Third Voice - Quit bitching and talk about how to stop it.
Jack Forbes
Out of all the bitching I've been reading, I've only read two or three
comments about ways to stop it. When I do see a post about it, no one
follows up on the posts. It seems like you all just want to bitch.
I've seen two good possible solutions.
First, get your ISP to not allow it in.
Second, some have said there is a way in your own site to set
permissons on who can access your own page. If this is so, it seems
like the perfect way to stop it. Just don't allow TV users on to your
page.
Lets talk about those things.
Jack
Ronald Vick
>Hi all
>
>Out of all the bitching I've been reading, I've only read two or three
>comments about ways to stop it. When I do see a post about it, no one
>follows up on the posts. It seems like you all just want to bitch.
>
>I've seen two good possible solutions.
>
>First, get your ISP to not allow it in.
Ok, what reason will you offer to your ISP for blocking access to a web site?
In most cases this must be a solid legal reason, not opinion. As a public
carrier, your ISP must have a solid reason to ban a site, or that site will
have legal recourse against the ISP. ISP's are not going to place themselves
into a legal battle when they can avoid it. One of the first things your ISP
will likely ask is: Can't you just not look at the site?
>
>Second, some have said there is a way in your own site to set
>permissons on who can access your own page. If this is so, it seems
>like the perfect way to stop it. Just don't allow TV users on to your
>page.
>
>Lets talk about those things.
>
>Jack
Sorry, there's no way to tell the difference between a normal viewer and one
that has the plugin. You'd have to have a way to monitor the viewers and see
if they're downloading from your site and another site, that you can identify.
If you think you've heard outrage before, just start monitoring what sites
people go to, and see what they say. (incidently, such a process could
possibly come under the 'Wiretapping' laws.)
Ron
PSP terrorist- D'Lan de Caresk Chapter - Executive Officer
Timothy Todd
seems to me there's one very simple solution to this.
There already exists the technology for detecting a plug in and sending the visitor to the appropriate page (flash v. non-flash, etc.).
Why not simply send anyone who visits your site with the Third Voice plugin to some site from hell !
If this happens enough times, people using the plugin are likely to drop it very quickly.
Timothy Todd
Cloudmountain InterActive
http://www.cloudmountain.com
Jack Forbes wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Out of all the bitching I've been reading, I've only read two or three
> comments about ways to stop it. When I do see a post about it, no one
> follows up on the posts. It seems like you all just want to bitch.
>
> I've seen two good possible solutions.
>
> First, get your ISP to not allow it in.
>
IM Cool
IM
--
IM Cool™
http://www.imcool.com
imc...@imcool.com
Timothy Todd wrote in message <375E7944...@bc.sympatico.ca>...
snip
>Why not simply send anyone who visits your site with the Third Voice plugin to
some site from >hell ! If this happens enough times, people using the plugin are
likely to drop it very quickly.
Stephan Ahonen
web pages. At least the authors of that program let you put some HTML onto
your page to prevent it!
Sig for a Day
Stephan Ahonen, ICQ 491101
Don't mind me, I'm just insane.
Come back tomorrow for a different sig!
Backspace a single "s" from my addy to reply by email.
ZuluNiner
news:375e6cd5...@news.ksc.nasa.gov...
> On Wed, 9 Jun 1999 12:44:30 GMT, HiJ...@Rollanet.org (Jack Forbes)
wrote:
> >
> >First, get your ISP to not allow it in.
>
> Ok, what reason will you offer to your ISP for blocking access to a
web site?
> In most cases this must be a solid legal reason, not opinion. As a
public
> carrier, your ISP must have a solid reason to ban a site, or that site
will
> have legal recourse against the ISP. ISP's are not going to place
themselves
> into a legal battle when they can avoid it. One of the first things
your ISP
> will likely ask is: Can't you just not look at the site?
Not true at all. I've known web hosts to block ISPs before. Not
e-mail, but just browsing. If it were not legal for me to deny/restrict
acess to my server(s) then firewalls wouldn't exist.
> >Second, some have said there is a way in your own site to set
> >permissons on who can access your own page. If this is so, it seems
> >like the perfect way to stop it. Just don't allow TV users on to
your
> >page.
>
> Sorry, there's no way to tell the difference between a normal viewer
and one
> that has the plugin. You'd have to have a way to monitor the viewers
and see
> if they're downloading from your site and another site, that you can
identify.
> If you think you've heard outrage before, just start monitoring what
sites
> people go to, and see what they say. (incidently, such a process could
> possibly come under the 'Wiretapping' laws.)
That remains to be seen (whether or not you can tell the difference,
that is.) At some point, the TV servers MUST retrieve your pages,
otherwise they have no method for accurately storing the locations of
the red markers.
--
ZuluNiner {dbd}
(aka Calin/Runesinger)
ZuluNiner at fuckyou dot co dot uk
S.E. Morris
HiJ...@Rollanet.org (Jack Forbes) writes:
> Hi all
>
> Out of all the bitching I've been reading, I've only read two or three
> comments about ways to stop it. When I do see a post about it, no one
> follows up on the posts. It seems like you all just want to bitch.
>
> I've seen two good possible solutions.
>
>
> permissons on who can access your own page. If this is so, it seems
> like the perfect way to stop it. Just don't allow TV users on to your
> page.
>
>
> Jack
I haven't used TV but I've been reading through some of the
discussion here and some of the content on the web about it.
I would suspect that if TV becomes popular and something isn't
done to prevent the posting of illegal/pornographic/libelous
related messages that sooner or later legal action will be
taken by someone (probably a big corp. like AOL, Microsoft,
Netscape, etc) over 'notes' attributed to their site.
I'm guessing its only a matter of time before the people behind
Third Voice find themselves on the wrong end of a court action
over comments attributed to someone's site via their technology.
Certainly I don't see how someone like Disney would tolerate
messages of, say, an adult nature connected to their content by
persons outside of their organisation. Likewise I doubt Microsoft
would ignore anti-MS notes attached to key promotional/support
pages for their products. What about if someone used the technology
to steal business from a rival? "Don't buy Product X its full of
bugs and security holes - come to our site and buy our wonderful
Product Y and we'll guarentee to offer you at least 10% off our
rival's price".
For now perhaps the TV userbase is small enough for companies to
ignore the problem. If it stays that way then who's to care? But
if it grows to a significant level then you can expect a field day
for lawyers sorting out the various libel/copyright/advertising
issues. Somehow I doubt TV the company will survive such an onslaught.
The good news is that if TV works the way I have been reading it does
(ie: it relies on the presence of a specific TV server) then this
will be a genie we *can* put back into the bottle.
Just my 2c worth....
-FISH- ><>
John Forrest Tomlinson
>Hi all
>
>Out of all the bitching I've been reading, I've only read two or
three
>comments about ways to stop it. When I do see a post about it, no
one
>follows up on the posts. It seems like you all just want to bitch.
>
>I've seen two good possible solutions.
>
>First, get your ISP to not allow it in.
>
>Second, some have said there is a way in your own site to set
>permissons on who can access your own page. If this is so, it
seems
>like the perfect way to stop it. Just don't allow TV users on to
your
>page.
>
>Lets talk about those things.
>
Why stop it at all? If people want to critique a site, let them.
And I'm not worried about the "How would X company feel if Y company
made comments about their site?" -- in the US at least freedom of
speech is a valued right.
And personally, I'd rather have people visit my sites and critique
them then not visit them at all -- but maybe that's just me.
JT
PS -- Take a look at your own site in www.cast.org/bobby and then
come back and whine "Ohmigod, they put blue hats on my site, oh for
shame, for shame."
****************************************
Remove "removethis" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com/
Cycling, Food and Stories
****************************************
Birdra
http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/20101.html
--
Sincerely,
Birdra
S.E. Morris
fi...@csc.liv.acNoSpam.uk (S.E. Morris) writes:
> In article <375e60a5.912055@news>,
> HiJ...@Rollanet.org (Jack Forbes) writes:
>>
>> Out of all the bitching I've been reading, I've only read two or three
>> comments about ways to stop it. When I do see a post about it, no one
>> follows up on the posts. It seems like you all just want to bitch.
>>
>> I've seen two good possible solutions.
>>
>> First, get your ISP to not allow it in.
>>
>> Second, some have said there is a way in your own site to set
>> permissons on who can access your own page. If this is so, it seems
>> like the perfect way to stop it. Just don't allow TV users on to your
>> page.
>>
>> Lets talk about those things.
>>
>
> I haven't used TV but I've been reading through some of the
> discussion here and some of the content on the web about it.
> I would suspect that if TV becomes popular and something isn't
> done to prevent the posting of illegal/pornographic/libelous
> related messages that sooner or later legal action will be
> taken by someone (probably a big corp. like AOL, Microsoft,
> Netscape, etc) over 'notes' attributed to their site.
Just to follow up on my last post - a thought occured to me after
I'd posted it which makes me think TV is even more of a threat than
we think. It could destroy the web and Usenet news as we know it...
Assuming some mega-corp takes exception to TV attributing notes to
it's pages (ie: because the are pornographic or because they bash
the company/product to which the page belongs) then one might assume
that it would be the TV company that would be the target of legal
action instead of (as well as) the person who posted the offending
note. Given that the notes themselves reside on and are distributed
by TV's server it would not seem unlikely that they would be the ones
called to account. Lets assume that the big mega-corp wins it's case
and TV is held legally accountable for the notes it appends to other
peoples web sites... now this might seem like a great victory because
TV could not research every single new note to see if it is likely to
cause a problem. An 'I hate Microsoft' note might be welcome (indeed
encouraged) on an anti-MS page, but not on Bill Gates' home page. TV
would have to visit each page and check the context of each note posted
--- which, naturally, would be impossible for anything beyond a minute
userbase, and thus the whole idea would fail....
So where's the problem I hear you cry? Well for years now some
Government bodies, politicians and so-called moral majority supporters
have been trying to censor the Internet by claming that ISPs are
responsible for the content they carry. Of course ISPs have always
tried to claim that they should not be held to directly accountable for
things like newsgroup postings and web pages given that if they had
to vet each message/page it would make the Internet damn near unworkable.
I have no doubt that if someone won a court victory over TV by
establishing them as legally responsible for the content of notes that
they append to other people's sites, that said politicians etc would
try to extend this precedent to the content of Usenet postings and
web pages held by ISPs. I'm no legal expert, but it would seem that
a ruling making TV liable for it's notes would be a *big* step towards
making ISPs liable for Usenet content... and if the latter happens
than you can wave bye-bye to unmoderated newsgroups because it will
just too much of a risk for ISPs. :(
By actually allowing comments to be attached directly to a web site
(rather than just appear in a sepate formum somewhere) TV is really
provoking a fight, I feel, and gambling with everyone's rights to
an uncensored Internet (or at least to determine the level of
censorship on a personal basis rather than have blanket restrictions
imposed on us by some Government body!) Lets just pray nobody
succeeds in suing TV.... :(
-FISH- ><>
ZuluNiner
in my yard.
I could really give a shit less what someone else has to say about my
website. However, I have a serious problem with them being able to post
it in such a way that it appears to be part of my site. You can post
whatever you want to on your own site. But when people type MY domain
name into their browser and see YOUR information, I have a serious
problem with it.
--
ZuluNiner {dbd}
(aka Calin/Runesinger)
ZuluNiner at fuckyou dot co dot uk
John Forrest Tomlinson <j...@notthesewordsjt10000.com> wrote in message
news:7jm08a$d...@journal.concentric.net...
IM Cool
http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/19722.htmlBirdra wrote in message <375F7DC8...@concentric.net>...>Birdra
S.E. Morris
"John Forrest Tomlinson" <j...@notthesewordsjt10000.com> writes:
> Jack Forbes wrote in message <375e60a5.912055@news>...
>>Hi all
>
> Why stop it at all? If people want to critique a site, let them.
> And I'm not worried about the "How would X company feel if Y company
> made comments about their site?"
You would be if you were the owner of X company and the attack
by Y company was unfair or unjustified... I guess its easy for
people to take an indifferent attitude when its not them being
pissed on :(
> -- in the US at least freedom of
> speech is a valued right.
Shouting fire in a crowded theatre?
> And personally, I'd rather have people visit my sites and critique
> them then not visit them at all -- but maybe that's just me.
>
Well that's very fair minded of you, but would you feel the same
way if visitors to your site were greeted with the slogan
"John Forrest Tomlinson likes little boys" (or something equally
as sick) and there was nothing you could do about it? Or if
visitors were met by a note from a rival undercutting the prices
of your business/service attached to your own web site ???
Flaming is bad enough in newsgroups - if people can vandalise
your web page as well... :(
-FISH- ><>
Jim Baker
buttons on the browser toolbar for anyone who installed it. Then when the
viewer was visiting a particular site, s/he could click one button to see
what others had commented about, or click the other button to make comments
of his/her own. Most people probably wouldn't have a problem with this. Of
course the way TV does it is bound to inflame a lot of people, me included.
Jim
ZuluNiner wrote
>I could really give a **** less what someone else has to say about my
ZuluNiner
have that damned Crescendo plugin installed on one of my machines, and I
know for a fact I never downloaded and installed it myself.
There are people who share computers, too.
Whether someone manually and deliberately installs the plugin or not, I
do not want people making additions to my content without my consent.
It is not the private notes that someone puts down that I have a problem
with. It's the PUBLIC notes that bug me.
--
ZuluNiner {dbd}
(aka Calin/Runesinger)
ZuluNiner at fuckyou dot co dot uk
Joseph Singer <d...@WashingtonStateResidentoz.net> wrote in message
news:3760e501...@news.oz.net...
> On Thu, 10 Jun 1999 08:47:52 -0400, "ZuluNiner"
> <ZuluNiner*@*fuckyou.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Freedom of speech, yes. However, you do not have the right to put
signs
> >in my yard.
> >
> >I could really give a shit less what someone else has to say about my
> >website. However, I have a serious problem with them being able to
post
> >it in such a way that it appears to be part of my site. You can post
> >whatever you want to on your own site. But when people type MY
domain
> >name into their browser and see YOUR information, I have a serious
> >problem with it.
>
> The thing you are not taking into consideration is that the *only*
> people who will see the "markups" on your site are those who choose to
> use the Third Voice software. As far as anyone else is concerned
> there is no difference to your pages. I'd guess this is for someone's
> own "amusement" as the public who have not installed this lovely
> addon won't see anything at all.
John Forrest Tomlinson
>In article <7jm08a$d...@journal.concentric.net>,
>"John Forrest Tomlinson" <j...@notthesewordsjt10000.com> writes:
>> Jack Forbes wrote in message <375e60a5.912055@news>...
>>>Hi all
>[snipped...]
>
>>
>> Why stop it at all? If people want to critique a site, let them.
>> And I'm not worried about the "How would X company feel if Y
company
>> made comments about their site?"
>
>You would be if you were the owner of X company and the attack
>by Y company was unfair or unjustified... I guess its easy for
>people to take an indifferent attitude when its not them being
>pissed on :(
>
Sure in that situation the owner should worry -- and he should worry
if people took out newspaper ads attacking his company, or told
friends his company was bad. It's called reality -- and criticism
of a company or person is not unique to TV.
>> -- in the US at least freedom of
>> speech is a valued right.
>
>Shouting fire in a crowded theatre?
You're really stretching if that's what you're using to attack TV.
There are laws against reckless actions that put people in danger.
First amendment protections of free speech doesn't mean anyone can
say anything in any circumstances.
>> And personally, I'd rather have people visit my sites and
critique
>> them then not visit them at all -- but maybe that's just me.
>>
>
>Well that's very fair minded of you, but would you feel the same
>way if visitors to your site were greeted with the slogan
>"John Forrest Tomlinson likes little boys" (or something equally
>as sick) and there was nothing you could do about it? Or if
>visitors were met by a note from a rival undercutting the prices
>of your business/service attached to your own web site ???
>
You don't seem to recognize that laws currently exist to protect
people against libel and slander. I would have legitimate legal
recourse against lies posted through TV. In the situation you
mentioned I could take legal action. (Just because someone can use
there mouth to say "John Forrest Tomlinson and SE Morris like little
boys" does that mean we should ban speaking?)
As far as TV users posting notices of lower prices, while tha might
be annoying to me as a businessperson, if true it is clearly good
for society as a whole. If untrue it would already be legally
actionable whether stated through TV or other means.
And if people wanted to post notes about my site (which includes
information on bike racing and cooking) saying "I tried his recipes
and the food was bad", well I personally would be happy that at
least they tried them. Someone more delicate might be upset about
the criticism, which is understandable. But being able to make such
criticism is a vital part of a free society. Reading your comments
it above frankly sounds as if you believe in censorship -- which I'm
sure you don't.
So ask yourself, how is TV different from other forms of expression?
I don't see that it is. It can be abused -- as can speech,
publishing books, other aspects of the internet, etc. But in a free
society such abuse can be met both by effective counterarguments
and, in the case of slander and legitimately reckless statements
("fire in the movie theatre) by already well-established laws.
JT
****************************************
Remove "removethis" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com/
Cycling, Food and Stories
****************************************
>-FISH- ><>
Shena Delian O'Brien
>
> Whether someone manually and deliberately installs the plugin or not, I
> do not want people making additions to my content without my consent.
> It is not the private notes that someone puts down that I have a problem
> with. It's the PUBLIC notes that bug me.
Well the thing is, the number of people using ThirdVoice is irrelevant. The
fact remains that it is *my* webpage they are "attaching" notes to, and this
should *not* be allowed without *my* consent, period. *I* maintain and pay
for the damn thing, *I* control the content that is seen on it by
*everyone*. My webpage is not a bulletin board and I will *not* put up with
it suddenly becoming one because of this program.
If other people want their page to be a bulletin board for people to tack
notes onto, fine. But *I* want the option of bowing out, thank you.
--
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/
John Forrest Tomlinson
<37602BD0...@darklock.com>...
*I* maintain and pay
>for the damn thing, *I* control the content that is seen on it by
>*everyone*.
I can't decide if you're serious or not. Assuming you are, what
you've said above is simply not true. I just looked at your "Week
End Theme" site via the Bobby service at http://www.cast.org/bobby
and I doubt it looks as you designed it -- it had blue hats and
comments on it. Third Voice or no Third Voice, that is how the www
works. The designer suggests -- the visitor and browser decide.
JT
****************************************
Remove "removethis" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com/
Cycling, Food and Stories
****************************************
Sally Ann Vinke
--
_.-'''-._
.' .-'``|'.
/ / -*- \
; <{ | ; Bellaluna Designs
| _\ | | Creative web design & hosting
; _\ -*- | ; http://www.bellalunadesigns.com
\ \ | -*- / in...@bellalunadesigns.com
'._ '.__ |_.'
'-----'
Shena Delian O'Brien
>
> I just looked at your "Week
> End Theme" site via the Bobby service at http://www.cast.org/bobby
> and I doubt it looks as you designed it -- it had blue hats and
> comments on it. Third Voice or no Third Voice, that is how the www
> works. The designer suggests -- the visitor and browser decide.
A service like that, and a service like ThirdVoice, are like apples and
oranges.
ThirdVoice effectively opens the entire WWW as a posting board, with each
website a new forum. I demand the right to moderate my own website. I, as
pure owner of the damn thing(s), should have the right to remove whatever
content from it that I want. ThirdVoice completely takes ownership away from
me in this sense. I am entirely well aware of how it works, of how the
messages are stored on the ThirdVoice servers, and how it represents the
pages with the sticky notes. I am not disillusioned about that in any way.
And yes, it still pisses me off. I own my websites, I did not ask to
participate in their "forum" at all... I want the option of removing them
from use. Period.
John Forrest Tomlinson
>once again, she said *content* not *appearance*. There is a
distinction
You're making a distinction that doesn't exist -- the blue hats have
a specific meaning (ie content), although text is not being used.
Indeed, there are two types of hats with different specific
meanings.
JT
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>
>> Shena Delian O'Brien wrote in message
>> <37602BD0...@darklock.com>...
>> *I* maintain and pay
>> >for the damn thing, *I* control the content that is seen on it
by
>> >*everyone*.
>>
>> I can't decide if you're serious or not. Assuming you are, what
>> you've said above is simply not true. I just looked at your
"Week
>> End Theme" site via the Bobby service at
http://www.cast.org/bobby
>> and I doubt it looks as you designed it -- it had blue hats and
>> comments on it. Third Voice or no Third Voice, that is how the
www
>> works. The designer suggests -- the visitor and browser decide.
>>
Birdra
choice on whether I want my site to participate and have notes posted,
etc. I have no objections to the software, because I can see the up side
of it. But, since I have no choice in the matter, I see a big down side.
I hear there may be a script available to partially circumvent
ThirdVoice, and it's available here:
http://nototv.hypermart.net/
Finally, to those who think this subject is so far "OT" as to be removed
from this list, I heartily Disagree: our work in Paint Shop Pro is
directly related to the internet. Our clients need to know and
understand this issue, as do we. It is, after all,(at least part of) our
business.
--
Sincerely,
Birdra
S.E. Morris
"John Forrest Tomlinson" <j...@notthesewordsjt10000.com> writes:
> S.E. Morris wrote in message ...
>>In article <7jm08a$d...@journal.concentric.net>,
>>"John Forrest Tomlinson" <j...@notthesewordsjt10000.com> writes:
>>> Jack Forbes wrote in message <375e60a5.912055@news>...
>>>>Hi all
>>[snipped...]
>
> if people took out newspaper ads attacking his company, or told
> friends his company was bad. It's called reality -- and criticism
> of a company or person is not unique to TV.
But actually attaching it to something they own *is*.
You can slag off a particular company all you like - and
that's fine by me - but spray painting your comments on the
front of their offices is one step too far.
Its not the concept of critisism I think is wrong here -
its the fact that that the comments are *phyically* connected
to the medium they are attacking.
>
>>> -- in the US at least freedom of
>>> speech is a valued right.
>>
>>Shouting fire in a crowded theatre?
>
> You're really stretching if that's what you're using to attack TV.
Not at all - I think you are missing the point. Provocation is
usually not covered under free speech rights. You have a right to
speak your mind, but you don't have a right to speak it *anywhere*.
For example, the law would defend your right to attack a particular
political party - but it would not defend your right to disrupt one
of their meetings to express your views.
> There are laws against reckless actions that put people in danger.
> First amendment protections of free speech doesn't mean anyone can
> say anything in any circumstances.
Indeed - but its not based entirely on whether people are put in
danger. Lets say a particular religious cult had a television show
(or even channel!!) in your area and you were totally against their
beliefs and practices. The law would defend your right to speak out
or even start your own rival show... but would the law defend your
right to intercept their transmissions and add subtitled captions
counterblasting everything they said (assuming, for the sake of the
arguement, such intercepting technology exists) ???
Isn't this the same as leaving notes directly connected to someone's
web page?
[snipped...]
>>
>>Well that's very fair minded of you, but would you feel the same
>>way if visitors to your site were greeted with the slogan
>>"John Forrest Tomlinson likes little boys" (or something equally
>>as sick) and there was nothing you could do about it? Or if
>>visitors were met by a note from a rival undercutting the prices
>>of your business/service attached to your own web site ???
>>
> You don't seem to recognize that laws currently exist to protect
> people against libel and slander. I would have legitimate legal
> recourse against lies posted through TV. In the situation you
> mentioned I could take legal action. (Just because someone can use
> there mouth to say "John Forrest Tomlinson and SE Morris like little
> boys" does that mean we should ban speaking?)
Indeed - but the ability to actually attach the comments to *your*
web site without your permission - does that make no difference?
So not only do you have all the hassle and trauma of having such
comments made about you but you have to suffer the ultimate
indignity of having them attached to *your* work without any way
of removing them. Now if someone posted up "Joe Bloggs is a pr*ck"
to a newsgroup he'd be a bit miffed and would naturally feel the
need to respond - its a different matter entirely if they tattooed
it in large letters on his forehead!!! ;)
> As far as TV users posting notices of lower prices, while tha might
> be annoying to me as a businessperson, if true it is clearly good
> for society as a whole. If untrue it would already be legally
> actionable whether stated through TV or other means.
I'm not a legal expert (and don't pretend to be) but I think that
it *is* infact legally actionable in many parts of the world.
Many countries have strict laws about what a company can say about
its rivals in an advert. Some do not permit an advert to *directly*
name or attack a specific rival company or product. Sure - you
can make vague comments which suggest a particular rival - but
you can't feature them specifically.
I suspect (and again I stress I am not an expert) that a note
posted to a rival product site would challenge those laws in
some way.
> And if people wanted to post notes about my site (which includes
> information on bike racing and cooking) saying "I tried his recipes
> and the food was bad", well I personally would be happy that at
> least they tried them. Someone more delicate might be upset about
> the criticism, which is understandable. But being able to make such
> criticism is a vital part of a free society. Reading your comments
> it above frankly sounds as if you believe in censorship -- which I'm
> sure you don't.
I have no problems with what you suggest above. I guess I'm just
too synical to believe that it will really be used for that kind
of thing. Given the level of flaming and childish banter which
takes place on other forums (news, chat) I suspect a large volume
of messages won't be anywhere near so polite. And the general
rule on the Internet is that if someone can exploit a technology
to make a fast-buck they will (Usenet/e-mail spamming!)
The scope for abuse of TV is enourmous. I only hope your faith
in humankind is well founded otherwise we're in for the mother of
all flame wars - with the battle being taken to our personal
web pages themselves!
> So ask yourself, how is TV different from other forms of expression?
As mentioned above, its attached *directly* to the thing it
is attacking. In most circumstances I believe that would be
seen as provocation. In effect its vandalism - the key here
is not *what* is being said but *where* you are now allowed to
say it.
> I don't see that it is. It can be abused -- as can speech,
> publishing books, other aspects of the internet, etc. But in a free
> society such abuse can be met both by effective counterarguments
> and, in the case of slander and legitimately reckless statements
> ("fire in the movie theatre) by already well-established laws.
Yes - but the manner in which this thing works ups the stakes
considerably. Its the difference between making a sly comment
about someone in a newspaper article and forcing them to wear
a sandwich board with your comments on all the time.
-FISH- ><>
John Forrest Tomlinson
>Copyright aside, I have had my right of choice taken away.
<sarcasm>Oh yeah, I forgot about that right.</sarcasm>
JT
****************************************
Remove "removethis" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com/
Cycling, Food and Stories
****************************************
I have no
John Forrest Tomlinson
****************************************
Remove "removethis" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com/
Cycling, Food and Stories
****************************************
S.E. Morris wrote in message ...>
(various parts snipped)
>But actually attaching it to something they own *is*.
>
> but spray painting your comments on the
>front of their offices is one step too far.
>
>Its not the concept of critisism I think is wrong here -
>its the fact that that the comments are *phyically* connected
>to the medium they are attacking.
>The law would defend your right to speak out
>or even start your own rival show... but would the law defend your
>right to intercept their transmissions and add subtitled captions
>counterblasting everything they said (assuming, for the sake of the
>arguement, such intercepting technology exists) ???
>
>Isn't this the same as leaving notes directly connected to
someone's
>web page?
>Indeed - but the ability to actually attach the comments to *your*
>web site without your permission - does that make no difference?
>if they tattooed
>it in large letters on his forehead!!! ;)
>As mentioned above, its attached *directly* to the thing it
>is attacking. In most circumstances I believe that would be
>seen as provocation. In effect its vandalism - the key here
>is not *what* is being said but *where* you are now allowed to
>say it.
All the above are analogies or statements claiming that TV messages
are attached to websites being critqued, which is simply not the
case.
>
>I'm not a legal expert (and don't pretend to be) but I think that
>it *is* infact legally actionable in many parts of the world.
>Many countries have strict laws about what a company can say about
>its rivals in an advert.
>Some do not permit an advert to *directly*
>name or attack a specific rival company or product. Sure - you
>can make vague comments which suggest a particular rival - but
>you can't feature them specifically.
>
>I suspect (and again I stress I am not an expert) that a note
>posted to a rival product site would challenge those laws in
>some way.
That may be true and I apologize for speaking from a purely US point
of view. In the case of countries in which such postings are
illegal, I believe that existing law should be used to take action
and not specific attacks on the medium of TV. Again, many other
media allow attacks on companies that are illegal, but we have not
banned speech, print advertising or the radio.
>The scope for abuse of TV is enourmous.
I imagine similar things were said about the internet in general,
and certainly even about the mechanical printing press.
> I only hope your faith
>in humankind is well founded otherwise we're in for the mother of
>all flame wars - with the battle being taken to our personal
>web pages themselves!
>
If it gets that crazy I imagine that TV users will get tired of the
service and stop using it, or find ways to moderate its use (eg
plug-ins to read comments only from friends or particular
commentators)
>> So ask yourself, how is TV different from other forms of
expression?
>
>
>> I don't see that it is. It can be abused -- as can speech,
>> publishing books, other aspects of the internet, etc. But in a
free
>> society such abuse can be met both by effective counterarguments
>> and, in the case of slander and legitimately reckless statements
>> ("fire in the movie theatre) by already well-established laws.
>
>Yes - but the manner in which this thing works ups the stakes
>considerably. Its the difference between making a sly comment
>about someone in a newspaper article and forcing them to wear
>a sandwich board with your comments on all the time.
It's not forcing "them" to wear a sandwhich board, it's giving the
TV user a subscription to the sly comments that's delivered
instantly to their computer. If the TV user doesn't like it, they
can turn off TV.
I am disturbed by your comments above -- they suggest that
facilitating more active sharing of information is wrong, while I
believe that it for the better. If the quality of the information
deteriorates or overwhelms the user, he/she can simply stop using
TV.
JT
John Forrest Tomlinson
****************************************
Remove "removethis" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com/
Cycling, Food and Stories
****************************************
Sean Malloy wrote in message <3764f82e.799826978@news>...
>"John Forrest Tomlinson" <j...@notthesewordsjt10000.com> wrote:
>>All the above are analogies or statements claiming that TV
messages
>>are attached to websites being critqued, which is simply not the
>>case.
>
>You keep saying that it's not the case. Put up or shut up --
>demonstrate how to display all the public notes that were posted
about
>http://www.whitehouse.gov/ _without_ loading that web page in your
>browser.
>If TV requires that you load a web page to display the link
>icons for notes posted about that page before you can view the
notes,
>they're attached to the page, whether or not there is any physical
>connection.
So according to you "browser display" = "webpage." Er, sure, then
whatever, you just don't get it and I can't say more than that. I
suppose "stereo speaker" = "music band" too, huh?
JT
Marios
Sean Malloy wrote:
> [...] Compare the two
> files. Unless they're identical, TV is creating a derivative work.
You are wrong.
Even if they are not identical, any change is performed only on a TV user's
browser and is explicitly requested by the TV user by installing and using
the damn thing. The fact that this particular change in the html code (if it
happens) is requested by millions is insignificant.
The fact that particular comments are seen only "on" specific pages is
insignificant also. The next version of TV could allow comments to be seen
from related sites - something like Netscape's "What's Related" button.
In short, what I see on your page is not what you uploaded to your server.
It's what I choose to set my browser to show. If I can propagate my
particular browser settings and/or *additional content* to anyone who wants
to get them, without messing with your files on your server, there is no
issue of derivative work whatsoever.
You don't have as much control on this as you wish you could have - and
neither the right if I might add.
-- Marios
-- mariosk (at) megsinet (dot) net
Reality
> Sorry, there's no way to tell the difference between a normal viewer and
one
> that has the plugin. You'd have to have a way to monitor the viewers and
see
> if they're downloading from your site and another site, that you can
identify.
> people go to, and see what they say. (incidently, such a process could
> possibly come under the 'Wiretapping' laws.)
On this I must disagree. I picked up TV to see what the fuss was about. I
turned it off, but kept searching the web anyway. Unfortunately, every time
a page directed to open a link in a new window, TV turned itself back on. I
did get to a page, I believe it was running java, although I am not sure,
and I got a message that TV did not support the script, or the script didn't
support TV, I can't remember which. I wasn't really concerned because I was
uninstalling TV when I got off, and wasn't that interested in it at the
time.
BUT, if a script can generate this and render TV useless, than it would come
to reason that someone who is good at programming scripts would be able to
write one whose soul purpose was to turn off TV, not just an after effect of
a previous script. Just a thought.
Reality
ZuluNiner
on until something happens to force a court to make a decision.
I, too, feel that TV is distributing/creating derivative works. If the
majority of the code on the page is my original code, or my original
code exists in its entirety, with additions, then it is a derivative
work, regardless of when, where, and who is making the changes.
And who, exactly, do you think you are that gives you the right to tell
other people that their OPINION is wrong?
--
ZuluNiner {dbd}
(aka Calin/Runesinger)
ZuluNiner at fuckyou dot co dot uk
Marios <thi...@fake.com> wrote in message
news:3762FB33...@address.com...
ezek...@my-deja.com
fi...@csc.liv.acNoSpam.uk (S.E. Morris) wrote:
> The scope for abuse of TV is enourmous. I only hope your faith
> in humankind is well founded otherwise we're in for the mother of
> all flame wars - with the battle being taken to our personal
> web pages themselves!
I can easily imagine the likely flood of hatred on gay
websites--including my own--by all the homophobes out there! Especially
since many espousing the rights of free speech, remain homophobic
themselves (such as some in this thread, I'm sure). But it works both
ways, and I and other gay activists can stamp messages to our own
liking, on such anti-gay sites as www.godhatesfags.com. Which I would
love to do! So I essentially support Third Voice as a powerful tool of
free speech. Advertisements do not fall under free speech protection,
and can, like spam, be eliminated from the public arena...as has been
done on faxed adverts.
But I am hesitant to download Third Voice, because it requires me to
turn off my browser security! Why on earth is this necessary, unless
Third Voice has an ulterior motive, to access private data from millions
of hard drives?
---
Allah is gay, Allah is good!
http://surf.to/gayislam
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Ronald Vick
>In article <FD5r1...@csc.liv.ac.uk>,
> fi...@csc.liv.acNoSpam.uk (S.E. Morris) wrote:
>> The scope for abuse of TV is enourmous. I only hope your faith
>> in humankind is well founded otherwise we're in for the mother of
>> all flame wars - with the battle being taken to our personal
>> web pages themselves!
>
>I can easily imagine the likely flood of hatred on gay
>websites--including my own--by all the homophobes out there! Especially
>since many espousing the rights of free speech, remain homophobic
>themselves (such as some in this thread, I'm sure). But it works both
>ways, and I and other gay activists can stamp messages to our own
>liking, on such anti-gay sites as www.godhatesfags.com. Which I would
>love to do! So I essentially support Third Voice as a powerful tool of
>free speech. Advertisements do not fall under free speech protection,
>and can, like spam, be eliminated from the public arena...as has been
>done on faxed adverts.
>
>But I am hesitant to download Third Voice, because it requires me to
>turn off my browser security! Why on earth is this necessary, unless
>Third Voice has an ulterior motive, to access private data from millions
>of hard drives?
>
>---
>Allah is gay, Allah is good!
>http://surf.to/gayislam
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Go back to Third Voice and read the contract again. By using the service, you
agree to let them know what sites you're browsing.. 'For purposes of
advertising..' , so you allow them to do some snooping just by using the
service.
Ron
PSP terrorist- D'Lan de Caresk Chapter - Executive Officer
ezek...@my-deja.com
Ronald...@kmail.ksc.nasa.gov (Ronald Vick) wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jul 1999 07:14:52 GMT, ezek...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >But I am hesitant to download Third Voice, because it requires me to
> >turn off my browser security! Why on earth is this necessary, unless
> >Third Voice has an ulterior motive, to access private data from
> >millions of hard drives?
> Go back to Third Voice and read the contract again. By using the
> service, you
> agree to let them know what sites you're browsing.. 'For purposes of
> advertising..' , so you allow them to do some snooping just by using
> the service.
This is all way too intrusive. So I'll have to vote "no" for Third
Voice...because of *their invasion of privacy, not because of its actual
application of posting comments to any website.
However, I expect some renegade software to come out soon, that does the
same thing as TV, without intruding on your privacy. It's just too
obvious a step for free speech, to avoid...and too appealing. So we'll
only need to bide our time a little longer, before some upstart gives us
the same ability w/o all of this TV-style intrusion.
To clarify their requirement to turn off browser security: I could not
manage to download TV, so I finally sent them a report on this. Their
reply was to turn off my browser security (to "low") just for the
duration of the download. I told them there was no need for this...they
could just have us download a zipped version, and install it the usual
way. That way, there would not be the risk to attack and intrusion while
one's system remains vulnerable, during this online installation.
> Ron
> PSP terrorist- D'Lan de Caresk Chapter - Executive Officer
Zeke
Blue Rose Militia - World's First Gay Militia - Chief Thracian
---
Final Testament: Bible for Gays Only
http://surf.to/gaybible