Expanded Oracle DBA Site
Howard J. Rogers
"Jeffrey Hunter" <Jeff...@comanage.net> wrote in message
news:157A4D97A88D7143B80...@comail1.comanage.net...
> All:
>
> I wanted to notify all new and existing users to my personal Oracle DBA
> site, that I have expanded the site to include the following new sections:
> - Programming (mostly Java)
> - Networking
> - MySQL
>
> http://www.iDevelopment.info
>
> I also reorganized the "Oracle -> DBA Tips" section to provide Oracle New
> Features at the top of the page, followed by other miscellaneous
> concentration areas. The Oracle8i/9i New Features section tries to provide
> tips and tricks that can be used by the seasoned DBA as well as those
> studying for upgrades in OCP.
>
> Please take a moment to stop by and let me know what you think.
I'll certainly take the opportunity to let you know that it sucks big time
that you host my 9i New Features document on your website without
permission, without acknowledgement, and in clear breach of copyright.
Please remove it immediately, along with anything else of mine that might
have been pinched.
HJR
Don Burleson
> Please remove it immediately, along with anything else of mine that might
> have been pinched.
Hmmm, the article is still on this web site.
If it were truly stolen, then one would expect that the offender would
have removed it immediately. . .
Quite odd. . .
Howard J. Rogers
"Don Burleson" <d...@burleson.cc> wrote in message
news:998d28f7.0304...@posting.google.com...
It certainly is. He asked for comments, but hasn't been back to check on
them. Clearly a direct email is called for.
Quite what "truly stolen" means, I have no idea, not being familiar with the
opposite concept of "untruly stolen". He hasn't my permission to host that
article, and he should remove it, and that's an end to it.
HJR
Pablo Sanchez
$1s1....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com:
> I'll certainly take the opportunity to let you know that it sucks
> big time that you host my 9i New Features document on your website
> without permission, without acknowledgement, and in clear breach of
> copyright.
>
> Please remove it immediately, along with anything else of mine that
> might have been pinched.
You can check to see if the ISP where the site is hosted has any
rules regarding copyrighted (tacit or explicit) material and have the
site shutdown.
--
Pablo Sanchez, High-Performance Database Engineering
http://www.hpdbe.com
Niall Litchfield
The material has clearly been written by Howard and posted without his
permission (why people do this I have no idea), however given that the
original complaint came via usenet on a Friday I rather suspect that it will
be immediately removed, given only that immediate has the same meaning as
'shutdown immediate'. If it isn't removed of course then complaining about
theft to the ISP is entirely justified.
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK
*****************************************
Please include version and platform
and SQL where applicable
It makes life easier and increases the
likelihood of a good answer
******************************************
Jeffrey Hunter
"Oracle9i New Features" from my website (http://www.iDevelopment.info).
I want to make it clear to Mr. Rogers and to the Internet community that I
in no way indented to "steal" or "lift" his document to call it my own. I
cannot remember precisely where I found his document, but I have seen it
posted on several other Oracle websites.
Mr. Rogers is an experienced author and well-recognized Oracle professional.
Before taking the time to label me a thief on this and other newsgroup, he
should have taken the time to contact me directly using either my personal
or work email address. Both of which are clearly posted on the home page of
my website.
Several of his postings (as well as those from Pablo Sanchez) even go as far
as trying to track who hosts my website. Like my direct email addresses, I
make this no secret. It too is clearly posted on the home page of my
website. No traceroute's or other indirect methods where required for Mr.
Rogers to accomplish his goal of having his article removed from my website.
All he had to do was make a direct request.
I will refrain from quoting him in the future on my website as per his
indirect request on this newsgroup. His overreaction to this matter was a
waste of bandwidth and clearly unprofessional.
Kindest regards,
-- jeff
Jeffrey M. Hunter
Sr. Database Administrator
jhu...@idevelopment.info
www.idevelopment.info
"Pablo Sanchez" <pa...@dev.null> wrote in message
news:Xns935579D304F74...@216.166.71.233...
> "Howard J. Rogers" <howard...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:SzOja.8070
> $1s1.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com:
>
> > Thank you!
>
> Yur welcome! :)
>
> (good way to hunt down annoying spammers too! <g>)
>
> > (Is traceroute only a Linux/Unix prog, or is there a Windows
> > equivalent).
>
> As Connor points out: tracert
>
> Good luck!
>
> ps: I've had the same situation as you where a website lifted the FAQ
> I used to maintain without my permission. The ISP shutdown the
> offending link.
Pablo Sanchez
> Several of his postings (as well as those from Pablo Sanchez) even
> go as far as trying to track who hosts my website.
I think others can use the information I posted to track down folks
who are intentionally using copyrighted material as their own. Only
the folks who are guilty of this need worry about it.
Bob Badour
sources and immediately assumed was in the public domain?
When material appears on multiple sites, it generally means that those sites
determined who holds the copyright to the material and sought permission to
publish it on their site. Assuming the sites are honest and professional
that is.
It is immoral and illegal to go around taking things that belong to other
people--including intellectual property. If you do not intend to "steal" or
"lift" material, I suggest you remove all material of unknown copyright from
your website. If necessary, take down your website until you have verified
the copyright of all materials thereon and have obtained whatever
permissions are required to comply with the law.
Quite frankly, if you are going to publish copyrighted material on your
website, the onus lies on you to determine the copyright and to verify
permission by contacting the copyright holder--not vice versa.
And you have the unmitigated gall to call the author you stole from
unprofessional? You are a disgrace and clearly a rank amateur. Have you no
shame?
"Jeffrey Hunter" <Jeff...@comanage.net> wrote in message
news:157A4D97A88D7143B80...@comail1.comanage.net...
Gabriel Gonzalez
very inflammatory (and even unprofessional), you must take two things into
account:
1) Professionalism is not the norm here, so people who are otherwise
professional adults in real life, behave differently here. I guess it's
like a defense mechanism, specially lately, Oracle newsgroups have been a
hellhole of flames, and the noise to signal ratio is very high.
2) You just took a long time to respond. A couple days went by ans there
was no word from you. People jumped to conclusions about your motives and
forgot it could have been an honest mistake.
So don't take it so seriously. You did the right thing.
Gabriel Gonzalez
> unprofessional? You are a disgrace and clearly a rank amateur. Have you no
> shame?
Stop the trash talk, these newsgroups don't need anymore of this trash
Hopefully everyone reading your comment will recongnize it for what it is:
Yet another shoot-from-the-hip personl assault that was uncalled for (if you
want it to be called for, then prove your allegations true before you make
them).
Whatever... this childishness in the Oracle newsgroups is beginnign to rival
that of flame-only groups.
Bob Badour
news:HWCdnZLI_Mz...@giganews.com...
> > And you have the unmitigated gall to call the author you stole from
> > unprofessional? You are a disgrace and clearly a rank amateur. Have you
no
> > shame?
>
> Stop the trash talk, these newsgroups don't need anymore of this trash
>
> Hopefully everyone reading your comment will recongnize it for what it is:
> Yet another shoot-from-the-hip personl assault that was uncalled for (if
you
> want it to be called for, then prove your allegations true before you make
> them).
Gabriel,
The addressee took what did not belong to him, made no effort to determine
proper ownership of what did not belong to him and used what did not belong
to him for his own intended commercial gain. That's theft. None of those
facts are in question nor were any of them in question when I made the
allegation--the addressee publicly admitted to those facts.
The addressee publicly libelled the author and copyright holder calling him
"unprofessional" for exercising his own right to his own intellectual
property. Neither are any of those facts in question nor were any of them in
question when I made the allegation--they were written in the addressee's
public post to which I replied. Stealing from someone and then libelling the
victim in retribution for getting caught is disgraceful. Does anyone
disagree?
The addressee called the victim of his theft "unprofessional" without
stating his reasoning but apparently for the public way in which the victim
exercised his property rights. By the addressee's apparent standard,
choosing a needlessly public forum for addressing conflict is
"unprofessional." (One wonders whether the same standard applies to robbery
victims shouting "Stop thief!" on a crowded street.) Thus the addressee's
own choice of a public forum to denigrate his victim rates the addressee
"unprofessional" by his own standard--exceptionally so, in fact, given he
had wronged his victim once already.
The author and copyright holder of the material, Howard Rogers, had a right
to address the theft of his own property and to legally address that theft
in whatever forum he chose. That's in the nature of a property right and
copyright is, after all, a property right. It seems appropriate enough to me
to address the theft in the same forum where the stolen materials were
advertised by the thief.
The helpful suggestions from passersby such as Pablo Sanchez were just that:
suggestions for how to address the theft from helpful passersby.
The addressee, Jeff Hunter, on the other hand, had no right to libel the man
he stole from. The fact that he showed no contrition (not one bit) for
stealing (regardless of intentions) says a lot about the man's character.
That he showed vindictiveness where contrition was called for says even more
about his character.
Only a rank amateur posing as a legitimate publisher would steal copyrighted
material from someone (without realising it) and then publicly and
vindictively criticize the victim of the theft for exercising his property
rights. A professional publisher would take every precaution to respect the
copyrights of others and to avoid inadvertent theft. A professional
publisher would certainly know better than to assume something is in the
public domain just because it appears in multiple publications. On those
rare occasions where the precautions fail, a professional publisher would
publish a contrite correction.
I apologize for needlessly expressing my outrage at theft and libel. It was
vindictive--absolutely, justly and unapologetically vindictive, but
vindictive nonetheless. It also contributed noise for which I have some
remorse.
I have to wonder about your moral compass, though, when you seem unperturbed
by theft and libel but outraged to action by my outburst. What's up with
that? I hope it was only one of those momentary lapses in judgement to which
we all succumb from time to time.
> Whatever... this childishness in the Oracle newsgroups is beginnign to
rival
> that of flame-only groups.
If you want to avoid childishness, I suggest you not cross-post childish
demands for proof of unquestioned facts. Had you stopped after the first
sentence above, I would have accepted your chastisement of my earlier post
without further comment.
Regards,
Bob
Howard J. Rogers
> "Oracle9i New Features" from my website (http://www.iDevelopment.info).
Jeffrey posted the above to my private email account, and I replied to
him there. I didn't realise he was posting it here, too.
Given that he has, I will say publicly that I am simply grateful he
has taken the material down.
He and I are having continuing private email discussions on the matter
(which I hope won't go on for much longer).
Just wanted to get the record straight.
Regards
HJR
Howard J. Rogers
> 'd suggest not getting too hot about this. Although what has been said is
> very inflammatory (and even unprofessional), you must take two things into
> account:
I'd take this offline if you had a proper email address, but since you
don't...
I'd remind you that my original response to Jeffrey's original publicising
of his new site consisted of just two sentences: that it sucked big time
that my material was there without authorisation or acknowledgement and in
clear breach of copyright; and that I hoped he would remove anything else of
mine that he *might* have "pinched".
I don't see what was inflammatory about that, nor "even unprofessional". I
carefully, and deliberately, did not use the word "stolen", but the
less-inflammatory "pinched". Perhaps I shouldn't have suggested he might
have "pinched" something else... but then I don't think I have a duty or
responsibility to identify each and every breach of copyright. The onus,
rather, is on Jeffrey to check that he isn't breaching copyright *before*
hosting the material on his site.
Having failed to do so, he has a duty to remove the material (and has,
thankfully, subsequently done so).
>
> 1) Professionalism is not the norm here, so people who are otherwise
> professional adults in real life, behave differently here. I guess it's
> like a defense mechanism, specially lately, Oracle newsgroups have been a
> hellhole of flames, and the noise to signal ratio is very high.
>
> 2) You just took a long time to respond. A couple days went by ans there
> was no word from you. People jumped to conclusions about your motives and
> forgot it could have been an honest mistake.
That one won't wash. This is a 115+ pages of 9i material (ie, fairly
recent). There's a copyright notice on the front page in bright purple.
There's a copyright notice at the foot of each and every page of the
document, in rather more traditional black. There can not be any possible
"mistake", honest or otherwise, about whether the thing was copyrighted or
not. Obviously it was. The error lay in assuming that I wouldn't mind, or
that it was public domain, or something else... not being privvy to
Jeffrey's mind, I wouldn't know what the assumption was... but that an
assumption was made: of that there can be no doubt.
If it is 'unprofessional' or 'inflammatory' to defend one's intellectual
property, then Guilty as Charged. But I find the reasoning on your part
puzzling, to say the least.
>
> So don't take it so seriously. You did the right thing.
You mean, apart from the wrong thing of breaching copyright?
Regards
HJR
Gabriel Gonzalez
innocent mistake that got out of hand. I'm sure the pricipals here learned
a lesson each, it seems one person posted something without thinking it all
the way through, and another learned his work is being pirated much more
than he realizes.
Anyway, the right thing was done, which was removing the unauthorized copy
immediately. Given what's going on the int newsgroups lately, that's a very
good thing. If calling someone names is libel, then there's a lot of that
going around in here! I just hope that stuff stops happening and we get
back to Oracle.
Bob Badour
> Maybe it's just me, but I don't think in legal terms.
Really? Then why did you make capricious demands for proof of uncontested
facts? Isn't "proof" a legal term? Didn't you demand the "proof" for what
you called my "allegations"? Isn't "allegations" a legal term?
> To me it's just an
> innocent mistake that got out of hand.
Innocent mistake? What is innocent about shamelessly stealing another
person's intellectual property and then taking public retribution for
getting caught at it? Where is the mistake in simply and effectively
exercising one's property rights?
> another learned his work is being pirated much more
> than he realizes.
I have seen no evidence of that. That might be the case, or Howard may have
granted permission to multiple sites to publish his work. Howard would know,
but neither you nor I have any facts upon which to base such an opinion.
> Anyway, the right thing was done, which was removing the unauthorized copy
> immediately.
What was right about simultaneously taking public retribution against the
victim?
> Given what's going on the int newsgroups lately, that's a very
> good thing.
I am not sure what a website complying with a "cease and desist" demand has
to do with newsgroups or with what's going on in them lately. What's going
on in them lately that wasn't going on before?
> If calling someone names is libel, then there's a lot of that
> going around in here!
Calling someone names is ad hominem. Ad hominem may or may not be libel. If
the ad hominem is false, malicious and publicly printed to defame someone,
it is libel.
> I just hope that stuff stops happening and we get
> back to Oracle.
Gabriel, you lack credibility. If you wanted things to get back to Oracle,
you would stop posting such ridiculous nonsense with no return address.
Why do you so blindly jump to Jeff's defense? Are you Jeff or a friend of
his or something?
Gabriel Gonzalez
> Really? Then why did you make capricious demands for proof of uncontested
Capricious? I was thinking more like "fair." Is capricious a legal term?
:-)
> facts? Isn't "proof" a legal term? Didn't you demand the "proof" for what
> you called my "allegations"? Isn't "allegations" a legal term?
They common words that can be used in a legal context. Jeez!
> Gabriel, you lack credibility. If you wanted things to get back to Oracle,
> you would stop posting such ridiculous nonsense with no return address.
I will, as once again I put myself into a flame-ridden situation where I am
not a principlal. I hate it when that happens because 1) it fuels the
flames, 2) it ain't my problem, and 3) people on newsgroups tend to be
waaaay to childish. It is also unfair to other people since I do not take
it as seriously as others. For example, I do not know if you are really as
fuming with anger as your messages read... I hope not, because I am nowhere
near that seriousness.
> Why do you so blindly jump to Jeff's defense? Are you Jeff or a friend of
> his or something?
I was trying to not jump blindly into Jeff's prosecution team! To me it's
just an innocent mistake. He did what I would have done, which is remove
the content immediately.
Anyway, anger is not warranted. Don't get too mad. I sure am not.
Joel Garry
> "Gabriel Gonzalez" <no-...@no-spam.com> wrote in message
> news:HWCdnZLI_Mz...@giganews.com...
> > > And you have the unmitigated gall to call the author you stole from
> > > unprofessional? You are a disgrace and clearly a rank amateur. Have you
> no
> > > shame?
> >
> > Stop the trash talk, these newsgroups don't need anymore of this trash
> >
> > Hopefully everyone reading your comment will recongnize it for what it is:
> > Yet another shoot-from-the-hip personl assault that was uncalled for (if
> you
> > want it to be called for, then prove your allegations true before you make
> > them).
>
> Gabriel,
>
> The addressee took what did not belong to him, made no effort to determine
> proper ownership of what did not belong to him and used what did not belong
> to him for his own intended commercial gain. That's theft. None of those
> facts are in question nor were any of them in question when I made the
> allegation--the addressee publicly admitted to those facts.
I missed the part about intended commercial gain. Where did that come
from? I certainly didn't have to pay anything for it. And while an
explicit part of IP is the ability to withhold publication, I'm not
sure that stealing that ability is on the same level as grabbing and
running off with some jewelry. Now give that grocery list and the ink
on it back to your employer, thief! :-O
>
> The addressee publicly libelled the author and copyright holder calling him
> "unprofessional" for exercising his own right to his own intellectual
> property. Neither are any of those facts in question nor were any of them in
> question when I made the allegation--they were written in the addressee's
> public post to which I replied. Stealing from someone and then libelling the
> victim in retribution for getting caught is disgraceful. Does anyone
> disagree?
>
> The addressee called the victim of his theft "unprofessional" without
> stating his reasoning but apparently for the public way in which the victim
> exercised his property rights. By the addressee's apparent standard,
> choosing a needlessly public forum for addressing conflict is
> "unprofessional." (One wonders whether the same standard applies to robbery
> victims shouting "Stop thief!" on a crowded street.) Thus the addressee's
> own choice of a public forum to denigrate his victim rates the addressee
> "unprofessional" by his own standard--exceptionally so, in fact, given he
> had wronged his victim once already.
The ironic thing is, I never would have noticed it had Mr. Rogers not
publicly pointed it out.
I know! Let's all have pointers... "links" to published material! It
could go anywhere! We could have a.. a World Wide Web! Yeah,
wouldn't that be cool! But, sadly, where is the profit in not
withholding information? Never mind.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus. Even stupid spammers can find me.
"Bollocks. Bollocks. Bollocks. Bollocks." - Howard J. Rogers
Jeffrey Hunter
well-written document titled "Oracle9i New Features". The article was
authored by Howard Rogers and like he indicated, the copyright was noted at
the bottom of each page. Hosting this document on my site *was*, like has
been said, an honest mistake. Nothing more. My intention for hosting this
document was due to the rich, accurate and well organized content for
newcomers to Oracle9i. Knowing that this document could not be hosted
without his permission, is something I learned very recently. (Yesterday to
be precise). My understanding was that his name (and rightfully so) should
remain intact in the document and could be posted anywhere (just as would
linking it from one site to another). A lawyer I am not.
One of Bob Badour's allegations on this thread is that I purposely missed
the fact that this copyright notice existed and intentionally put the
document on my site while knowing it was wrong! Also, that this should say a
lot about my character. Well, Bob you seem to think you are capable of
knowing my intentions and my character. Also that I have no respect for ones
copyrighted and intellectual property. (More on you later Bob.)
Upon finding his article being hosted on my site (and without his
permission) Howard posted to the same news groups I used to advertise my
website with its recently added content. I don't check and contribute to
news groups on a daily basis. In fact, it was a friend that emailed to say
that I was being "publicly accessed of stealing" and provided me with the
appropriate links to these threads. After reading through the threads, I
instantly removed the document and the link to it. Two things came to mind:
(1) Why hadn't Howard emailed me personally? I have two email addresses
clearly marked on the home page of my site. (As well as the ISP hosting the
site). (2) Why were his first reactions to my intentions so rushed? Why is
it that his first instinct is that I stole the document and was going to
continue to use it without his permission?
When I need to work with people, I take every means to contact them directly
and use tact when confronting them; always assuming that people mean well.
Howard didn't think so. He assumed that I would be hanging out on the
newsgroup waiting for a reply. When he didn't get a reply from the newsgroup
(me) in a time he felt sufficient, he continued to use a demeanor that was
unprofessional, making my site look like an "underground rouge site that
engages only on stealing content and calling it his own or publishing it
with no respect to the intellectual property of the author". To the
contrary, the information on my site is my own work as well as links to
others. I post my email address and have nothing to hide. I would have
apologized for my misunderstanding and all would have been completed. But
that doesn't seem to be the temperament of several of the posters to this
group nor would it have meant anything. Much of what is happening here is a
clear point that Gabriel was trying to make. People (although particularly
this news group) talks simply to hear themselves talk or to simply blow off
steam.
As for Bob's comments on this thread. You first indicate that me calling
Howard "unprofessional" was because I wasn't allowing him to "exercising his
own right to his own intellectual property". Wrong Bob. I called him
unprofessional for his demeanor, tact and failure to contact me directly.
You next refer to me as a "disgrace" and a "rank amateur" - "Have you no
shame". Well Bob, wrong again. I am far from a "rank amateur" in this
profession. I have years of experience in Oracle as a programmer and Sr.
DBA. Strong working knowledge of Java, JavaCC, C, C++, and Perl. Successful
in managing projects and team members. You then go on saying that I:
"had no right to libel the man he stole from. The fact that he showed no
contrition (not one bit) for stealing (regardless of intentions) says a lot
about the man's character. That he showed vindictiveness where contrition wa
s called for says even more about his character."
Well, half right and half wrong. You are right; I didn't show penitence for
posting Howard's article. Had it been something I did while knowing that it
was wrong, this would not only be wrong but also reason to have the site
shutdown. I had every right, however, to libel Howard for his attitude and
knee-jerk reaction that I intentionally stole his work and assumed to keep
it published without his consent. This is one reason Howard will not get an
apology from me.
Bob, it seems very peculiar that you have "sealed by fate", "knew my
intentions", "feel that I am a rank amateur", and say I "have no character".
Well, Bob, I'm not sure what type of imperialist you think you are. I have
no idea who the hell you are and where you get off making these gross
assumptions about me. This was obviously a chance for you to voice your
opinion about me (again, knowing nothing about me), "shoot from the hip",
and hear yourself speak. If you anything more to say on this thread Bob,
pipe it to /dev/null.
This will be my last response to this particular thread. Hopefully we can
continue with the subject of this news group: "Oracle".
-- jeff
Jeffrey M. Hunter
Sr. Database Administrator
jhu...@idevelopment.info
www.idevelopment.info
"Gabriel Gonzalez" <no-...@no-spam.com> wrote in message
news:MxOdnTcP1eb...@giganews.com...
Bob Badour
news:e7410c46.03040...@posting.google.com...
> And what a lot of kerfuffle for something which could have been
> recitifed in a moment by you (1) monitoring replies to your own posts
> and (2) being prompt in rectifying your own faults and (3) having a
> sense of common decency.
>
> Ah well. Part of life's rich tapestry, I suppose.
>
> HJR
Now THAT is a mature, professional, calm and tactful way to respond. Bravo!
Bob Badour
news:91884734.03040...@posting.google.com...
Do you think Mr. Hunter expects the time and effort he puts into his site
will return nothing on his investment?
> I certainly didn't have to pay anything for it.
He gives away stolen property for free in order to buy goodwill from you.
Goodwill has economic value. What part of the commercial gain involved did
you not understand?
> And while an
> explicit part of IP is the ability to withhold publication, I'm not
> sure that stealing that ability is on the same level as grabbing and
> running off with some jewelry.
It can be much worse. How many millions of dollars worth of Microsoft IP (or
is it billions) is stolen every year?
Since Mr. Hunter pointed out that he found the document on multiple sites,
he could have done exactly that to avoid violating Mr. Rogers' copyright. Of
course, that doesn't seem as much like giving away something for free so it
might buy less goodwill.
Bob Badour
1. Claiming you are entitled to steal provided you do it in ignorance and do
not get caught.
2. Claiming you have a right to libel the victim of the theft if the victim
does not adhere to the standards of secrecy and etiquette you demand of
others but do not demand of yourself.
3. Stating clearly and succinctly that you have no remorse, that you refuse
to apologize and that an apology from you would be meaningless in any case.
4. Asserting that having experience as a programmer somehow gives you
professional status as a publisher of web content regardless of your own
ignorance of copyright, your own vindictive demeanour and your own tactless
behaviour.
5. Putting words in people's mouths to further libel them publicly and to
make you seem somehow less vile in comparison. (I made no assumptions. I did
not make the allegations you claim I made. And Howard did not say what you
attributed to him.)
6. Insisting that the victims of your theivery have a responsibility to
maximize their costs for enforcing their property rights in order not to
hurt your warped sensibilities--contrary to legal principles and to all
common sense.
Did I miss anything?
Stanton Samenow had your number more than twenty years ago:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=0812910826&
itm=3
(Not that I think you are capable of self-examination or anything.)
"Jeffrey Hunter" <Jeff...@comanage.net> wrote in message
news:157A4D97A88D7143B80...@comail1.comanage.net...
Bob Badour
> > > Maybe it's just me, but I don't think in legal terms.
> > Really? Then why did you make capricious demands for proof of
uncontested
>
> Capricious? I was thinking more like "fair." Is capricious a legal term?
> :-)
Regardless of what you think, the demands were not fair but
capricious--there is no need to 'prove' unquestioned facts. I have no idea
whether 'capricious' is a legal term. I don't think it is.
I don't think 'frivolous' is a legal term either, but it does sometimes get
used in a legal context. Would you prefer 'frivolous' to 'capricious'?
> > facts? Isn't "proof" a legal term? Didn't you demand the "proof" for
what
> > you called my "allegations"? Isn't "allegations" a legal term?
>
> They common words that can be used in a legal context. Jeez!
Are they? How many people do you know who use "allegation" in everyday
conversation? Among those people, how often do they use "allegation" and
"proof" in the same sentence?
You use legal terms. You deny you use legal terms. You claim the legal terms
are common words. Hey, you got caught in a little fib. It's not a big deal.
Suck it up.
> > Gabriel, you lack credibility. If you wanted things to get back to
Oracle,
> > you would stop posting such ridiculous nonsense with no return address.
>
> I will
Ask yourself: "When?" (You don't need to reply online.)
>, as once again I put myself into a flame-ridden situation where I am
> not a principlal. I hate it when that happens because 1) it fuels the
> flames, 2) it ain't my problem, and 3) people on newsgroups tend to be
> waaaay to childish.
If you hate it, don't you find it maladaptive to persist? If you persist, is
it possible that you don't hate it as much as you claim? (Again: Questions
to ask yourself. You don't need to reply online.)
> It is also unfair to other people since I do not take
> it as seriously as others. For example, I do not know if you are really
as
> fuming with anger as your messages read... I hope not, because I am
nowhere
> near that seriousness.
I am not angry at you. If I were angry, you would not have any doubt.
> > Why do you so blindly jump to Jeff's defense? Are you Jeff or a friend
of
> > his or something?
>
> I was trying to not jump blindly into Jeff's prosecution team! To me it's
> just an innocent mistake.
The initial act of violating the copyright was an ignorant mistake. Innocent
and ignorant sometimes mean the same thing but not in this case.
There is a principle that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
Jeff Hunter responded to the discovery that he had stolen in ignorance by
denying his acts were theft and by taking vindictive retribution against the
primary victim of his theft. I see nothing innocent about that.
> He did what I would have done, which is remove
> the content immediately.
Well, that's not exactly what he did--you omitted a lot. Are you saying that
you would have done what he did? Which is remove the content immediately,
try to excuse the theft and publicly attack the victim of the theft for his
style?
> Anyway, anger is not warranted. Don't get too mad. I sure am not.
I am not sure whether anger is warranted, and I would never presume to tell
you what to feel. You certainly should not condone Mr. Hunter's behaviour
regardless of your feelings.
Bob Badour
"Jeffrey Hunter" <Jeff...@comanage.net> wrote in message
news:157A4D97A88D7143B80...@comail1.comanage.net...
> intentions",
While I hesitate to engage in online armchair psychology, it just struck me
that this is such a classic case of projection that I just cannot resist:
How did you know Mr. Rogers' intentions when you decided it was appropriate
for you to attack him for your misdeed?
Howard J. Rogers
> Upon finding his article being hosted on my site (and without his
> permission) Howard posted to the same news groups I used to advertise my
> website with its recently added content. I don't check and contribute to
> news groups on a daily basis. In fact, it was a friend that emailed to say
> that I was being "publicly accessed of stealing" and provided me with the
> appropriate links to these threads. After reading through the threads, I
> instantly removed the document and the link to it. Two things came to mind:
> (1) Why hadn't Howard emailed me personally?
You mean the onus is on me to come up with a means of contacting you
"appropriately"? Surely the onus is on you not to host without
permission in the first place. And the onus is also on you to check
for follow-ups to posts you make to this group.
>I have two email addresses
> clearly marked on the home page of my site. (As well as the ISP hosting the
> site).
The email address is at the foot of the home page, which is not
visible on my laptop screen, unless I scroll down. When I visited the
9i New Features page, your email address became no longer visible.
Besides, you posted about the site here. You should always be prepared
to follow up anything you post here. Not drop in and drop out as the
mood takes you.
>(2) Why were his first reactions to my intentions so rushed? Why is
> it that his first instinct is that I stole the document and was going to
> continue to use it without his permission?
Get your facts straight. I posted a two-sentence message saying that
it sucked you were hosting my material without acknowledgement or
permission, and that I would like you to remove it along with anything
else you might have "pinched" from me.
Pinched. Not stolen.
And there was nothing there indicating I thought you would continue to
use it without my permission, merely astonishment that you already had
done so.
> When I need to work with people, I take every means to contact them directly
> and use tact when confronting them; always assuming that people mean well.
> Howard didn't think so.
First, we aren't working together. Second, you don't know what I
think.
>He assumed that I would be hanging out on the
> newsgroup waiting for a reply.
Actually, not an unreasonable assumption. You post here to advertise
your site. You ask for comments about it. One would have thought you
would have been back to check.
>When he didn't get a reply from the newsgroup
> (me) in a time he felt sufficient, he continued to use a demeanor that was
> unprofessional, making my site look like an "underground rouge site that
> engages only on stealing content and calling it his own or publishing it
> with no respect to the intellectual property of the author".
I have no idea where that quotation is coming from, but it wasn't
mine. I didn't say it, and it is wrong of you to suggest that I did.
> As for Bob's comments on this thread. You first indicate that me calling
> Howard "unprofessional" was because I wasn't allowing him to "exercising his
> own right to his own intellectual property". Wrong Bob. I called him
> unprofessional for his demeanor, tact and failure to contact me directly.
Tactlessness would have been posting 'Get my f****ing document off
your site, you worthless thief of other people's property'. I didn't
say that, and what I did post was quite carefully tactful. You're
pissed that I didn't email you, but replied to you through the medium
you yourself had originally chosen to adopt, namely this group. Get
over it. You are embarrassed, and rightly so, at being called on the
issue. Get over it.
When you breach copyright, the copyright holder has no obligation to
make contact with you via a method of your own choosing. The onus is
on you not to breach copyright in the first place, and to remedy the
situation as promptly as possible when it is pointed out to you that
you have nonetheless done so, however that pointing out is done.
The onus is probably also on you to stop digging when you're already
in a hole. Quoting me as having said something which I didn't say at
all isn't exactly tacful, professional, ethical or sensible.
[Snip]
>
> Well, half right and half wrong. You are right; I didn't show penitence for
> posting Howard's article. Had it been something I did while knowing that it
> was wrong, this would not only be wrong but also reason to have the site
> shutdown. I had every right, however, to libel Howard for his attitude and
> knee-jerk reaction that I intentionally stole his work and assumed to keep
> it published without his consent. This is one reason Howard will not get an
> apology from me.
You have no right to libel anyone, any time. But that's a side issue.
Unlike some people on this group, I don't accuse people of libel at
the drop of a hat, and I haven't done so regarding you. What I resent
is the idea that I reacted by assuming you had intentionally stolen my
work and 'assumed [you would] keep it published without [my] consent'.
I didn't accuse you in the first place of stealing it, and I didn't
assume you would keep it there. Read my first post here again,
please, and then dispute the issue.
Howard J. Rogers
A message has been sent.
Regards
HJR
"Baseman" <nospam_pr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_7oka.117066$0g4.3...@news2.east.cox.net...
> Dude... you should have just linked to the doc here...
> http://www.oracle-base.com/Links/9inf.pdf ... you wouldn't be hosting it.
>
>
> "Jeffrey Hunter" <Jeff...@comanage.net> wrote in message
> news:157A4D97A88D7143B80...@comail1.comanage.net...
> > All:
> >
> > I wanted to notify all new and existing users to my personal Oracle DBA
> > site, that I have expanded the site to include the following new
sections:
> > - Programming (mostly Java)
> > - Networking
> > - MySQL
> >
> > http://www.iDevelopment.info
> >
> > I also reorganized the "Oracle -> DBA Tips" section to provide Oracle
New
> > Features at the top of the page, followed by other miscellaneous
> > concentration areas. The Oracle8i/9i New Features section tries to
provide
> > tips and tricks that can be used by the seasoned DBA as well as those
> > studying for upgrades in OCP.
> >
> > Please take a moment to stop by and let me know what you think.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -- jeff
> > +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
> > | Jeffrey M. Hunter | jhu...@idevelopment.info |
> > | Sr. Database Administrator | Jeff...@CoManage.net |
> > | CoManage | OFFICE: (412) 318-6007 |
> > | 12330 Perry Highway | WEB : www.idevelopment.info |
> > | Wexford, PA 15090 | WEB : www.comanage.net |
> > +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
> >
> >
>
>
Howard J. Rogers
the owner of the site in question replied to me within 2 hours of my
contacting him (via the 'feedback' or 'contact me' link on his site, not
private email) to apologise, and inform me that he has removed the relevant
material. We part on good terms, I think, and the matter is closed and dealt
with.
If only it could ever be thus.
Regards
HJR
"Howard J. Rogers" <howard...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:bTvka.9533$1s1.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
Paul Brewer
> Just so you know, and in total contrast to, er, a certain other poster
here,
> the owner of the site in question replied to me within 2 hours of my
> contacting him (via the 'feedback' or 'contact me' link on his site, not
> private email) to apologise, and inform me that he has removed the
relevant
> material. We part on good terms, I think, and the matter is closed and
dealt
> with.
>
> If only it could ever be thus.
>
Good. Well said. As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Hunter has acted honourably
throughout.
General comment: This newsgroup seems to be getting a bit acrimonious these
days, which IMHO is a bit sad. The general idea is to help one another,
gently admonish those who post inappropriate messages, and maybe (guilty as
charged here) indulge in a few teases/jokes/puns/reminiscences with those
who will understand.
Let's take it easy, eh, folks?
Regards,
Paul
Bob Badour
news:3e933...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
> "Howard J. Rogers" <howard...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:0Ayka.9733$1s1.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> > Just so you know, and in total contrast to, er, a certain other poster
> here,
> > the owner of the site in question replied to me within 2 hours of my
> > contacting him (via the 'feedback' or 'contact me' link on his site, not
> > private email) to apologise, and inform me that he has removed the
> relevant
> > material. We part on good terms, I think, and the matter is closed and
> dealt
> > with.
> >
> > If only it could ever be thus.
> >
> Howard, PMFJI.
>
> Good. Well said. As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Hunter has acted honourably
> throughout.
??? You think it is honourable, when caught stealing (however
inadvertently), to call the victim of the theft insulting names, to deny any
responsibility and to refuse any expression of remorse? ?!?
I can think of lots of adjectives to describe that behaviour, but honourable
is not one of them.
Are you saying you agree with Mr. Hunter's description of Mr. Rogers as
"unprofessional" ? I don't get it.
Howard J. Rogers
"Paul Brewer" <pa...@paul.brewers.org.uk> wrote in message
news:3e933...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
> news:0Ayka.9733$1s1.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> > Just so you know, and in total contrast to, er, a certain other poster
> here,
> > the owner of the site in question replied to me within 2 hours of my
> > contacting him (via the 'feedback' or 'contact me' link on his site, not
> > private email) to apologise, and inform me that he has removed the
> relevant
> > material. We part on good terms, I think, and the matter is closed and
> dealt
> > with.
> >
> > If only it could ever be thus.
> >
> Howard, PMFJI.
>
> Good. Well said. As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Hunter has acted honourably
> throughout.
I'll have to disagree with you there. There was no justification for the
stream of abuse I received, here as well as in my email, when he was
originally asked simply to remove the offending material. Not exactly
honourable, at least.
The second incident (involving someone completely new) was resolved entirely
as I had hoped Mr. Hunter's abuse of copyright would have been, but wasn't.
Regards
HJR
buckwheat
OHOH - could be some trouble here. This guy's gonna open up a can of
whoopazz I can see that right now...whoooooweee!
> "Jeffrey Hunter" <Jeff...@comanage.net> wrote in message
> news:157A4D97A88D7143B80...@comail1.comanage.net...
> > All:
> >
> > I wanted to notify all new and existing users to my personal Oracle DBA
> > site, that I have expanded the site to include the following new sections:
> > - Programming (mostly Java)
> > - Networking
> > - MySQL
> >
> > http://www.iDevelopment.info
> >
> > I also reorganized the "Oracle -> DBA Tips" section to provide Oracle New
> > Features at the top of the page, followed by other miscellaneous
> > concentration areas. The Oracle8i/9i New Features section tries to provide
> > tips and tricks that can be used by the seasoned DBA as well as those
> > studying for upgrades in OCP.
> >
> > Please take a moment to stop by and let me know what you think.
>
> I'll certainly take the opportunity to let you know that it sucks big time
> that you host my 9i New Features document on your website without
> permission, without acknowledgement, and in clear breach of copyright.
>
> Please remove it immediately, along with anything else of mine that might
> have been pinched.
>
> HJR
buckwheat
"Mr Rogers" ??? Say - I thought he was dead...
Howard Rogers
"buckwheat" <buckwh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4260a1cc.03041...@posting.google.com...
> "Mr Rogers" ??? Say - I thought he was dead...
Having always wanted to say this, I shall.
Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.
There. I feel better now.
(But still not a scintilla of remorse from the original perp.)
Regards
HJR
Jeffrey Hunter
to this thread, but given the tough comments and false accusations from
Howard J. Rogers, I still feel it appropriate to clear my name as a thief
and further investigate the claims made by Mr. Rogers. I continued
researching why such a strong push was made by Mr. Rogers to have me remove
the document entitled "9i New Features" and found several interesting
postings in reference it. While I still fully intend to honor the request of
Mr. Rogers in not posting this document, I still find his libeling me a
thief and assuming my intentions as erroneous and unprofessional.
Although Howard J. Rogers "makes no apologies" for these accusation of
theft, I am hopeful that the RIGHTFUL OWNER of this disputed material
(Oracle Corporation) will apologize to me.
Awhile back, Howard J. Rogers notes that Oracle Corporation claimed
ownership and insisted that Howard J. Rogers remove the web site.
www.hjrdba.com.
The following is a post from Mr. Rogers:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl961786058d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=
UTF-8&safe=off&selm=ab9b06%24ekv%241%40lust.ihug.co.nz
Howard J. Rogers admits "Given whatever concerns there were, however, the
mechanism used to achieve resolution was simply to enforce the Proprietary
Information Agreement I'd signed which said (on close inspection) that
anything I write related to Oracle matters whilst employed by Oracle belongs
to Oracle. By asserting ownership, Oracle Corp was able to insist on
take-down."
Howard J. Rogers did NOT remove the web site content, only moved it to
another location where I was unfortunate enough to locate it. Howard J.
Rogers talks about the liability of Oracle Corporation for material he has
created:
Howard Rogers states: "I was specifically told that no disclaimer under the
sun would free Oracle from liability if it was known that the poster was an
employee of said corporation. By the VP of IP no less."
Later in the same thread, we see Howard's intent to continue publishing
against the wishes of Oracle Corporation, and to create a "sixth" site
called Lydian Third to deceive Oracle Corporation.
Howard J. Rogers writes "Depressed though I am at recent events, such
comments have persuaded me that it is worthwhile to keep going . . . The
site that was taken down was my fifth. "Lydian Third" is a musical term. My
trusty OED tells me that it is "the mode represented by the natural diatonic
scale F-F." What that has to do with Oracle, I have no idea... except that
it was a Greek mode or some such, and the Oracle was in Greece."
In short, Howard J. Rogers WAS NEVER the rightful owner of this material,
and unlawfully kept his copyright mark on material owned by Oracle
Corporation.
Hopefully these links prove that Howard J. Rogers knew that he was not the
rightful copyright holder of this material when he accused me of theft.
Regards,
-- jeff
Jeffrey M. Hunter
Sr. Database Administrator
jhu...@idevelopment.info
www.idevelopment.info
"Howard J. Rogers" <howard...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:eNHka.10038$1s1.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
Geomancer
I read the other thread carefully, now let me see if I have the facts
straight:
1 – Howard J. Rogers writes in the other thread that "anything I write
related to Oracle matters whilst employed by Oracle belongs to
Oracle".
2 – Howard J. Rogers puts it on www.hjrdba.com anyway, and marks it
with his copyright, even though he knows that Oracle Corporation owns
the information.
3 – Oracle Corporation finds out, and insists that Howard J. Rogers
remove their material.
4 – Howard J. Rogers tells Oracle he will comply, but posts that "it
is worthwhile to keep going".
5 - He then creates his "5th" hidden site, Lydian Third, and
reproduces Oracle's information, against their direct orders, and
under his false copyright.
6 – Howard J. Rogers then accuses Jeff Hunter (crossposting to SIX
newsgroups) of being a "perp" and "pinching" uinformation that he know
was not his.
Whew! I think I got it right.
To me, it sounds like Hunter has a whale of a complaint against Howard
J. Rogers and Oracle Corporation.
Joel Garry
I dunno. I don't seem to get much of a return on _my_ web page. The
ocassional email thanking me is certainly appreciated. I don't
consider the web page as a financial investment, and most web pages
are pretty piss-poor investments if they are regarded as financial
investments. And if you haven't noticed, most sites that _are_
intended as financial investments have been big losers.
>
>
> > I certainly didn't have to pay anything for it.
>
> He gives away stolen property for free in order to buy goodwill from you.
> Goodwill has economic value. What part of the commercial gain involved did
> you not understand?
So how much will you pay me? I think you don't understand the
difference between goodwill as an accounting fiction that acknowledges
things that are fully depreciated yet may still have some value (like
Mickey Mouse films), and goodwill used in the altruistic sense. You
wouldn't be an Objectivist, would you? Those guys literally equate
altruism with human sacrifice. I'd give you a link, but it would only
be good until Thursday, and that copyright holder doesn't quite get
that they could both perhaps profit and definitely be seen as a leader
and information provider of record if they kept the "old newspapers"
around publicly available like a library (which they do electronically
anyways for their hardcopy subscribers).
>
>
> > And while an
> > explicit part of IP is the ability to withhold publication, I'm not
> > sure that stealing that ability is on the same level as grabbing and
> > running off with some jewelry.
>
> It can be much worse. How many millions of dollars worth of Microsoft IP (or
> is it billions) is stolen every year?
Larger in magnitude does not mean ethically worse. A much better
argument could be made that property is theft, and I'm not gonna go
there!
Links are notoriously unstable (just look at my link page :-O ).
There is value to redundant electronic copies in a distributed system,
and in fact, that is a major feature of the web.
And of course, as we've all seen by now, it isn't Mr. Rogers'
copyright. Any copyright holder must vigorously defend their rights
or lose them, so we all lose out in the name of potential excess
profit. The legal system is simply too far behind current technology,
and is going the wrong way.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
garry.to is web page.
Paul Drake
> Links are notoriously unstable (just look at my link page :-O ).
> There is value to redundant electronic copies in a distributed system,
> and in fact, that is a major feature of the web.
>
> And of course, as we've all seen by now, it isn't Mr. Rogers'
> copyright. Any copyright holder must vigorously defend their rights
> or lose them, so we all lose out in the name of potential excess
> profit. The legal system is simply too far behind current technology,
> and is going the wrong way.
>
> jg
wtf is "potential excess profit".
please explain.
you've got to be kidding. excess profit.
yeah - and a certain part of my anatomy is *excessively* long.
at least "that's what she said". right.
you may be entirely on with every other sentance in the entire post -
but - you lose me there.
there is no such thing as excess profit.
if some poor sod was willing to pay an amount in a transaction - that
is what it was worth to that individual. subjectively, there may seem
to be something excessive - but objectively, the transaction occurred.
this will quickly descend further into drivel, but profit is a
short-term phenomena, which after a sufficient number of participants
have entered a market - competition will have driven the margins (and
profit) towards zero - to where investors will have received better
returns by having a passbook stampted at a savings and loan - and
invested elsewhere.
and that kind of economic theory depends upon the supposition that
people are well informed and are making rational decisions - and
usenet is no place for that.
in the long run - barring a monopoly that something like the DMCA can
enfore - profit tends toward zero.
$18 (USD) per CD (plus tax) does not result in excess profit. it
results in profit - but it also results in people saying "fsck the
recording industry - I won't buy any more CDs". As fewer purchases are
made as a rational response to a usurpary rate, the monopolist loses
both revenue and profit - but no "excess" profit is made or lost.
Paul
Alan
on his own time while employed by Oracle. Because he created the works on
his own time, he thought that he owned them. He published the works to his
web site. Other site owners downloaded the works and posted them on other
sites (I don't know if HJR gave permission or not). Someone from Oracle
somehow found out about the works on the HJR site. Then HJR was informed by
Oracle that he was not entitled to the copyright because of terms in the
Oracle employment agreement, and was told to remove the works from his site,
which he did.
Now, this does leave open some issues. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know
who has the reponsibility to enforce the removal of the documents from the
various sites that still have them posted. If HJR worked out something with
Oracle, and he now does own the copyright, then he should be able to enforce
it. If Oracle really still owns the copyright, then I would think that
Oracle has the right to enforce it. Either way, the material is excellent-
better than anything Oracle has "officially" published, and I hope whoever
owns the material allows it to remain available. His "Backup and Recovery"
document is a must-have. HJR should be thanked for sharing his time and
knowledge with others, not raked over the coals. So, I close with a big
thank you to Howard.
"Geomancer" <pharfr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cf90fb89.03042...@posting.google.com...
> This is unbelievable!
>
> I read the other thread carefully, now let me see if I have the facts
> straight:
>
> 1 - Howard J. Rogers writes in the other thread that "anything I write
> related to Oracle matters whilst employed by Oracle belongs to
> Oracle".
>
> 2 - Howard J. Rogers puts it on www.hjrdba.com anyway, and marks it
> with his copyright, even though he knows that Oracle Corporation owns
> the information.
>
> 3 - Oracle Corporation finds out, and insists that Howard J. Rogers
> remove their material.
>
> 4 - Howard J. Rogers tells Oracle he will comply, but posts that "it
> is worthwhile to keep going".
>
> 5 - He then creates his "5th" hidden site, Lydian Third, and
> reproduces Oracle's information, against their direct orders, and
> under his false copyright.
>
> 6 - Howard J. Rogers then accuses Jeff Hunter (crossposting to SIX
Bob Badour
news:cf90fb89.03042...@posting.google.com...
> This is unbelievable!
Yes, it is unbelievale that you would think a thief has any right to
complain about anything related to his theft.
> 6 - Howard J. Rogers then accuses Jeff Hunter (crossposting to SIX
> newsgroups) of being a "perp" and "pinching" uinformation that he know
> was not his.
Are you saying you have established that Mr. Rogers is not the author of the
material? Because if he is the author of the material (and I don't think
anyone has contested that), his name would appear on the copyright. If
produced as a commissioned work, Mr. Rogers would have given up some rights
to the material, and the agreement with the commissioning party would govern
who retains which rights. (In this case, the agreement in question would be
the employment agreement between Mr. Rogers and his employer, which I don't
think you or I or anyone else on this newsgroup has ever seen.)
Regardless, I don't think anyone can credibly contend that an author has no
right to tell someone who has pinched his work to stop pinching it.
Now, if Mr. Hunter had entered into some agreement with Oracle to purchase a
right to reproduce the work, he could have simply responded to Mr. Rogers'
challenge by pointing out he had not pinched the work but purchased it. The
truth of the matter is Mr. Hunter pinched the work, which makes him a 'perp'
who perpetrated theft.
Since Mr. Hunter alleges that Mr. Rogers' employer has exercised its
property rights to prevent the author, himself, from publishing the work, I
think we can all safely conclude that Mr. Hunter was not allowed to publish
the work either--not by any party having any copyright in the work.
I am amazed that people can be so stupid.
Geomancer
Me too.
When a writer works for a publisher, they no longer have ANY claim to
the material. Besides, as an Oracle employee, Howard J. Rogers should
not have been so rude and condescending.
It is the deceit and arrogance that bothers me.
Howard J. Rogers could have sent a private e-mail, but he chose to
post a "it sucks" thread on six large newsgroups instead. Remember,
Hoard J. Rogers did this smear knowing that he was not entitled to
place his copyright.
Also, Howard J. Rogers all but admitted in the other thread that he
created Lydian Third solely to thwart Oracle Corporations claim of
ownership over their material:
This quote by Howard J. Rogers is pretty clear:
"Depressed though I am at recent events, such comments have persuaded
me that it is worthwhile to keep going . . . The site that was taken
down was my fifth. "Lydian Third" is a musical term. My trusty OED
tells me that it is "the mode represented by the natural diatonic
scale F-F."
Given the above, and the fact that Howard J. Rogers wrote that
www.hjrdba.com was the fifth site he had taken down, I would have a
really hard time believing that Howard J. Rogers does not have
anything to do with Lydian Third.
Granted, the fellow should not willy-nilly reproduce web pages, but
that does not give Howard the right to publicly humiliate them,
especially as an Oracle Corporation employee and author.
Frankly, I think that there are no "clean hands" on either side of
this dispute.
Joel Garry
This is quite correct, to avoid semantics arguments I would explicitly
state there is a difference between what economists, businesspeople,
and the tax man define as profit.
>
> and that kind of economic theory depends upon the supposition that
> people are well informed and are making rational decisions - and
> usenet is no place for that.
>
> in the long run - barring a monopoly that something like the DMCA can
> enfore - profit tends toward zero.
Well, you hit it right there. The whole idea of intellectual property
law is to create a monopoly for a period of time. This separates out
profit from the cost of production, and ironically makes pirating
profitable. So you wind up with fairly silly arguments like "posting
a document on the web is morally worse than stealing jewelry."
>
> $18 (USD) per CD (plus tax) does not result in excess profit. it
> results in profit - but it also results in people saying "fsck the
> recording industry - I won't buy any more CDs". As fewer purchases are
> made as a rational response to a usurpary rate, the monopolist loses
> both revenue and profit - but no "excess" profit is made or lost.
Well, you blew it right there. The cd costs, what, 50 cents to
produce? Judgeing from some of the junk mail I get, it can profitably
be distributed for not much more than that. All the rest is based on
IP (and sometimes some price fixing and other abuses of competition,
of course).
I'm not saying IP is bad or wrong, just ripe for abuse. Or "gaming,"
as I'm sure Bill Gates thinks of it. And I'm also saying some of the
unintended effects of IP _are_ bad. There is an argument to be made
that the value of hjr's documents isn't in whether they are going to
be sold, but rather is in the witholding of information so that it can
be sold elsewhere - have you seen the price of Oracle education
lately? _That_ is "excess profit" based on IP. Whether it is bad
depends on the usefulness, timeliness and accuracy of the information.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
Here's someone who is saying it _is_ bad:
http://danny.oz.au/free-software/advocacy/against_IP.html
Bob Badour
And not one of them has any concept of excess profit.
> > and that kind of economic theory depends upon the supposition that
> > people are well informed and are making rational decisions - and
> > usenet is no place for that.
> >
> > in the long run - barring a monopoly that something like the DMCA can
> > enfore - profit tends toward zero.
>
> Well, you hit it right there. The whole idea of intellectual property
> law is to create a monopoly for a period of time. This separates out
> profit from the cost of production, and ironically makes pirating
> profitable.
Huh? What we call pirating would be just as profitable without IP law -- it
just wouldn't be called piracy without IP law. Of course, without IP law
encouraging people to create IP in the first place, the pirates would have
little raw material.
> So you wind up with fairly silly arguments like "posting
> a document on the web is morally worse than stealing jewelry."
Really? Who ever made that argument? Certainly, the economic outcome of
intellectual property theft often outweighs the economic outcome of jewelry
theft by many orders of magnitude. However, I don't see how that says
anything with respect to relative morality.
I would say your nonsense winds up with fairly silly arguments like
"stealing jewelry is morally worse than stealing intellectual property."
> > $18 (USD) per CD (plus tax) does not result in excess profit. it
> > results in profit - but it also results in people saying "fsck the
> > recording industry - I won't buy any more CDs". As fewer purchases are
> > made as a rational response to a usurpary rate, the monopolist loses
> > both revenue and profit - but no "excess" profit is made or lost.
>
> Well, you blew it right there. The cd costs, what, 50 cents to
> produce?
What did he blow? The CD manufacturer makes profit, the distributor makes
profit, the artists make profit and the retailer makes profit. Who makes
excess profit? Why is that profit excess?
> I'm not saying IP is bad or wrong, just ripe for abuse. Or "gaming,"
> as I'm sure Bill Gates thinks of it. And I'm also saying some of the
> unintended effects of IP _are_ bad. There is an argument to be made
> that the value of hjr's documents isn't in whether they are going to
> be sold
The value of hjr's documents is in the investment hjr made to educate
himself about the subject, in his employer's investment to educate hjr, in
the considerable investment of effort hjr made in creating the documents and
in the marketplace demand for such documents.
My own skills as a programmer have value. I have invested a great deal
developing those skills. Others have invested in developing those skills and
have received an ample return on their investments. The marketplace demand
for my skills determines their value. I own those skills. I get to choose
whether to apply those skills for the benefit of party A or for the benefit
or party B or to withhold those skills from all other parties. That's what
ownership is all about.
No part of the profits I make from my skills are excess profit. No part of
the profits other parties make from my skills are excess profit.
The profits I make from those skills incent me to have those skills in the
first place. The profits others make from my skills incent them to incent
me. Without those profits, I would not have those skills--I would have other
profitable skills instead.
> but rather is in the witholding of information so that it can
> be sold elsewhere
Of course, removing the right of refusal would destroy all value. All value.
That doesn't make the owner's right of refusal wrong. The right of refusal
is a good thing.
> have you seen the price of Oracle education
> lately?
Obviously the marketplace values Oracle education highly. Do you have a
point?
> _That_ is "excess profit" based on IP.
What property of "profit" makes it "excess" or "not excess"? How much profit
is just profit? Who chooses? You? Who decides how much of your profits are
excess?
> Whether it is bad
> depends on the usefulness, timeliness and accuracy of the information.
Whether intellectual property is bad depends on the above?!? Huh?
> Here's someone who is saying it _is_ bad:
> http://danny.oz.au/free-software/advocacy/against_IP.html
I've read the first page or so of the above and it already has too many
fallacious arguments to bother enumerating. I'll observe that one cannot
draw valid general conclusions from anecdotal evidence. I'll also observe
that intellectual property law limits its applicability by granting only
limited rights to intellectual property owners and by severely restricting
the scope of what is covered by intellectual property laws. I'll also
observe that no law is perfect and that justice is a direction in which to
strive and not a destination at which to arrive.
Joel Garry
>
> What property of "profit" makes it "excess" or "not excess"? How much profit
> is just profit? Who chooses? You? Who decides how much of your profits are
> excess?
Go read an economics textbook, where it explains that normal profit is
that rate of return on an investment below which people decide to
leave an industry. IP explicitly was created to raise unprofitable
returns to profitable for those things that the market won't do on
it's own. Excess profit is a much greater return than that
(technically, "much" isn't required, but quantification is difficult
at this level of exposition). The reducto ad absurdum is pyramid
schemes. Or the '80s. Or the dot.bombs. Or the '20s...
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/wed/business/news_1b23cymer.html
David Fitzjarrell
> > I am amazed that people can be so stupid.
>
> Me too.
>
> When a writer works for a publisher, they no longer have ANY claim to
> the material. Besides, as an Oracle employee, Howard J. Rogers should
> not have been so rude and condescending.
>
According to copyright law only works made for hire are subject to
your interpretation, and I wasn't aware that Oracle Corporation had
become a publishing house. Howard did NOT write this document 'for
hire', and, thus, the copyright is his. Oracle Corporation exercises
control over how and where this document may be distributed as it
concerns their software products.
> It is the deceit and arrogance that bothers me.
>
Yes, Jeff Hunter is deceitful and arrogant, made even more clear in
his most recent post. I've yet to witness Howard exhibiting either
behaviour.
> Howard J. Rogers could have sent a private e-mail, but he chose to
> post a "it sucks" thread on six large newsgroups instead. Remember,
> Hoard J. Rogers did this smear knowing that he was not entitled to
> place his copyright.
>
Again, you err. Howard had every right to issue such a complaint. To
call it a 'smear' indicates false accusation and libel; Howard is
guilty of neither. Jeff Hunter, on the other hand, has clearly
attributed 'quotations' to Howard that came not from his pen nor
keyboard and has done so in a derrogatory manner. That IS, plainly
and simply, libel.
> Also, Howard J. Rogers all but admitted in the other thread that he
> created Lydian Third solely to thwart Oracle Corporations claim of
> ownership over their material:
>
Howard made absolutely NO such claim, and if you can find such in his
writing I wish you would prove it by issuing COMPLETE quotations.
> This quote by Howard J. Rogers is pretty clear:
>
> "Depressed though I am at recent events, such comments have persuaded
> me that it is worthwhile to keep going . . . The site that was taken
> down was my fifth. "Lydian Third" is a musical term. My trusty OED
> tells me that it is "the mode represented by the natural diatonic
> scale F-F."
>
The complete post, as it was written by Howard:
* Not sure what you are driving at, but I can guess.
*
* The site that was taken down was my fifth.
*
* "Lydian Third" is a musical term. My trusty OED tells me that it is
"the
* mode represented by the natural diatonic scale F-F." What that has
to do
* with Oracle, I have no idea... except that it was a Greek mode or
some such,
* and the Oracle was in Greece.
*
* I can assure you that I value my mortgage payment ability rather
more than I
* value the maintenance of a web site.
*
* I have emailed the person concerned, too.
*
* HJR
Amazing that you could miss the REST of the information provided by
Howard regarding Lydian Third. But, I imagine that when one is faced
with defending an incorrect and misguided position any technique to
bolster one's erroneous contentions is 'fair game', whether it be
completely accurate or not.
> Given the above, and the fact that Howard J. Rogers wrote that
> www.hjrdba.com was the fifth site he had taken down, I would have a
> really hard time believing that Howard J. Rogers does not have
> anything to do with Lydian Third.
>
It is truly amazing what a feeble mind will conjure when quotations
are taken severely out of context. Read the ENTIRE thread and you'll
see differently:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-&safe=off&th=7a7858d10c1df023&rnum=3
Most especially the post by Grace Kutamundra, who admits to creating
Lydian Third and posting the material:
Of course, you didn't read that far into the thread, so your obvious
"conclusion jumping" is expected.
> Granted, the fellow should not willy-nilly reproduce web pages, but
> that does not give Howard the right to publicly humiliate them,
> especially as an Oracle Corporation employee and author.
>
There was no 'public humiliation' at the hands of Howard J. Rogers;
Jeff Hunter clearly posted his 'new and improved' website in THIS
forum, and clearly stated it included rather thorough information on
the new features of Oracle 9i. What he FAILED to mention was the
undisputed fact that Howard J. Rogers authored the 9i new features
material. And he failed to contact Howard upon procuring this
document to request permission to publish it on his website. That is
theft of intellectual property, giving Howard EVERY right to post, in
the same forum, his displeasure at finding his work on a site he knew
nothing about and his request for said document to be removed.
> Frankly, I think that there are no "clean hands" on either side of
> this dispute.
There are, and they belong to Howard J. Rogers.
David Fitzjarrell
Sarah Billings
> > this dispute.
>
> There are, and they belong to Howard J. Rogers.
You joke, right?
It's not about the act (copying some dumb web page), it's about the
way this Oracle rep treated the "perp". If one of the people at
Oracle treated me that way, I would complain all the way to Larry
Ellison.
I have been on this board for many years and witnessed Howard J.
Rogers being rude, offensive, and nasty, especially to beginners or
anyone he disagreed with. Frankly, I cannot imagine anyone defending
his behavior.
Bob Badour
news:b7b5fcac.03042...@posting.google.com...
> > > Frankly, I think that there are no "clean hands" on either side of
> > > this dispute.
> >
> > There are, and they belong to Howard J. Rogers.
>
> You joke, right?
>
> It's not about the act (copying some dumb web page), it's about the
> way this Oracle rep treated the "perp".
Sarah, you must have missed something important. I assume you did not read
the entire other thread Mr. Hunter and this silly geomancer character quoted
out of context. Mr. Rogers did not represent his employer when he created
the document, and he did not represent his employer when he enforced his
copyright.
In fact, from what I can gather, it was his employer's fear of exactly the
sort of ignorant knee-jerk assumptions you are making that caused their
legal department to stifle Mr. Rogers' own publication of his material.
> If one of the people at
> Oracle treated me that way, I would complain all the way to Larry
> Ellison.
Treated you what way? Mr. Hunter stole from Mr. Rogers. Mr. Hunter called
Mr. Rogers insulting names in a public forum as retribution for having
gotten caught stealing. Mr. Hunter published a long rambling defiant tirade
where he claimed a right to steal from Mr. Rogers and a right to libel Mr.
Rogers. Finally, Mr. Hunter quoted a tiny portion of a large thread of
discussion in such a way as to materially misrepresent facts, and he did
this solely in retribution to cause Mr. Rogers embarassment and to damage
his good reputation.
Mr. Rogers expressed mild displeasure at discovering Mr. Hunter's violation
of his copyright and demanded that Mr. Hunter comply with that copyright--as
one can only expect he would. He also contrasted Mr. Hunter's insanely
belligerent responses with another site's swift and contrite response to a
similar demand for copyright compliance.
Your post indicating you believe there is a reason to complain to Mr.
Rogers' employer only serves to demonstrate that Mr. Hunter was very
successful at damaging Mr. Rogers' good reputation. Should you succeed at
convincing Mr. Rogers' employer as well, you would only serve to create
quantifiable damages. Are you trying to get Mr. Hunter sued?
> I have been on this board for many years and witnessed Howard J.
> Rogers being rude, offensive, and nasty, especially to beginners or
> anyone he disagreed with. Frankly, I cannot imagine anyone defending
> his behavior.
I have not witnessed anywhere he has been rude, offensive or nasty to
beginners or to anyone else. I have not defended any behaviour where he did
so. Frankly, I can only imagine anyone condemning his behaviour as relates
to this specific matter in the same way I can imagine a rapist's friends and
lawyers calling the rape victims sluts.
While you may not have thought things through, what you are saying is,
because you don't like Mr. Rogers (or perhaps his employer), you think it is
appropriate for Mr. Hunter to steal from him and for Mr. Hunter to post
malicious damaging lies about him and for yet other people to repeat those
lies indiscriminately.
I find your defense of Mr. Hunter's behaviour base and ugly. As a result, I
do not particularly like you. However, I don't believe anyone has a right to
steal from you. I do not believe anyone has a right to post malicious lies
about you in public places. I do not believe anyone has a right to commit
any crimes or torts against you. In fact, I think you have rights to your
property and to your safety no matter how much I dislike you.
David Fitzjarrell
I certainly find it odd that you've not provided any concrete evidence
to support your allegations regarding Howard J. Rogers. Is it that
you cannot find such evidence, and thus choose to rely upon your
selective memory to bolster your accusations? Provide quotations, in
context, to give credence to your statements, else cease and desist
these baseless assertations.
Another interesting point to ponder: if you HAVE 'been on this board
for many years' why haven't you posted anything prior to 04/04/2003?
This is the same post where Don Burleson posted his script to find
Full Table Scans, a script Howard J. Rogers proved insufficient to
fulfill the task at hand. If THIS is your reference point you need
find another. Many others, besides Howard, and not necessarily in
this newsgroup, have complained of Don Burleson's 'expertise', yet you
choose to isolate Howard in a feeble attempt to discredit him. I find
that distasteful.
David Fitzjarrell
J Alex
"David Fitzjarrell" <ora...@msn.com> wrote
> There was no 'public humiliation' at the hands of Howard J. Rogers;
> Jeff Hunter clearly posted his 'new and improved' website in THIS
> forum, and clearly stated it included rather thorough information on
> the new features of Oracle 9i. What he FAILED to mention was the
> undisputed fact that Howard J. Rogers authored the 9i new features
> material. And he failed to contact Howard upon procuring this
> document to request permission to publish it on his website. That is
> theft of intellectual property, giving Howard EVERY right to post, in
> the same forum, his displeasure at finding his work on a site he knew
> nothing about and his request for said document to be removed.
>
have someone's copyrighted material on your site:
"I apologize and I'll remove it immediately."
That said, it would have been nicer if HJR had informed him of the trespass
through private e-mail, giving JH the opportunity to publicly retract it.
Having been the culprit of such a transgression once, I can guarantee that
most such cases are inadvertent.