the
>> www works (or want to understand for that matter).
>
>
>
own machine to request code from a server. The browser renders the
code and displays it for the visitor. The visitor has control of
the browser and can use it to view the code in any way he/she likes.
A browser can be set to not display pictures, to view things in
black and white, or even to read (through voice simulation) rather
than display visually what has been received from the server.
This is completely beyond the control of the website creator and
none of these choices on the part of the viewer and browser affect
the code on the server in any way. In the case of Third Voice the
visitor can even receive other people's comment about the site. To
say that Third Voice is putting something "on" a site is simply
innaccurate.
JT
****************************************
Remove "removethis" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com/
Cycling, Food and Stories
****************************************
ZuluNiner
place?? The proxy or the plugin is ALTERING MY HTML CODE to add
image/font tags and links before it is "printed" to your browser.
I never said it modified the code stored on the server. I said it was
reading the code from my site and modifying the code before your browser
receives it.
Altering my HTML code and redistributing it is a copyright violation,
plain and simple. The public notes with the modifications to insert the
markers into my HTML code is tantamount to you copying my site, adding a
few links for JavaScript popup windows with your notations, and
publishing the modified pages to your own web site.
--
ZuluNiner {dbd}
(aka Calin/Runesinger)
ZuluNiner at fuckyou dot co dot uk
Ronald Vick <Ronald...@kmail.ksc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:375d2e65...@news.ksc.nasa.gov...
> On Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:19:52 -0400, "ZuluNiner"
<ZuluNiner*@*fuckyou.co.uk>
Ronald Vick
wrote:
>Have you or have you not noticed the little red arrows all over the
>place?? The proxy or the plugin is ALTERING MY HTML CODE to add
>image/font tags and links before it is "printed" to your browser.
>
>I never said it modified the code stored on the server. I said it was
>reading the code from my site and modifying the code before your browser
>receives it.
>
>Altering my HTML code and redistributing it is a copyright violation,
>plain and simple. The public notes with the modifications to insert the
>markers into my HTML code is tantamount to you copying my site, adding a
>few links for JavaScript popup windows with your notations, and
>publishing the modified pages to your own web site.
>
>--
>ZuluNiner {dbd}
I suppose the problem is that you really don't see any difference between the
two situations you describe. I can capture your code and do anything to it I
please and that is perfectly legal as long as I don't try to send it to
another person.
The program reads your site and displays it on screen. If the plugin is
active, it then reads the TV site to see if any notes are posted on the site.
If so, your site is displayed with the markers, in a window. Clicking on the
markers brings up a window with the notes.
Your code isn't modified, nor is the web page redistributed or re-transmitted.
It is overlaid with new windows. (which may also be accomplished by opening
any other website in a new window. If you scream about one, you're screaming
about all, aren't you?)
People that ignore the entire foolishness see no change in your website
whatsoever.
And that is why I think you're constructing cumulus granite out of ant hills.
ZuluNiner
> On Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:51:52 -0400, "ZuluNiner"
<ZuluNiner*@*fuckyou.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Your modification of Sean's analogy only accounts for private and
group
> >notes. It does not take into account the concept of PUBLIC notes.
> >
> >Let's look at it from that angle. You have a painting. Over the
> >painting hangs a glass screen with embedded electronics like the HUD
in
> >an aircraft. Let's get futuristic, and assume there is a system in
the
> >gallery where everyone has an electronic identifier. The electronic
ID
> >stores data on whether you want to see the markup or not. By
default,
> >it's off, but you have the option to turn it on.
>
> One also has the option of not wearing the HUD at all.
I said it was hung over the painting, not your head. Regardless, its
not being there is the same as its not being enabled.
> >
> >People who don't turn it on or don't know about their options will
never
> >see anything but the art "under glass."
> >
> >Anyone who has configured their ID to give them the OPTION to read
> >markup notes will see the art with little red arrows all over the
glass
> >screen. They may or may not actually read any or all of the notes,
but
> >they will NEVER see the work without the little red arrows.
> >
> >To get back to the point you've been pushing all along
>
> I'm not pushing any point. I just maintian that I have the freedom to
do to
> MY screen what I want. If that means painting on the glass with a
magic
> marker, that's my option, not yours. If your web page is under it,
then
> tough. Your group is pushing to control what and how I see something,
and
> that smacks of petty dictatorship.
You can scribble whatever you want on your screen (read: private notes)
but when you scribble it for the world to see, and it's tied to
something that belongs to me, it becomes graffiti. Besides, if you
scribble notes all over your screen, you aren't modifying my HTML code
to do it.
>
> > let's look at
> >black-and-white movies that have been modified to make them work with
> >3-D glasses. I have the option of getting a pair of 3-D glasses and
> >watching the 3-D version of the movie, or I can simply forego the
> >glasses and watch the original. (Or, I can forego the glasses and
> >attempt to watch the 3-D version, which will be of highly degraded
> >quality due to the 3-D mods not being filtered by the glasses. But
this
> >scenario (hopefully) doesn't apply to this debate.)
> >
> >The difference?? Only one: The actors, actresses, author, director,
> >publisher, etc all RECEIVED PAYMENT for the right to reproduce a
> >slightly modified version of their work. Simply put, someone bought
> >copyright access to the original work, with permission to modify it.
>
> I think this analogy is really pushing it.
> If you care to expound upon a real situation I'd be glad to read it,
but let's
> drop the above anology as being too far outside the fold.
meaning you simply don't have a counter-argument?? How is this "pushing
it?" The modifications made to a movie to make it 3-D are extremely
subtle. Arguably even MORE subtle than the little red arrows that TV is
putting all over my pages. I would say it is an extremely mild example
of the copyright issue in question here.
>
> >
> >So, is TV going to pay me royalties every time their modified version
of
> >my page(s) is viewed??
>
> Are you going to get more money if TV doesn't have any notes about
your page?
> Will you get more money if there isn't any TV? Less?
This isn't about money, it's about the integrity of my website. If
someone asked me to sell them the rights to publish my web site
elsewhere, I'd probably say no. However, the fact remains, it would be
MY choice.
>
> Do you get royalties every time your web site is mentioned in the news
groups?
> Lose any?
No, but the movie producer doesn't get royalties when the movie is
reviewed in a newspaper, either. There is a vast difference between
reading ABOUT something, and viewing a modified version of it.
>
> I don't understand the point you're trying to make, sorry.
I'm not surprised. If you're going to get involved in a debate, you
should at least open your mind a little and attempt to respect someone
else's point of view.
ZuluNiner
The browser doesn't modify the code itself, it only alters the way it is
rendered. The browser also will not ADD anything to my site. Disable a
few things, yes. But not add anything.
--
ZuluNiner {dbd}
(aka Calin/Runesinger)
ZuluNiner at fuckyou dot co dot uk
John Forrest Tomlinson <j...@notthesewordsjt10000.com> wrote in message
news:7jjfvn$c...@journal.concentric.net...
> ZuluNiner wrote in message <375d1...@news.syncroflo.com>...
> >Eloquent explanation, oh enlightened one.
> >
> >Why don't you share your wisdom about exactly what the www is,
> then?
> >
> >--
> >ZuluNiner {dbd}
> >(aka Calin/Runesinger)
> >ZuluNiner at fuckyou dot co dot uk
> >
> >
Ronald Vick
wrote:
It's just so far from the discussion that the analogy breaks down completely.
I'm surprised that you'd even bother to go there, as it doesn't seem to apply
at all. If the movie could be viewed as created without any effort, then it
might be applicable, but as you presented it, it's the opposite of what you
want to state. Why should I debate both sides of this disagreement at the
same time?
>
>>
>> >
>> >So, is TV going to pay me royalties every time their modified version
>of
>> >my page(s) is viewed??
>>
>> Are you going to get more money if TV doesn't have any notes about
>your page?
>> Will you get more money if there isn't any TV? Less?
>
>This isn't about money, it's about the integrity of my website. If
>someone asked me to sell them the rights to publish my web site
>elsewhere, I'd probably say no. However, the fact remains, it would be
>MY choice.
>
>>
>> Do you get royalties every time your web site is mentioned in the news
>groups?
>> Lose any?
>
>No, but the movie producer doesn't get royalties when the movie is
>reviewed in a newspaper, either. There is a vast difference between
>reading ABOUT something, and viewing a modified version of it.
>
>>
>> I don't understand the point you're trying to make, sorry.
>
>I'm not surprised. If you're going to get involved in a debate, you
>should at least open your mind a little and attempt to respect someone
>else's point of view.
Oh? I disagree with your concept completely, but where have I shown you any
disrespect?
If you're wanting respect for the idea that the creator of a web site should
have control of the viewer's site, then you're going to waiting a very long
time.
ZuluNiner
Exactly. How, exactly, is the browser displaying a bunch of little red
arrows, if TV isn't changing my source code??
>
> The program reads your site and displays it on screen. If the plugin
is
> active, it then reads the TV site to see if any notes are posted on
the site.
>
> If so, your site is displayed with the markers, in a window. Clicking
on the
> markers brings up a window with the notes.
It's the markers I'm complaining about, mostly.
>
> Your code isn't modified, nor is the web page redistributed or
re-transmitted.
> It is overlaid with new windows. (which may also be accomplished by
opening
> any other website in a new window. If you scream about one, you're
screaming
> about all, aren't you?)
Read the previous comment. It's the markers themselves, and the fact
that my HTML code is being changed to insert the red arrow markers. If
you can go to the menu and select "View Source" on my webpage, and what
you see is not EXACTLY the same as the text version on my website, then
someone, somewhere is modifying my HTML code.
> People that ignore the entire foolishness see no change in your
website
> whatsoever.
>
> And that is why I think you're constructing cumulus granite out of ant
hills.
The problem is that some twit with a personal problem can turn my site
from something constructive into 10 screens worth of nothing but little
red arrows with an occasional text character showing through. True, it
will only effect people with the plugin. But what if a large percentage
of my target audience are "valid" users of TV?? They can't read my site
because somebody has made it unreadable.
newk
> from something constructive into 10 screens worth of nothing but little
> red arrows with an occasional text character showing through. True, it
> will only effect people with the plugin. But what if a large percentage
> of my target audience are "valid" users of TV?? They can't read my site
> because somebody has made it unreadable.
> --
> ZuluNiner {dbd}
> (aka Calin/Runesinger)
> ZuluNiner at fuckyou dot co dot
In that case, wouldn't they simply turn it off? This is why I feel that
Third Voice is doomed to failure. Popular sites will become so cluttered
that most users will simply give up and uninstall the plugin. Those that
don't can enjoy the clutter or not.
I think the Third Voice plugin is a self-destructing phenomenon.
--
newk
new...@nospam.hotmail.com
remove nospam to email
http://users.nac.net/newk/gallery.htm
IM Cool
However, a lot of sites will still be able to use the service effectively. Those
with more text-based content ("white paper" type stuff) will probably be less
susceptible to "outsiders."
IM
--
IM Cool™
http://www.imcool.com
imc...@imcool.com
newk wrote in message ...
snip
>In that case, wouldn't they simply turn it off? This is why I feel that
>Third Voice is doomed to failure. Popular sites will become so cluttered
>that most users will simply give up and uninstall the plugin. Those that
>don't can enjoy the clutter or not.
>I think the Third Voice plugin is a self-destructing phenomenon.
snip
Shadoewen
> On Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:19:52 -0400, "ZuluNiner" <ZuluNiner*@*fuckyou.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Ronald Vick <Ronald...@kmail.ksc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
> >
> <snip>
> Let's let everyone see what the notes look like-
> http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/sample.jpg
>
> Now, ZuluNiner, you keep stating that "THE TV PROXY
> ADDS CODE TO MY PAGE...". It doesn't alter a bit of your stored code, or
even
> write into your storage area, so it cannot add code to your page. You
seem to
> believe that your web page is on my display, therefore I cannot do
anything to
> my display. (including new windows, altering the color, brightness, etc.)
>
> The plugin allows users to call up windows that can overlay your page when
> it's displayed. Without the plugin, nobody sees any difference in your
page.
>
>
> The big problem that I see here, is that if your side could conceivably
win,
> it would become illegal for a common user to bring up a new window on top
of a
> displayed web page, or to even display two web sites at once. I see this
as a
> intrusion on my rights.
>
>
>
>
> PSP terrorist- D'Lan de Caresk Chapter - Executive Officer
I have a question for Ron. Would you be so kind to post your web site URL?
I would like to download the entire contents, modify it in my HTML editor,
and post it on MY server space. Then I can tell only MY friends to come look
at it (and thier friends, etc...). You would not know about it because no
one told you. Would that be ok? You're original code wouldn't be
changed.....it is the same as it was the last time YOU modified it, and only
the people I told about what I did would be able to see the changes. Not a
good idea?
Shad
moody
--
moody =)~
correct the AT to @ to reply by email
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Moody Motifs - free web page graphics
http://members.xoom.com/MoodyMotifs
Best Place to Destress on the Web
http://www.playsite.com
COME PLAY!!!!
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
R. Lacey <nos...@ibm.net> wrote in message
news:376001ef...@news.supernews.com...
Oxford Systems
Sean Malloy wrote in message <375fb6b8.520846257@news>...
>Ronald...@kmail.ksc.nasa.gov (Ronald Vick) wrote:
>>I'm not pushing any point. I just maintian that I have the freedom to do
to
>>MY screen what I want. If that means painting on the glass with a magic
>>marker, that's my option, not yours. If your web page is under it, then
>>tough. Your group is pushing to control what and how I see something, and
>>that smacks of petty dictatorship.
>
>right to control how their work is presented.
Ummmm....no. Not even close.
Authors determine how bookstores display their books? Tell people where they
can be read?
Painters determine which room you can hang their paintings in?
I think that you have nothing but misconceptions about copyright law.
Copyright protects your ownership of a created work. Other people can not
reproduce your work without your permission.
Third Voice does not reproduce your site. It is like nothing more than an
electronic grease board for users that choose to download and use the
software to leave comments on.
It may disturb you but it does not violate copyright in any way. As a matter
of fact, copyright law explicity allows for fair use for criticsim, comment,
parody and news.
>When I create a web site
>to be presented to the public, I want it presented without someone's
>electronic graffiti scrawled all over it.
Hmmmm....well do you also check out your site in ALL available browsers. How
you want it presented is irrelevant if the USER chooses to present it
another way. What if I turn off graphics? What if I disable Java? What if
you have midi's for background sounds and I turn those off too?
>When you add a public note
>to my website
Maybe this is where you and others are being confused....
NOTHING is being added to your web site. Nothing.
>using TV, you have created a derivative work from mine
Nope. Your work remains 100% intact. TV is a user option.
>-- a violation of copyright unless I explicitly give you permission --
>and Third Voice has, by providing software whose purpose is
>_specifically_ this creation of derivative works, violated copyright
>law just as egregiously.
Again....check the law. You are very, very mistaken.
>You can mark it up all you want to for your _own_ purposes, but the
>moment you make publically-visible notes, you are in violation of
>copyright and become prosecutable.
Nope Sean. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I challenge you to cite any section of
copyright law to back your claim.
J.Smith
Ronald Vick wrote:
> Your code isn't modified, nor is the web page redistributed or re-transmitted.
> It is overlaid with new windows. (which may also be accomplished by opening
> any other website in a new window. If you scream about one, you're screaming
> about all, aren't you?)
hmmmm
What if I made a site with called graphics on the net. (For instance) and used my
template to call up your images from your site. and inserted my own comments on
the page.. and allowed others to do the same.. Isn't that about the same thing as
what Third Voice does?
So it would be okay to do that without your knowledge and so you cannot control
it?
(i would be smart enough to give you credit and copyright )
No thirdvoice doesn't write to your site.. but to display it in a browser with the
plugin it
alters your coding..
That is copyright infringement.
--
--
Coldfyre/Stormrage - living by her own designs
OMNI 3D http://poserunderground.virtualave.net
http://coldfyredesigns.hypermart.net -Coldfyre Designs
Jennifer Smith, Contributing Editor
http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/writing_on_Web_Site -Writing for your website
Coldfyre Designs 3D Gallery -http://coldfyre3d.virtualave.net
Xslf
> If you're wanting respect for the idea that the creator of a web site
should
> have control of the viewer's site, then you're going to waiting a very
long
> time.
That is an interesting remark. I am not sure I understands what you mean by
"viewer's site" and how is it different from the site the site creator
created?
I would think that as a creator of a website I should have certain control
over it's presentation. Or am I missing something here?
--
----------
"We are but packets in the internet of life..."
Moderator, Israeli Site builder forum:
http://www.iol.co.il/forums/scripts/showm.asp?which_forum=223
Ronald Vick
>Ronald Vick <Ronald...@kmail.ksc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
>news:375d664a...@news.ksc.nasa.gov...
>> If you're wanting respect for the idea that the creator of a web site
>should
>> have control of the viewer's site, then you're going to waiting a very
>long
>> time.
>
>That is an interesting remark. I am not sure I understands what you mean by
>"viewer's site" and how is it different from the site the site creator
>created?
>I would think that as a creator of a website I should have certain control
>over it's presentation. Or am I missing something here?
You have no control over how I present it on my screen. If I desire to place
a window over your window, turn off the graphics, display with a different
color, etc. there is nothing the creator of the web site can do about it.
As a creator of a web site, you may suggest how I view it, but you don't have
any legal recourse if I neglect your suggestions.
Likewise, If I take your code as it comes into my computer and add asterisks
to every nasty word in it, I have every right to do that, too. I can have a
program do that in my machine. I can program my machine to link to anyother
site upon hitting one of those words.
I could even publish the results, for purposes of demonstration, or parody.
It seems a religious group has taken offense at this idea.
Any religious group trying to ban those operations, is going to be doomed to
failure.
Ronald Vick
>
>
>Ronald Vick wrote:
>
>> Your code isn't modified, nor is the web page redistributed or re-transmitted.
>> It is overlaid with new windows. (which may also be accomplished by opening
>> any other website in a new window. If you scream about one, you're screaming
>> about all, aren't you?)
>
>hmmmm
>What if I made a site with called graphics on the net. (For instance) and used my
>template to call up your images from your site. and inserted my own comments on
>the page.. and allowed others to do the same.. Isn't that about the same thing as
>what Third Voice does?
>
>So it would be okay to do that without your knowledge and so you cannot control
>it?
>(i would be smart enough to give you credit and copyright )
>
>No thirdvoice doesn't write to your site.. but to display it in a browser with the
>plugin it
>alters your coding..
>
>That is copyright infringement.
No, that's fair use, within the copyright law. If it weren't, I wouldn't be
able to quote your posting above without getting into trouble about it.
Ronald Vick
>I have a question for Ron. Would you be so kind to post your web site URL?
>I would like to download the entire contents, modify it in my HTML editor,
>and post it on MY server space. Then I can tell only MY friends to come look
>at it (and thier friends, etc...). You would not know about it because no
>one told you. Would that be ok? You're original code wouldn't be
>changed.....it is the same as it was the last time YOU modified it, and only
>the people I told about what I did would be able to see the changes. Not a
>good idea?
>
>Shad
>
Go ahead! By publishing to such a broad market, there's no way to maintain
ownership. People do it thousands of times a day here on the web. I fully
expect everything I publish on the web to be copied, changed, and parodied.
In a way it's a compliment.
Ronald Vick
>Ronald...@kmail.ksc.nasa.gov (Ronald Vick) wrote:
>>If I put up a web site, and someone in a newsgroup makes snide remarks, do I
>>have any right to close down the newsgroup? If that were legal, the net
>>would collapse overnight.
>
>The analogy is not on all fours. If someone hands you a flyer for a
>family-planning service that includes abortion counselling, you are
>free to write "ABORTION IS MURDER!" across the top of the page with a
>marker.
So far so good.
>You do _not_ have the right, as a worker in the copy shop
>where the service goes to print copies of its flyer, to write
>"ABORTION IS MURDER!" on a transparency sheet and stick it under the
>original of the flyer the next time that the service makes more copies
>of it to distribute.
I'll agree to that.
> And _that's_ what Third Voice is doing --
>altering the _presentation_ of web pages to insert their links. The
>notes themselves are prosecutable separately, depending on their
>content.
Here we disagree. TV is NOT altering the original code. They are not doing
one single thing to the original code at your site. (or inserting their
overlay into you printing press, as you've put it.)
If we want to extend the analogy, what they're doing is making the other side
of the argument available to anyone that wants to look for it.
I really don't understand why I need to repeat this statement any more than
I've already done. The changes to the presentation are at the receiving
computer, created by actions of the receiving person, and amount to no more
than using the local computer to overlay a new window on the display.
The original code isn't changed, and no changes are seen by anyone that
doesn't wish to see those notes.
In no way are the copyright codes violated.
Ronald Lacey
Nope, yesterday the looney closed at $0.67 U.S. that makes 2 cents
U.S. equal to 2.985 cents Cdn., close enough to 3 for me <grin>.
Take care
ZuluNiner
--
ZuluNiner {dbd}
(aka Calin/Runesinger)
ZuluNiner at fuckyou dot co dot uk
Ronald Vick <Ronald...@kmail.ksc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:375e5da3...@news.ksc.nasa.gov...
ZuluNiner
> I really don't understand why I need to repeat this statement any more
than
> I've already done. The changes to the presentation are at the
receiving
> computer, created by actions of the receiving person, and amount to no
more
> than using the local computer to overlay a new window on the display.
> The original code isn't changed, and no changes are seen by anyone
that
> doesn't wish to see those notes.
>
> In no way are the copyright codes violated.
Really? then by your logic, a warez CD with cracked/hacked software is
not a copyright violation, either. The hacker/cracker isn't modifying
the ORIGINAL copy of the code, and the end user WISHES to receive the
modified version rather than the original.
Your logic also makes key generators legal.
Ronald Vick
wrote:
>Ronald Vick <Ronald...@kmail.ksc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
Now that's really reaching far out. Note that once I purchase a program, I
can display it in any form I desire. If there's another program's window on
top of it, the original company has no basis for complaint.
Likewise, once I legally acquire your website display, I can do anything to it
I desire. If I run a plugin on it that turns all of your images purple, you
don't have any legal rights to say I cannot.
Sally Ann Vinke
that's all it amounts to, I'm really not turning into a raving shrew
here, I hope, hehe)we are seeing a difference between display and
content. All of us understand we can't ultimately control the the
display at user end; frustrating, but part of the way the it works. Now,
granted, our code is not actually altered, and yes, only users who
*choose* to (and why they would with all the info collection I don't
know)see the *addendums*, but the sticking point for me is that this
isn't about graphics on or off-type issues, this is about viewers seeing
*content* in conjunction with your page you did not intend. It's not the
stupid sticky arrows I'm concerned with. In that case you're right, it's
one more uncontrollable *layout* or *display* issue we have to deal
with. I am uncomfortable with content, whether actually in my code or
not, being attached in some way to my page without my consent. It's not
simply a display issue.
--
_.-'''-._
.' .-'``|'.
/ / -*- \
; <{ | ; Bellaluna Designs
| _\ | | Creative web design & hosting
; _\ -*- | ; http://www.bellalunadesigns.com
\ \ | -*- / in...@bellalunadesigns.com
'._ '.__ |_.'
'-----'
ZuluNiner
--
ZuluNiner {dbd}
(aka Calin/Runesinger)
ZuluNiner at fuckyou dot co dot uk
Ronald Vick <Ronald...@kmail.ksc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:375eaa16...@news.ksc.nasa.gov...
Marios
ZuluNiner wrote:
> But you cannot make your modified version of my site PUBLIC.
It is not public, it is private! The number of the participants is
irrelevant. On this point you are consistently wrong.
-- Marios
-- mariosk (at) megsinet (dot) net
Marios
Sally Ann Vinke wrote:
> [...] I am uncomfortable with content, whether actually in my code or
> not, being attached in some way to my page without my consent. It's not
> simply a display issue. [...]
So, you don't like it. Me neither. Tough for both of us. But there's no copyright
issue here (actually, I don't know if you presented one.)
Instead of doing 10 more mouse clicks to get into a newsgroup and sound off about
your web site, TV is making it very convenient to have the forum overlayed on your
page, inviting this way all kinds of mindless garbage from any of the
*participants*.
To use another potentially half-baked similarity, this is a question on what the
viewer is doing *while* browsing your web site. The concurrency of your web site on
the viewer's browser and the particural activity of the viewer, whatever that may
be, is totally irrelevant to your site's content, its display and its preservation.
It's as simple as that.
Sally Ann Vinke
think I'm beginning to slide from the middle to your position on this. I
think ultimately it may be a moot point, as I don't think this TV will
take off, anyway.
--
moody
correct the AT to @ to reply by email
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Moody Motifs - free web page graphics
http://members.xoom.com/MoodyMotifs
Best Place to Destress on the Web
http://www.playsite.com
COME PLAY!!!!
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Ronald Lacey <nos...@my.org> wrote in message
news:37627557...@news.supernews.com...
ZuluNiner
site:
private notes
group notes
PUBLIC notes
I have said many times I don't have any problems with the private notes,
and only minor reservations about the group notes. It's the public
notes that bother me.
--
ZuluNiner {dbd}
(aka Calin/Runesinger)
ZuluNiner at fuckyou dot co dot uk
Marios <thi...@fake.com> wrote in message
news:375EF52C...@fake.com...
Marios
ZuluNiner wrote:
> I beg to differ. TV allows three levels of notes to be attached to a
> site:
>
> private notes
> group notes
> PUBLIC notes
Their [public] means to all TV users. They can call it whatever they want
to. But if they were actually public I would be able to read them and, as
you of course know, I can't (no plugin).
The TV users are explicitly declaring their willingness to read whatever
another TV user posts as [public]. They have the control on this
communication and they actually are making a - surprise! - conscious
decision to participate!
I don't think you are willing to admit to this fact.
Sally Ann Vinke
the user is actually personally downloading it and installing it from a
site with specific and complete info on how it works. I think I would
still have a problem if it became one of those pugins that are either
bundled or prompted for download with no real info given.
--
ZuluNiner
news:37603098...@address.com...
>
> ZuluNiner wrote:
>
> > I beg to differ. TV allows three levels of notes to be attached to
a
> > site:
> >
> > private notes
> > group notes
> > PUBLIC notes
>
> Their [public] means to all TV users. They can call it whatever they
want
> to. But if they were actually public I would be able to read them and,
as
> you of course know, I can't (no plugin).
Well. I don't see advertisements on KTLA, because I don't get the
station. They're still public by legal definition. Public simply means
that access is not restricted by race, gender, age (other than the 13+
restriction), etc. It is freely available to anyone who wants to
receive it, which makes it a public broadcast medium.
> The TV users are explicitly declaring their willingness to read
whatever
> another TV user posts as [public]. They have the control on this
> communication and they actually are making a - surprise! - conscious
> decision to participate!
>
> I don't think you are willing to admit to this fact.
But you're wrong. I'll freely admit that except in the <sarcasm> rare
</sarcasm> case of a computer user not knowing what they're installing
on their system, TV users have made that conscious decision. <sarcasm>
Just like I'm sure everyone with TV installed has read the TOS from top
to bottom and has every intention of following those guidelines.
</sarcasm>
I, however, have not given anyone permission to attach public, or even
[public] notes, to my domain name. Nor have I given TV permission to
insert their graphics into my website at publication time.