A Toast To The Deceased GothCode
impe...@webmail.bellsouth.net
Net for only a month, I realise that I am out of date, but that's life.
*shrug* Still, I loved the GothCode. I suppose only the supremely anal
like me can love a thing like that. Doesn't really matter; it was a
bastion of posting for a long while. It deserves a toast, in its memory.
*raises a glass of sweet iced tea in salute*
I salute you, GothCode.
*drains glass*
I wish I had a copy of the sucker, to print out, put into a binder, and
show the kids. Bleagh. Things never stay around permanently anyway.
Maybe someone will include it in a history somewhere.
*leaves*
Regards,
The Exiled, Version 2.0
"Bye, bye, the Gothcode just died.
Dead 'cause of GUI, went kerblooey, the code's been fried.
Them good ol' goths drinkin' snakebite and wine.
Saying "This'll be the day that I die, this'll be the day that I die."
-- sung to the tune of the refrain of "American Pie"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tetsab
The Exiled V2.0 wrote:
> >I just found out today that the GothCode is dead.
> ahem... 'scuse me... sorry about the huge-ass posting
8<-- !snip! -->8
Ir: http://code.goth.net/gothcode/index.html
DIY is not the same; this is ponsy goths we're talking about here,
getting further and futher removed from them thar punk roots (don't
forget to re-dye) every day.
Tis not the same *sniff* <joins in the toast>
Tetsab. (FreakyCool to see you back btw Exiled, though keeping yourself
>^..^< and {exile} straight in my head always used to be a problem. ;)
--
Sig-na-a-ture is dead. http://members.home.net/tetsab/
The bytes have left the bell-tower.
synic
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2000 15:28:29 GMT, impe...@webmail.bellsouth.net wrote:
>>I just found out today that the GothCode is dead. Havng been back on the
> ahem... 'scuse me... sorry about the huge-ass posting, hope I didn't choke
> anyone's newsreader, most of all mine, but.... well...
[...]
I really don't think you're quite aware of how angry your reposting this
made me. I've had to take a break before posting my response, lest my article
be replete with swear words.
The Goth Code Homepage at http://code.goth.net/gothcode/ made it clear that
I wanted all copies of Goth Code off the Internet. Yet, you've gone 180
degrees against my wishes and reposted a version here. What gives?
Simply because someone writes something popular in a forum does not give
participants in that forum free range to ignore the author's wishes regarding
its public distribution.
Worst yet, you reposted an ancient copy that had my real name attached and
the name and the gothcode of a third party who many years ago asked that
that be removed.
Goth Code is dead. Let its stinking corpse rot away in peace.
Flight
synic wrote:
>
> Jetrock <jetrock@remove_me.emrl.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 08 Feb 2000 15:28:29 GMT, impe...@webmail.bellsouth.net wrote:
> >>I just found out today that the GothCode is dead. Havng been back on the
>
> > ahem... 'scuse me... sorry about the huge-ass posting, hope I didn't choke
> > anyone's newsreader, most of all mine, but.... well...
<snip>
> The Goth Code Homepage at http://code.goth.net/gothcode/ made it clear that
> I wanted all copies of Goth Code off the Internet. Yet, you've gone 180
> degrees against my wishes and reposted a version here. What gives?
Well you decided to bury something that had been around for a long time,
even if it doesn't pop up often lately. Someone lamented their
inability to be able to look back with fondness something that they
would sorely miss. Jetrock gave him the opportunity to be able to have
his own copy. Your wishes were stated so as to ask that people remove
their mirrors, not that the goth code be buried as if it never existed.
You distributed it publicly for a long time, and I think you should
start by shattering any illusions that it will now vanish from the realm
of Usenet entirely simply because it is your will that it be so.
> Simply because someone writes something popular in a forum does not give
> participants in that forum free range to ignore the author's wishes regarding
> its public distribution.
Of course it does. It means exactly that. So long as you are given
credit I am afraid that once you let the monster loose on the world you
can not unmake it. Your work has spawned untold thousands of copies,
yet you expect people to suddenly agree with your interpretation that
"the code is dead" simply because it has been rendered obsolete by the
WWW!? As an author you can certainly refuse to reprint it yourself, or
to make updates, but you can't stop people from distributing existing
copies any more than you can unmake what you have made. This isn't
America, this is Usenet. Intellectual copyright laws don't apply here.
Take this as a lesson learned about the nature of boundaryless mediums
and be glad you are still getting credit.
Why bury it at any rate? If it is so suddenly obvious that others don't
want it to be so? Why not let another take the banner of the goth code
and run wild? But you can no more prevent people from sharing something
you gave away for free than Microsoft can prevent people from reselling
their NT4 disks.
> Worst yet, you reposted an ancient copy that had my real name attached and
> the name and the gothcode of a third party who many years ago asked that
> that be removed.
Perhaps you should have considered that before pronouncing it dead and
left a properly updated copy for those who feel the burning nostalgia to
reminisce over it from time to time.
> Goth Code is dead. Let its stinking corpse rot away in peace.
Dead in your heart, sadly enough. But you seem to have forgotten
something fundamental about Usenet: One person can start something, but
it takes everyone to make it stop. It's not dead until it stops, and
clearly that hasn't happened yet, staggering though it may be.
Are you going to insist that comments regarding the goth code are
removed from the FAQ too?
Let it go. It's all grown up and has long since flown from the nest.
just because it doesn't send you cards on holidays doesn't mean you can
somehow wish it out of existence.
Flight
exil...@my-deja.com
> I really don't think you're quite aware of how angry your reposting
this
> made me. I've had to take a break before posting my response, lest my
article
> be replete with swear words.
clear that
> I wanted all copies of Goth Code off the Internet. Yet, you've gone
180
> degrees against my wishes and reposted a version here. What gives?
give
> participants in that forum free range to ignore the author's wishes
regarding
> its public distribution.
attached and
> the name and the gothcode of a third party who many years ago asked
that
> that be removed.
*staggers back aghast, pale as a sheet* My apologies, Synic. When I put
up this post of lamenting that the thing is gone, I didn't expect that
someone damn well would -post- it all over the newsgroup. Jetrock, if
something has been removed by the author, as Mr. Synic has pointed out,
you -must- have his permission to post it. To do otherwise is
inexcusable, morally wrong, and absolutely horrifying. I'm sorry I ever
mentioned it.
Gack. I think I'll go back to the lurking corners where I came from and
have a heart attack. Took both feet and stuck them straight in my mouth
*shakes head* That post of it was completely -wrong-. I apologise
again. Jesus Christ.
Sorrowful Regards,
The Exiled, Version 2.0
impe...@webmail.bellsouth.net
Flight <mag...@monkeyTRAPbrains.net> wrote:
>Well you decided to bury something that had been around for a long
>time, even if it doesn't pop up often lately. Someone lamented their
>inability to be able to look back with fondness something that they
>would sorely miss. Jetrock gave him the opportunity to be able to
>have his own copy. Your wishes were stated so as to ask that people
>remove their mirrors, not that the goth code be buried as if it never
>existed. You distributed it publicly for a long time, and I think you
>should start by shattering any illusions that it will now vanish from
>the realm of Usenet entirely simply because it is your will that it be
>so.
I refuse to take that copy, even though it was offered. I will note
that it was posted without permission of the author, and I will only
accept a copy from the author itself. It was distributed publicly, and
has since been withdrawn from publication. Though there are probably a
few copies floating about, they are not to be posted publicly, nor
otherwise made available to the public. This is the author's right to
do so.
>Of course it does. It means exactly that. So long as you are given
>credit I am afraid that once you let the monster loose on the world you
>can not unmake it. Your work has spawned untold thousands of copies,
>yet you expect people to suddenly agree with your interpretation that
>"the code is dead" simply because it has been rendered obsolete by the
>WWW!? As an author you can certainly refuse to reprint it yourself, or
>to make updates, but you can't stop people from distributing existing
>copies any more than you can unmake what you have made. This isn't
>America, this is Usenet. Intellectual copyright laws don't apply
>here. Take this as a lesson learned about the nature of boundaryless
>mediums and be glad you are still getting credit.
*explodes* You pustulant refuse of ignorant moose, how dare you?!?
Intellectual copyright does not apply here? Damn straight it does,
boyo. Let me put it to you in plain simple terms so that you may
understand. It is his Code. He wrote it. He decided what webpages would
mirror it. It was a private creation, put on public display. When he
wanted it gone, he advised the mirrors to be shut down [done], removed
his own copy from public display [done], and advised that -his-
creation was no longer to be publicly distributed. His copyright is on
it, that's the way it is.
I'm not going to flame you. You're not worth the creative effort. But
let me advise you of one thing - there are no boundless mediums.
Everything has a boundary. This is no exception. Even if a person can't
be prosecuted for distributing the GothCode freely, it's remarkably bad
taste. And anyone who agrees with it should just be crucified upside-
down.
And that's my pure humble opinion. *bow*
benton the consolation prize
wrote:
>Jetrock <jetrock@remove_me.emrl.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Feb 2000 15:28:29 GMT, impe...@webmail.bellsouth.net wrote:
>>>I just found out today that the GothCode is dead. Havng been back on the
>
>> ahem... 'scuse me... sorry about the huge-ass posting, hope I didn't choke
>> anyone's newsreader, most of all mine, but.... well...
>[...]
>
>I really don't think you're quite aware of how angry your reposting this
>made me. I've had to take a break before posting my response, lest my article
>be replete with swear words.
You are being irrational.
>The Goth Code Homepage at http://code.goth.net/gothcode/ made it clear that
>I wanted all copies of Goth Code off the Internet.
The genie has been out of the bottle for a very very long time.
>Yet, you've gone 180
>degrees against my wishes and reposted a version here. What gives?
I don't understand your vehemence. Perhaps you could illuminate us on
this topic so that we may have understanding.
>Simply because someone writes something popular in a forum does not give
>participants in that forum free range to ignore the author's wishes regarding
>its public distribution.
While this sentiment is valid and good, it is also way too late.
Copies of the goth code in it's various versions are on hundreds if
not thousands of harddrives out there.
>Worst yet, you reposted an ancient copy that had my real name attached and
>the name and the gothcode of a third party who many years ago asked that
>that be removed.
You know how easy it is to find out anyone's real name based on just a
little net information? It is a trivial task indeed. Anonymity is
quite dead.
>Goth Code is dead. Let its stinking corpse rot away in peace.
I'm afraid that you have birthed a child that has tottered off and
found a life of it's own. You can not retroactively abort it, no
matter how much you should wish it to happen.
While on principle I might agree with your desire to completely
control the products of your labor, in Reality it ain't going to
happen.
So you either accept the fact that copies will be bouncing around for
the next X million years, or you let the veins in your forhead bulge
with anger every time you see it in passing. Sorry to break it to you
in such a heavy way, but that is the Reality of the internet.
May the One shine on us all, even if we should be proud of our works
not hide our light.
--
benton -- bento...@mediaone.net -- ICQ: 32861590
The Blue Citadel: http://www.velvet.net/~benton/
alt.gothic.quotes: http://www.velvet.net/~benton/quotes.html
"Okay, so you're a butt pirate in black who looks great in
whiteface."-klaatu
Aran
> I really don't think you're quite aware of how angry your reposting this
> made me. I've had to take a break before posting my response, lest my article
> be replete with swear words.
> Goth Code is dead. Let its stinking corpse rot away in peace.
I agree. Besides respecting the author's wishes, codes such as the goth code are
a wee bit excessive if you ask me. Cute for a while, sorta like watching Misfits
of Science re-runs. But I can't sit though a whole show (even if it means
drooling at a nubile courtney cox), so I change the channel. Therefore, change
the channel, find a new outlet. Find a new sig. That works for me.
--
"If you define cowardice as running away at the first sign of danger,
screaming and tripping and begging for mercy, then yes, Mr. Brave man,
I guess I'm a coward." - Jack the Mack Handey
Aran Grooms
A&R/Promotions
i.D. Entertainment
benton the consolation prize
wrote:
[p&m]
>exil...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> *staggers back aghast, pale as a sheet* My apologies, Synic. When I put
>> up this post of lamenting that the thing is gone, I didn't expect that
>> someone damn well would -post- it all over the newsgroup.
>
>The sad thing is I was half expecting it. Get enough people in a room
>and someone will be clueless, tasteless or drunk enough to vomit in
>someone else's jacket.
>
>Someone else will cheer.
>
>Yet another person will state that it was inevitable given the large
>number of jackets and the relative scarcity of toilet bowls.
>
>People are fundamentally pointless and illconsidered creatures, by and
>large, little developed from the apes we evolved from.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.
>Though, from your postings in this thread, you appear to be an exception.
>I'll try to arrange something for you with regard to a copy of the code;
>check your email sometime in the next day or two.
I'm afraid that you have lost a great deal of credibility with this
statement.
Tell me:
When you were a child, did others only play with you when you
threatened to take your toys and go home?
May the One shine on us all.
exil...@my-deja.com
synic <sy...@locust.paradox.net.au> wrote:
> The sad thing is I was half expecting it. Get enough people in a room
> and someone will be clueless, tasteless or drunk enough to vomit in
> someone else's jacket.
> Someone else will cheer.
> Yet another person will state that it was inevitable given the large
> number of jackets and the relative scarcity of toilet bowls.
> People are fundamentally pointless and illconsidered creatures, by and
> large, little developed from the apes we evolved from.
Ditto.
> Though, from your postings in this thread, you appear to be an
>exception. I'll try to arrange something for you with regard to a copy
>of the code; check your email sometime in the next day or two.
*cough, blush, look embarassed* You are a scholar and a gentleman, and
too kind to boot. It is much appreciated, and surprising. *doffs hat,
bows* Your servant.
fuzzy pink satan (also known as skerry)
>The sad thing is I was half expecting it. Get enough people in a room
>and someone will be clueless, tasteless or drunk enough to vomit in
>someone else's jacket.
let us all strive for more accurate parallels!
>Yet another person will state that it was inevitable given the large
>number of jackets and the relative scarcity of toilet bowls.
i'll re-state what's been stated already, and probably not half as
well:
Get Over It.
are you actually saying that, in a medium where i can find passwords
for pornsites, 20 different keys for windows98, photoshop, and most
any fucking mp3 i could ever want in under an hour, you expect people
to give a shit about your copyrights and personal wishes?
the amount of people who DO NOT have photoshop or an mp3
on their harddrive lessens daily, and they mostly don't have them
either because they're not aware of how to use them, or their boxes
are too slow & old to accomodate such things.
while you may be technically correct about it being yours, and how
people should respect your wishes, there really isn't any way you can
enforce any of it, and _you_knew_this_going_in_.
IOW, shit happens. get a splash-guard.
>People are fundamentally pointless and illconsidered creatures, by and
>large, little developed from the apes we evolved from.
i am sure that if you stomp your feet hard and loud enough, you could
get the one who offended you so to cancel his or her usenet message.
where i work, that's what we do with ornery jackasses: give them
a small consolation prize just to get them to shut the fuck up and go
bother someone else.
let me state my position fully because, being gawthick, i am always
misunderstood :p :
- i couldn't care less about the gothcode, and i assure you that my
vehement opinion on this subject is not due to me hoarding bootleg
copies of it on my harddrive or various remote servers.
- i understand your wishes and quite comprehend your feelings in
this matter, and you are more than perfectly entitled to feel this way
and want your wishes respected.
- people with mirror sites should indeed remove them at your request
because the concept and code most assuredly has your name upon it.
but frankly, mr. synic, you aren't ever going to get what you want,
which is your frankenstein creation to pass on quietly in the night,
never to be seen nor heard from again.
you know it, i know it, we all know it.
the only forseeable way to remove the goth.code from your internet
experience is to simply cease to *have* an internet experience.
carrie
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://ossuary.net/~skerrella/ - satan's in the la-BOR-a-tory!
delete the thpam to reply. :P
Flight
synic wrote:
>
> Flight <mag...@monkeytrapbrains.net> wrote:
> > [...] Your wishes were stated so as to ask that people remove
> > their mirrors, not that the goth code be buried as if it never existed.
>
> "Goth Code reached its use-by date. [...] But its time has passed. [...]
> "If I've missed locating your mirror and contacting you personally, I'm
> "asking you now to remove Goth.Code from your server. [...] I don't
> "recommend the creation of new Goth Codes. [...] Goth Code was and is (C)
> "Synic, 1995-1999."
>
> Just what in there is so incomprehensible?
The specific request made publicly (i.e. an announcement directing
people to your website) would have been a good start. Secondly, it
might have helped to specifically state that you don't want people to be
sharing the code any more. Looking back I can see now the Use-by-date
comment and take it more literally, rather than as a quip remark.
However, you haven't taken adequate steps to prevent people from
casually sharing it amongst friends, namely by specifically asking them
not to.
>
> > [...] Intellectual copyright laws don't apply here.
> > Take this as a lesson learned about the nature of boundaryless mediums
> > and be glad you are still getting credit.
>
> You're a rank idiot. <snip>
You mistake my meaning. I am not saying that there aren't laws to the
effect, nor am I saying that anyone should have the right to publish
anyones material. Merely that Usenet and the web are far too large to
enforce such a decree and people will out of ignorance and deliberate
action defy your actions. I certainly don't like it when I find my
material used on other web sites, which is why I don't have one of my
own at the moment, but when I start one up again I will understand that
those are the risks.
>
> > Are you going to insist that comments regarding the goth code are
> > removed from the FAQ too?
>
> The FAQ pleasantly guides people to the message that the Goth Code is
> no longer with us and that I have asked for it to be removed from all
> servers. It therefore assists me while also answering the question,
> "Where's Goth Code and why has it been taken off line?" A mutually
> useful thing.
Point.
Flight
Flight
synic wrote:
>
> Any other WWW sites holding copies are doing so illegally (and yes, that
> will probably include Deja if their databases go back that far these
> days).
This is proof that you've gone off your rocker. This is a public forum
and your goth code was posted to a public forum. *Anyone* who chooses
to keep a record of such a forum can do so and share it with whomever
they see fit. They can even quote from it. If you wanted to keep the
whole thing a little in joke between friends you were fully empowered to
do just that, but it's far too late for you to start crying now. Hell,
even the Pamela Lee videos were declared by a US judge to be in the
public domain since she had gone on Howard Stern to complain about
them. So it seems that both the facts and the law are against you. No
one is keeping you from crawling back under your rock and pretending
that the big bad world doesn't exist, just don't think you can strike
your stains from it like Ramses II struck Moses' name from the lineage
of Pharaohs.
> >>Goth Code is dead. Let its stinking corpse rot away in peace.
>
> > I'm afraid that you have birthed a child that has tottered off and
> > found a life of it's own. You can not retroactively abort it, no
> > matter how much you should wish it to happen.
>
> Gun. Load. Shoot. Life aborted.
Oh, look at all those heads. Look like you've birthed a hydra.
Flight
Jetrock
>Jetrock <jetrock@remove_me.emrl.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Feb 2000 15:28:29 GMT, impe...@webmail.bellsouth.net wrote:
>>>I just found out today that the GothCode is dead. Havng been back on the
>
>> ahem... 'scuse me... sorry about the huge-ass posting, hope I didn't choke
>> anyone's newsreader, most of all mine, but.... well...
>[...]
>
>made me. I've had to take a break before posting my response, lest my article
>be replete with swear words.
>
pan-GothCode-icide. So sue me for being only a periodical poster to a.g.
over the past five or six years.
>The Goth Code Homepage at http://code.goth.net/gothcode/ made it clear that
>I wanted all copies of Goth Code off the Internet. Yet, you've gone 180
>degrees against my wishes and reposted a version here. What gives?
>
I didn't know about this page, your wishes, or your request to remove the
copies from the Internet. I also don't know what gives you the right to
request universal destruction of code that was freely distributed and is
therefore no longer in your direct control.
>Simply because someone writes something popular in a forum does not give
>participants in that forum free range to ignore the author's wishes regarding
>its public distribution.
Actually, yes, as a matter of fact, it does! You spawned it, now deal with
it. It'll probably come around to haunt you for decades to come. You can
accept it, or you can get pissed about it, but you can't stop it.
>Worst yet, you reposted an ancient copy that had my real name attached and
>the name and the gothcode of a third party who many years ago asked that
>that be removed.
Well, it was the latest copy that I had, with your real name attached by
you at the time of posting, and I had no awareness of any third party's
desire to be removed. If you have a more recent copy, I'd be happy to
repost the final version with the name deleted.
But since you don't want ANY copy of ANY version of the GothCode to exist
on the Internet ANYWHERE, it seems fairly moot which version of which
revision of which post of your I repost, since any of them would probably
piss you off.
>Goth Code is dead. Let its stinking corpse rot away in peace.
>
That code which is not dead
May not eternal lie,
Yet with stranger aeons,
Even DOS may die...
--
--Rev. Jetrock, founder of UBERKUNST, Freelance Digital Appliance Healer
http://emrl.com/~jetrock for UBERKUNST and MONSTER ATTACK information!
Jetrock
>
>I refuse to take that copy, even though it was offered. I will note
>that it was posted without permission of the author, and I will only
>accept a copy from the author itself.
Well, foo. If you didn't want a copy, why did you lament in a public forum
about not having one? I try to be a Nice Guy and you get all huffy.
>*explodes* You pustulant refuse of ignorant moose, how dare you?!?
>Intellectual copyright does not apply here? Damn straight it does,
>boyo. Let me put it to you in plain simple terms so that you may
>understand. It is his Code. He wrote it. He decided what webpages would
>mirror it. It was a private creation, put on public display. When he
>wanted it gone, he advised the mirrors to be shut down [done], removed
>his own copy from public display [done], and advised that -his-
>creation was no longer to be publicly distributed. His copyright is on
>it, that's the way it is.
That's what the <DELETE> key is for. Just because he demands the utter
suppression of the GothCode doesn't mean I have to care.
>I'm not going to flame you. You're not worth the creative effort. But
>let me advise you of one thing - there are no boundless mediums.
>Everything has a boundary.
Everything does, in fact, have a boundary. However, the boundary around
everything is infinitely small, since everything takes up an infinite
amount of space and therefore doesn't have any room left to put a boundary
around it. Therefore, the boundary around everything is an infinitely
teeny dot, and there is a big flashing THIS IS THE BOUNDARY AROUND
EVERYTHING sign pointing to it so people know what it is and don't
accidentally step on it or something, not that anything would happen if
they did because it's so infinitesimally small.
This is no exception. Even if a person can't
>be prosecuted for distributing the GothCode freely, it's remarkably bad
>taste. And anyone who agrees with it should just be crucified upside-
>down.
Whoooa! That makes me dizzy! I'm all crucified 'n stuff!
Sheesh, you try to do a guy a favor and end up starting a jihad...
Jetrock
>
>"Goth Code reached its use-by date. [...] But its time has passed. [...]
>"If I've missed locating your mirror and contacting you personally, I'm
>"asking you now to remove Goth.Code from your server. [...] I don't
>"recommend the creation of new Goth Codes. [...] Goth Code was and is (C)
>"Synic, 1995-1999."
>
>Just what in there is so incomprehensible?
>
remove the GothCode mirrors from their web pages and servers, not personal
copies, printouts, etcetera. While you didn't recommend the creation of
new Goth Codes, you didn't explicitly prohibit them either. And it's not
1999 anymore, so your copyright has expired.
>True, there will always be fuckheads, won't there. And those who sympathise
>with them.
Hm. Personal attacks, on me and my brother.
How.....
Quaint.
>You're a rank idiot. Unless you're planning on taking up residence in one
>of the few countries in the world that hasn't signed the Berne Convention,
>Copyright laws most certainly do apply. Sitting at home and posting
>Copyright material to a news server in the Soloman Islands still counts
>as you breaching Copyright from within your own country.
first of all, this isn't a country, this is Usenet. Find Usenet on a map.
second, I'm not making money off your work or trying to bill it as my own,
I'm merely reposting it to the same public forum that I snagged it from
years ago. You are perfectly free to be unhappy with that.
>The FAQ pleasantly guides people to the message that the Goth Code is
>no longer with us and that I have asked for it to be removed from all
>servers. It therefore assists me while also answering the question,
>"Where's Goth Code and why has it been taken off line?" A mutually
>useful thing.
Well, hey, no problem them. My computer's not a server. It's a client.
antiopa
>exil...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> *staggers back aghast, pale as a sheet* My apologies, Synic. When I put
>> up this post of lamenting that the thing is gone, I didn't expect that
>> someone damn well would -post- it all over the newsgroup.
>
>and someone will be clueless, tasteless or drunk enough to vomit in
>someone else's jacket.
>
>
<snip>
And here I was just going to point out that the GothEncoder page still
works and says nothing about the Code going byebye. Granted, it doesn't
give you the complete code, but it encodes and decodes.
*shrug*
I never even got the post that had the complete code in it.
-- Bex, who rather liked GothCode, even if hers is now permanently stuck in
time
Dance without sleeping, I'll dance til I'm numb.
Dance til I think I can overcome.
~M. Etheridge
LordKumar
<sy...@locust.paradox.net.au> snarled:
> snip
> The Goth Code Homepage at
> http://code.goth.net/gothcode/ made it clear that
> I wanted all copies of Goth Code off the Internet.
> Yet, you've gone 180
> degrees against my wishes and reposted a version here.
> What gives?
> forum does not give
> participants in that forum free range to ignore the
> author's wishes regarding
> its public distribution.
> real name attached and
> the name and the gothcode of a third party who many
> years ago asked that
> that be removed.
> peace.
WTF is your reason for wanting this eensy bit of text
deleted from the universe? While I think it's too much work
to try to implement, I certainly found it an entertaining
read. Your work provided me with a good 10 minutes of
amusement.
Why not retire it to Bill-Of-Rights status, something read
by the interested, but not used by anyone?
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
synic
> [...] Your wishes were stated so as to ask that people remove
> their mirrors, not that the goth code be buried as if it never existed.
"Goth Code reached its use-by date. [...] But its time has passed. [...]
"If I've missed locating your mirror and contacting you personally, I'm
"asking you now to remove Goth.Code from your server. [...] I don't
"recommend the creation of new Goth Codes. [...] Goth Code was and is (C)
"Synic, 1995-1999."
Just what in there is so incomprehensible?
> You distributed it publicly for a long time, and I think you should
> start by shattering any illusions that it will now vanish from the realm
> of Usenet entirely simply because it is your will that it be so.
True, there will always be fuckheads, won't there. And those who sympathise
with them.
> [...] Intellectual copyright laws don't apply here.
> Take this as a lesson learned about the nature of boundaryless mediums
> and be glad you are still getting credit.
You're a rank idiot. Unless you're planning on taking up residence in one
of the few countries in the world that hasn't signed the Berne Convention,
Copyright laws most certainly do apply. Sitting at home and posting
Copyright material to a news server in the Soloman Islands still counts
as you breaching Copyright from within your own country.
> Are you going to insist that comments regarding the goth code are
> removed from the FAQ too?
The FAQ pleasantly guides people to the message that the Goth Code is
synic
> *staggers back aghast, pale as a sheet* My apologies, Synic. When I put
> up this post of lamenting that the thing is gone, I didn't expect that
> someone damn well would -post- it all over the newsgroup.
The sad thing is I was half expecting it. Get enough people in a room
and someone will be clueless, tasteless or drunk enough to vomit in
someone else's jacket.
Someone else will cheer.
Yet another person will state that it was inevitable given the large
number of jackets and the relative scarcity of toilet bowls.
People are fundamentally pointless and illconsidered creatures, by and
large, little developed from the apes we evolved from.
Though, from your postings in this thread, you appear to be an exception.
synic
> On 9 Feb 2000 15:24:22 -0800, synic <sy...@locust.paradox.net.au>
> wrote:
>>I wanted all copies of Goth Code off the Internet.
> The genie has been out of the bottle for a very very long time.
Bollocks. By and large, it is off the WWW. Yes, I have indeed spent time
tracking down web site owners and contacting systems administrators where
necessary.
Any other WWW sites holding copies are doing so illegally (and yes, that
will probably include Deja if their databases go back that far these
days).
>>Yet, you've gone 180
>>degrees against my wishes and reposted a version here. What gives?
> I don't understand your vehemence. Perhaps you could illuminate us on
> this topic so that we may have understanding.
Completely irrelevant.
> While this sentiment is valid and good, it is also way too late.
> Copies of the goth code in it's various versions are on hundreds if
> not thousands of harddrives out there.
Completely irrelevant. Provided they're on personal hardrives and are
not redistributed to third parties, I'm happy with that.
>>Goth Code is dead. Let its stinking corpse rot away in peace.
> I'm afraid that you have birthed a child that has tottered off and
> found a life of it's own. You can not retroactively abort it, no
> matter how much you should wish it to happen.
Gun. Load. Shoot. Life aborted.
I'm sure that Terri Tickle must be very happy to see the effect that
her ethos has had in this newsgroup. All these people jumping up to
condone copyright violation and all. Gosh, she must be proud of you.
synic
>>exil...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>> *staggers back aghast, pale as a sheet* My apologies, Synic. When I put
>>> up this post of lamenting that the thing is gone, I didn't expect that
>>> someone damn well would -post- it all over the newsgroup.
[...]
>>Though, from your postings in this thread, you appear to be an exception.
>>I'll try to arrange something for you with regard to a copy of the code;
>>check your email sometime in the next day or two.
> I'm afraid that you have lost a great deal of credibility with this
> statement.
*laughs* According to your prior postings, I didn't have credibility to
start with! Make up your mind, son. Otherwise people will assume you
write solely for dramatic effect ;-)
exiledv20 has convinced me that he will not redistribute it when I email
him a copy. It seems to mean a bit to him. His postings on this topic
lead me to have no doubt in his sincerity. I see no loss of face in
this whatsoever.
> When you were a child, did others only play with you when you
> threatened to take your toys and go home?
Oh no! My secret has been revealed.
Benton, you're quite welcome to whatever pride and ego you get from
being an oh-so-well'ard alt.gothic regular and whatever prestige you
believe comes with it. Don't expect any but the syncophants to
quiver in horror at the cliche come-backs, though.
synic
> [...] I also don't know what gives you the right to
> request universal destruction of code that was freely distributed and is
> therefore no longer in your direct control.
Copyright notice. Have a nice day.
synic
> On 10 Feb 2000 00:13:43 -0800, synic <sy...@locust.paradox.net.au> wrote:
>>"Synic, 1995-1999."
> [...] And it's not 1999 anymore, so your copyright has expired.
Which cornflakes packet are you getting your understanding of Copyright law
from? Depending on the interpretation, it will be either 2029 or 2049 before
my Copyright expires, perhaps even 2099. The numeral after the Copyright
symbol states the year of the beginning of the Copyright.
>>Copyright laws most certainly do apply. Sitting at home and posting
>>Copyright material to a news server in the Soloman Islands still counts
>>as you breaching Copyright from within your own country.
> first of all, this isn't a country, this is Usenet. Find Usenet on a map.
You're posting from the USA (I'm assuming), a signatory to the Berne
Convention.
> second, I'm not making money off your work or trying to bill it as my own,
> I'm merely reposting it to the same public forum that I snagged it from
> years ago.
It's utterly irrelevant where I posted it, because I happen to be the
Copyright holder. I get to post it, or not post it, to whatever media will
accept it.
Usenet is a media through which people transport messages. Those messages
are equally subject to the laws of the land whatever transport mechanism
is employed. People have been successfully sued for defamation for their
Usenet postings (yes, people have sued people from other countries).
The days when Usenet was considered irrelevant (and thus not really subject
to the law) are long, long gone. Just so you know, the Berlin Wall fell too.
Had my Copyright rights not existed, and there not been a forum where I had
no reason to doubt that my Copyright would be honoured, Goth Code would
not have made it past Version 1.0-Alpha. Trust me on that. It's just sad and
unfortunate to see how the selling of the Internet as a product has seen
a plummet in the median intelligence of Usenet groups.
synic
> synic <sy...@locust.paradox.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>I really don't think you're quite aware of how angry your reposting this
>>made me. I've had to take a break before posting my response, lest my article
>>be replete with swear words.
> Well, according to the copyright notice included with the Code:
> "As with all postings to USENET, this article is copyright worldwide.
Indeed.
> I don't mind you printing this out for personal use, however, if you wish
> to distribute this article in any other means than by reposting it to
> USENET, please email me beforehand to obtain permission.
More a statement of feeling at the time of writing (1996). And lets be
honest: back then, I would have been asked regardless.
Considering that the posting which prompted the Copyright violation
clearly stated that I had taken Goth Code off the net, and that the Goth
Code Homepage (as indeed even listed in the FAQ) stated that I wanted
it removed from all servers, you don't suppose that feeling might have
changed?
> Copyright is
> assumed on the Version 1.0 BETA, Version 1.1, and Version 1.1A."
Indeed.
> So, as I understand it, reposting it to USENET is not a violation of the
> copyright *you* included with the code.
I see that Terri Tickle has taught this newsgroup well during her long
campaigns: look for all the fine print possible in order to maximise the
benefit. Interesting to see common courtesy go out the window and have
the act of throwing it there be supported so voluminously.
Canticle
benton the consolation prize wrote:
> I don't understand your vehemence. Perhaps you could illuminate us on
> this topic so that we may have understanding.
I understand it fully.
An author who does not defend his or her creative works when they
realize copyright has been violated can lose that creation.
Period.
Jeff-boy
Canticle
Flight wrote:
> You mistake my meaning. I am not saying that there aren't laws to the
> effect, nor am I saying that anyone should have the right to publish
> anyones material. Merely that Usenet and the web are far too large to
> enforce such a decree and people will out of ignorance and deliberate
> action defy your actions. I certainly don't like it when I find my
> material used on other web sites, which is why I don't have one of my
> own at the moment, but when I start one up again I will understand that
> those are the risks.
They may be too large to enforce, however the author has a legal
requirement to make every reasonable attempt to enforce their copyright,
lest they use it.
I myself had to deal with a situation much like this while I was writing
for The Duelist, where an individual who shall forever remain nameless
and dead in my eyes decided it would be a cute idea to compile
everything I had ever written and place it for free download on their
FTP site without seeking my permission.
Several other people had been granted my permission to do so and I
maintained a nice correspondence with them all, however said fucktard
was rather surprised when I walked into his store in Toronto and told
him to fucking stop in person.
Writers live by their words and they must protect their intellectual
property. If it can be demonstrated that they failed to make an attempt
to do so, they can lose control over their creative works as it can be
argued that what they did was intended for public distribution.
It has already been successfully put forward that even posts on the
Internet can be considered intellectual property, but since the effort
of defending the copyright of each and every single post you make to a
newsgroup can be prohibitive and quite useless, few people do.
Some have, however, and they have done so successfully. Much to my
amusement, since it seems a large waste of time, but the point is they
did it, and did so successfully.
Jeff-boy
Sheila Marie
synic <sy...@locust.paradox.net.au> wrote in message
>
> Goth Code is dead. Let its stinking corpse rot away in peace.
>
it kind of became redundant. *shrugs*
Sheila Marie, who actually did the thing once, then threw it away because
she couldn't figure out a good use for the mess of characters she was left
with.....
Canticle
Flight wrote:
> This is proof that you've gone off your rocker. This is a public forum
> and your goth code was posted to a public forum. *Anyone* who chooses
> to keep a record of such a forum can do so and share it with whomever
> they see fit. They can even quote from it.
And if they do so in any manner after ignoring a posted copyright notice
(and you will notice any creative works I post here usually contain one)
they can be in for a world of legal hurt should the author choose to
take action.
And any author who knows the copyright laws will do so much in the same
way synic has, because if you fail to do so, you can lose control of
your creation in the eyes of the law.
If anyone were ever to repost any one of my stories without my
permission, they wouldn't hear from me, they'd be hearing from my
lawyer.
> even the Pamela Lee videos were declared by a US judge to be in the
> public domain since she had gone on Howard Stern to complain about
> them. So it seems that both the facts and the law are against you. No
Pam and Tommy made a cardinal error of not making an effort to do
anything about it until it was too late and it was well into
distribution. It was successfully argued that if they didn't want it in
the public domain, why did they wait so long to complain about it?
An author of any copywritten work is expected to defend the copyright or
lose it. They failed to defend it.
Jeff-boy
exil...@my-deja.com
jetrock@REMOVE_ME.emrl.com (Jetrock) wrote:
> Well, foo. If you didn't want a copy, why did you lament in a public
>forum about not having one? I try to be a Nice Guy and you get all
>huffy.
I wasn't lamenting about not having a copy. I was lamenting that it's
dead. Wanting a copy and mourning the lost are two different shades of
gray.....
> That's what the <DELETE> key is for. Just because he demands the utter
> suppression of the GothCode doesn't mean I have to care.
Two words: legal copyright.
> Everything does, in fact, have a boundary. However, the boundary if
[snips metaphysical blather]
> they did because it's so infinitesimally small.
Metaphysics do not compute. I can only understand hard material
realities, like laws and regulations. Thank you for your cooperation.
> Whoooa! That makes me dizzy! I'm all crucified 'n stuff!
> Sheesh, you try to do a guy a favor and end up starting a jihad...
Not a jihad, just a reminder that some things still are under control
of the owner.
Empty
-0800:
>Philippe Bernard Meunier <meu...@cs.rice.edu> wrote:
>
>> I don't mind you printing this out for personal use, however, if you wish
>> to distribute this article in any other means than by reposting it to
>> USENET, please email me beforehand to obtain permission.
>
>More a statement of feeling at the time of writing (1996). And lets be
>honest: back then, I would have been asked regardless.
So you, in a copyright trial that is already so silly I'd be surprised
to see a straight-faced judge, you are going to stand up in front of
two lawyers, a judge, and every damn member of AG that can make it
there, and say:
"But... Your honor, I only said that because that's how I felt at the
time! No fair no fair!"
Bah.
>Considering that the posting which prompted the Copyright violation
>clearly stated that I had taken Goth Code off the net, and that the Goth
>Code Homepage (as indeed even listed in the FAQ) stated that I wanted
>it removed from all servers, you don't suppose that feeling might have
>changed?
Nope. But the posting was grandfathered.
Wank.
>I see that Terri Tickle has taught this newsgroup well during her long
>campaigns: look for all the fine print possible in order to maximise the
>benefit. Interesting to see common courtesy go out the window and have
>the act of throwing it there be supported so voluminously.
Sulk. Cry. But at least stand behind something you wrote. I think the
above statement about reposting to USENET, in *your* *own* hand, says
it all.
If you are going to nitpick a single act of of a newsgroup regular,
especially in AG, you should damn well have unpickable nits.
~Empty
------------------------------------------------------------
You are really pretty! |
Tried to lick your wounds, | -Bane, waxing poetic
tongue full of monitor dust. |
http://www.sinclairbrowning.com/emptyspaces
Empty
-0800:
>"Goth Code reached its use-by date. [...] But its time has passed. [...]
>"If I've missed locating your mirror and contacting you personally, I'm
>"asking you now to remove Goth.Code from your server. [...] I don't
>"recommend the creation of new Goth Codes. [...] Goth Code was and is (C)
>"Synic, 1995-1999."
>
>Just what in there is so incomprehensible?
It just said jack shit about being posted.
I suppose, however, that it is your right to be a wank, and remove
from the world something beautiful, something that has brought a smile
to so many faces.
Empty
>> Though, from your postings in this thread, you appear to be an
>>exception. I'll try to arrange something for you with regard to a copy
>>of the code; check your email sometime in the next day or two.
>
>*cough, blush, look embarassed* You are a scholar and a gentleman, and
>too kind to boot. It is much appreciated, and surprising. *doffs hat,
>bows* Your servant.
Wow. No more pr0n for me, I think I just found
alt.gothic.verbal-cockstroking
~Empty, with an e'er growing List of Wanks That Needs Must Be Told
What's What
Empty
<sker...@thpam.ossuary.net> on Wed, 09 Feb 2000 12:36:28 -0600:
>On 10 Feb 2000 00:42:50 -0800, synic <sy...@locust.paradox.net.au>
>fpevooyrq onpxjneqf sbe fngna:
>
>>The sad thing is I was half expecting it. Get enough people in a room
>>and someone will be clueless, tasteless or drunk enough to vomit in
>>someone else's jacket.
>
>let us all strive for more accurate parallels!
Is this where Mr Metaphor comes in?
Because, you see, I think it is a bit more like letting an unfixed
female cat roam the block every night for several years.
It's bound to get knocked up.
If you spend the rest of your life, Synic, cruising the 'net looking
for illegitimate kittens to drown in burlap sacks, consider my
sympathies withheld.
>the only forseeable way to remove the goth.code from your internet
>experience is to simply cease to *have* an internet experience.
Not an altogether bad idea.
Hey, did you write the Perl script for the CGI version? I bet *that*
fucker is open-source.
Perl scripters aren't wanks.
~Empty
Empty
-0800:
>Which cornflakes packet are you getting your understanding of Copyright law
>from? Depending on the interpretation, it will be either 2029 or 2049 before
>my Copyright expires, perhaps even 2099. The numeral after the Copyright
>symbol states the year of the beginning of the Copyright.
And your copyright date postdates the posted copy.
And you're still a wank.
Empty
-0600:
>An author who does not defend his or her creative works when they
>realize copyright has been violated can lose that creation.
>
>Period.
Period my ass.
I do more than a fair bit of writing. The ONLY time a copyright
violation is an insult or morally wrong is if:
A) The artist is going to lose money on it -or-
B) It is going to be passed off as someone elses work.
If someday I were to create a literary work that someone loved enough
to archive and mirror, I would be proud.
Anything else is, well, wankish.
synic
> And you're still a wank.
What an appropriate nickname you've chosen.
impe...@webmail.bellsouth.net
emptyCA...@theriver.com (Empty) wrote:
> Wow. No more pr0n for me, I think I just found
> alt.gothic.verbal-cockstroking
No, just polite. I was not expecting it.
> ~Empty, with an e'er growing List of Wanks That Needs Must Be Told
> What's What
Really? So what is what, pray tell?
impe...@webmail.bellsouth.net
emptyCA...@theriver.com (Empty) wrote:
> I do more than a fair bit of writing. The ONLY time a copyright
> violation is an insult or morally wrong is if:
> A) The artist is going to lose money on it -or-
> B) It is going to be passed off as someone elses work.
> If someday I were to create a literary work that someone loved enough
> to archive and mirror, I would be proud. > Anything else is, well,
wankish.
All right, that is you. Now if someone had done that to me, without my
permission, after I copyrighted it, I'd be tempted to go after them
with a chainsaw. What's mine is mine, even if it is on public display.
Property is property, intellectual or not. The taking of property with
permission is theft, intellectual or not.
impe...@webmail.bellsouth.net
Tet...@antisocial.com wrote:
> Tetsab. (FreakyCool to see you back btw Exiled, though keeping
>yourself >^..^< and {exile} straight in my head always used to be a
>problem. ;)
It's FreakyCool? *frown, scratches head* Heck the only thing I've ever
done here on alt.gothic is stir up hornet's nests though.....
synic
> Hey, did you write the Perl script for the CGI version?
Yes. (Goth Code v1.0 Encoder.)
> I bet *that* fucker is open-source.
Nope.
> Perl scripters aren't wanks.
The better Perl scripters evolve into C programmers and make money.
That "wank" insult is a bit repetitive, BTW. Try being imaginative next
time. You might manage to get someone annoyed enough to write something
silly and straw-mannish.
Empty
-0800:
>Empty <emptyCA...@theriver.com> wrote:
>> Hey, did you write the Perl script for the CGI version?
>
>Yes. (Goth Code v1.0 Encoder.)
Statement retracted.
>> I bet *that* fucker is open-source.
>
>Nope.
Did it start that way?
>> Perl scripters aren't wanks.
>
>The better Perl scripters evolve into C programmers and make money.
Right. Then, they become yuppie capitalist wanks.
Lucky for me I suck at Perl.
>That "wank" insult is a bit repetitive, BTW. Try being imaginative next
>time.
Repetitive, yes. You just aren't proving yourself worth much original
thought.
>You might manage to get someone annoyed enough to write something
>silly and straw-mannish.
Sorry. Next time I'll post the GawthKode.
Jetrock
unauthorized copies of Microsoft(InsertHere) off the net, what makes you
think your little copyright notice will do any better?
Copyright gives you rights to control further publication of your work,
but it sure as hell doesn't mean you can demand its removal from the rest
of the world.
If I publish a book, and sell it to people, then decide I don't want it to
exist anymore, I sure as heck do NOT have the right to go to the people
who bought it and demand they destroy it! It is THEIRS now! They can't
republish it, or release it as their own work, but they can own it, they
can read it to friends, or they can even sell it to a used bookstore. That
is NOT covered by copyright notice.
Deal.
--
--Rev. Jetrock, founder of UBERKUNST, Freelance Digital Appliance Healer
http://emrl.com/~jetrock for UBERKUNST and MONSTER ATTACK information!
Marcus Pan
<thekumar...@pacbell.net.invalid> wrote:
>Why not retire it to Bill-Of-Rights status, something read
>by the interested, but not used by anyone?
Because it's HIS. It's that simple. It's his work and no permission
was given to this fucktard to reprint it anywhere. Additionally, it
was made clear in no uncertain terms to NOT print it - so it isn't
even a "well, I didn't know you didn't want me to" excuse. Leave
other people's work alone if that's their request.
===>StealthGoth Pan<===Editor of Legends
Legends - http://www.legendsmagazine.net
The Pan Pages - http://www.zenweb.com/pan
N.G-D - http://www.zenweb.com/pan/netgoth
Marcus Pan
wrote:
>That's what the <DELETE> key is for. Just because he demands the utter
>suppression of the GothCode doesn't mean I have to care.
It's his work for crissake! How the hell can you not care about an
author's request? What is wrong with you, seriously? Do you have
that much disregard for other people's stuff?
Jetrock
>In article <slrn8a41ej....@boulez.emrl.com>,
> jetrock@REMOVE_ME.emrl.com (Jetrock) wrote:
>
>> Well, foo. If you didn't want a copy, why did you lament in a public
>>forum about not having one? I try to be a Nice Guy and you get all
>>huffy.
>
>I wasn't lamenting about not having a copy. I was lamenting that it's
>dead. Wanting a copy and mourning the lost are two different shades of
>gray.....
You said you wished you still had a copy. And I, munificent Fairy
Motherfucker that I am, waved my magic wand.
>
>> That's what the <DELETE> key is for. Just because he demands the utter
>> suppression of the GothCode doesn't mean I have to care.
>
>Two words: legal copyright.
>
Two words: Who cares?
>
>> Everything does, in fact, have a boundary. However, the boundary if
>[snips metaphysical blather]
>> they did because it's so infinitesimally small.
>
>Metaphysics do not compute. I can only understand hard material
>realities, like laws and regulations. Thank you for your cooperation.
>
If legal copyrights were hard material realities, I would have been
physically incapacitated from reposting the precious dead GothCode. I was
not--therefore it's not a hard material reality, just some metaphysics.
>> Whoooa! That makes me dizzy! I'm all crucified 'n stuff!
>> Sheesh, you try to do a guy a favor and end up starting a jihad...
>
>Not a jihad, just a reminder that some things still are under control
>of the owner.
I'd consider the currently gathering storm of flames and accusations a
jihad, if not a flamewar.
Marcus Pan
wrote:
>Not much. Other than the fact that in this post, you ask for people to
>remove the GothCode mirrors from their web pages and servers, not personal
>copies, printouts, etcetera. While you didn't recommend the creation of
>new Goth Codes, you didn't explicitly prohibit them either. And it's not
>1999 anymore, so your copyright has expired.
You really need to read up on your legalese kiddo. Copyrights don't
expire yearly.
Marcus Pan
wrote:
>Quoth synic <sy...@locust.paradox.net.au> on 10 Feb 2000 10:51:15
>-0800:
>
>>Which cornflakes packet are you getting your understanding of Copyright law
>>from? Depending on the interpretation, it will be either 2029 or 2049 before
>>my Copyright expires, perhaps even 2099. The numeral after the Copyright
>>symbol states the year of the beginning of the Copyright.
>
>And your copyright date postdates the posted copy.
>
>And you're still a wank.
Why is he a wank? Because he wants to enforce the copyright of his
work?
Marcus Pan
wrote:
>Wow. No more pr0n for me, I think I just found
>alt.gothic.verbal-cockstroking
I don't see it. I see someone who has been a long standing member of
alt.gothic complimenting and thanking someone for a creation that has
helped him, myself and THOUSANDS more people find it easier to say
"hi" to eachother by looking at similarities in our codes. THat's not
cockstroking. That's honest-to-fucking-goth appreciation.
And I offer it to Synic as well.
I'd probably still be lurking if not for the GothCode.
Marcus Pan
wrote:
>An author who does not defend his or her creative works when they
>realize copyright has been violated can lose that creation.
>
>Period.
Ah, yes, Jeff's right. I forgot about that point. If a court finds
that a person did not defend their copyright with applomb in all
cases, someone can have it excused by simply saying "well he let that
fucknut Jetrock post it!!!"
Marcus Pan
wrote:
>Quoth Canticle <cant...@escape.ca> on Thu, 10 Feb 2000 01:04:40
>-0600:
>
>>An author who does not defend his or her creative works when they
>>realize copyright has been violated can lose that creation.
>>
>>Period.
>
>Period my ass.
>
>I do more than a fair bit of writing. The ONLY time a copyright
>violation is an insult or morally wrong is if:
>A) The artist is going to lose money on it -or-
>B) It is going to be passed off as someone elses work.
Or C) if someone requests it be removed from whatever media. Which
Synic did.
Marcus Pan
skerry)" <sker...@thpam.ossuary.net> wrote:
>are you actually saying that, in a medium where i can find passwords
>for pornsites, 20 different keys for windows98, photoshop, and most
>any fucking mp3 i could ever want in under an hour, you expect people
>to give a shit about your copyrights and personal wishes?
This isn't a place of porn sites. The last time I checked, alt.gothic
was filled with a bunch of people that gave a shit about things like
this. It's the simple mater of Synic MADE it. And someone else
posted it not only without permission, but complete against the
author's wishes.
That's the ONLY issue. If you think alt.gothic is nothing more than
another WaReZ or pr0n site, then I pity you.
Marcus Pan
wrote:
>Quoth synic <sy...@locust.paradox.net.au> on 10 Feb 2000 14:13:40
>-0800:
>
>>Philippe Bernard Meunier <meu...@cs.rice.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't mind you printing this out for personal use, however, if you wish
>>> to distribute this article in any other means than by reposting it to
>>> USENET, please email me beforehand to obtain permission.
>>
>>More a statement of feeling at the time of writing (1996). And lets be
>>honest: back then, I would have been asked regardless.
>
>So you, in a copyright trial that is already so silly I'd be surprised
>to see a straight-faced judge, you are going to stand up in front of
>two lawyers, a judge, and every damn member of AG that can make it
>there, and say:
>
>"But... Your honor, I only said that because that's how I felt at the
>time! No fair no fair!"
>
>Bah.
>
>>Considering that the posting which prompted the Copyright violation
>>clearly stated that I had taken Goth Code off the net, and that the Goth
>>Code Homepage (as indeed even listed in the FAQ) stated that I wanted
>>it removed from all servers, you don't suppose that feeling might have
>>changed?
>
>Nope. But the posting was grandfathered.
What about the feelings of the guy who created it? Doesn't that kind
of thing count any more?
Aidan Skinner
> benton the consolation prize wrote:
>
> > I don't understand your vehemence. Perhaps you could illuminate us on
> > this topic so that we may have understanding.
>
> I understand it fully.
>
> An author who does not defend his or her creative works when they
> realize copyright has been violated can lose that creation.
No, this is not true.
You can *never* lose copyright on something.
You're thinking about trademarks and/or patents.
Copyright is *very* different.
- Aidan
--
http://www.skinner.demon.co.uk/aidan/
Before asking a tech a question, think: "Does this person care? Is
this in anyway meaningful to their existence?". If the answer is "No",
please read the documentation supplied, specifically Chapter 9: Suicide.
Narnia
with gusto in alt.gothic:
>The Goth Code Homepage at http://code.goth.net/gothcode/ made it clear that
>I wanted all copies of Goth Code off the Internet.
I have no issue with you wanting it offline, as that's your perogative
since you wrote it. For curiousity's sake, though, why did you decide to
remove it?
>Goth Code is dead. Let its stinking corpse rot away in peace.
I know people still enjoyed encoding and decoding gothcodes. Therefore, I
would like your permission to write a different gothcode (not using the
term gothcode; perhaps Gothic Code or something else that would be
acceptable to you?). Please let me know. Thanks.
--
=Narnia=
http://www.velvet.net/
Please do not send me spam, msword/non-text files, or chain letters
unless I ask for them or have given prior permission.
Narnia
with gusto in alt.gothic:
>And if they do so in any manner after ignoring a posted copyright notice
It doesn't even have to have a posted copyright notice. Any work is
automatically copywritten by the author; copyright notices (and official
copyright registration at a copyright office) is recommended, but not
necessary.
>they can be in for a world of legal hurt should the author choose to
>take action.
Depends if it's under Fair Use, such as commenting line by line of a
poem.[1]
--
=Narnia=
http://www.velvet.net/
Please do not send me spam, msword/non-text files, or chain letters
unless I ask for them or have given prior permission.
[1] Which is mildly annoying, as some fucknut without an ounce of
intelligence has a few of my poems on his website tearing them apart with
juvenile insults line by line.
Empty
>Why is he a wank? Because he wants to enforce the copyright of his
>work?
A writing is a child you incubate in your skull.
He's locking his kid in the cellar for no apparent reason.
~Empty, who believes writings should be *free*.
Empty
>What about the feelings of the guy who created it? Doesn't that kind
>of thing count any more?
Feelings cease to be an issue when the first hint of legalk threat
moves in. At that point, it becomes strictly "CYA" time.
Otherwise, people end up owning your ass in court.
~Empty
Empty
-0800:
> a. serves no functional purpose anymore,
For you.
> c. unwittingly encourages young people to disclose far more information
> to the general public than what is safe,
Welcome to USENET.
> j. has gained little but flack any time it's been mentioned on this
> newsgroup in the past four years.
I've not seen the flack. Perhaps I just missed it.
>So, my learned friend, what the fuck would you feel like doing were you
>in my position? Feel proud?
I have writings on my web page that I think are shit, now. I keep them
online because someone may want them someday. Someone may appreciate
them. And they are my children, regardless of a few of them riding the
short bus.
>For many of the reasons I have mentioned above, I'd say it was in your
>online scene's interests to be supportive of that goal.
I suppose it is.
I would have been more supportive had you not come in a-gunning for
blood.
A "Please don't ever do that again" would have been eloquently
beautiful.
Jetrock
>On Wed, 09 Feb 2000 18:47:50 +1600, LordKumar
><thekumar...@pacbell.net.invalid> wrote:
>>Why not retire it to Bill-Of-Rights status, something read
>>by the interested, but not used by anyone?
>
>Because it's HIS. It's that simple. It's his work and no permission
>was given to this fucktard to reprint it anywhere.
actually, permission was given in the text of the document I had to print
it out or repost it to Usenet. It prohibited use OTHER than printouts or
reposts, such as publication in a magazine, use in a web page, or other
wideband distribution--but, within the context of the document I reposted,
a Usenet post made in 1996, permission for reposting and printout were
explicitly given within the text of the post. So this fucktard didn't see
a problem.
If I happened to be the holder of a version that said "DO NOT REPOST UNDER
PENALTY OF LAW" I might have given it some pause. But it didn't, so I
didn't.
Additionally, it
>was made clear in no uncertain terms to NOT print it - so it isn't
>even a "well, I didn't know you didn't want me to" excuse. Leave
>other people's work alone if that's their request.
Well, I **DIDN'T** know he didn't want me to!! He may have made it clear
in no uncertain terms to others--but I *DID NOT* receive any indication of
this! I was TOTALLY UNAWARE of this GothCode prohibition until its author
had a public hissy fit on the subject.
Since my first appearance in alt.gothic (sometime in 1994 or 1995, I
think, as "jet...@horizon.org") I have never been a consistent member of
the group. I lurk for a bit, post for a bit, lose interest, go away
entirely for a few months, return, go away, return, etcetera. I haven't
been here the whole time, so I've missed some bits.
I don't remember the last time I was a really solid alt.gothic poster, but
I really didn't start posting much here again until last month. I didn't
lurk here much either, and didn't read every message. So I apparently
missed out on this giant Veil of Silence surrounding the GothCode
entirely. I know about it *now*, but I didn't know about it *then*, and
the information in the post lamenting the death of the GothCode did not
mention its prohibition from reposting.
So, yeah, I really *DIDN'T* know that posting old versions of the GothCode
was a Bad Idea.
And this whole thing would already be dead if he hadn't had the public
hissy fit. If he had emailed me stating "Please don't post the GothCode
for the following reasons" I would have said "oop, sorry" and went on my
merry way. Instead, he made a public argument out of it, and responses to
that public argument have resulted in a growing flame-inferno. I'm kind of
hoping this argument fizzles soon, because I'm already pretty bored with
it.
The Steel Wolf
<sy...@locust.paradox.net.au> scripsit:
>Goth Code is dead. Let its stinking corpse rot away in peace.
As a lurker in alt.gothic for a few years now, I think it's finally
time came out of the shell to ask a question. Namely: why?
I could understand your position if your wish was to no longer
maintain or update the Goth Code. But to completely obliterate it?
IMO, that's a very grave decision. I've personally been delighted by
the Goth Code since I first came upon it, and continue to enjoy it to
this day. Judging by the number of people who include their codes in
their .sigs and on their Web sites, I would infer that it's still at
least somewhat popular. You say that it's dead, but if that were
naturally the case it would have largely disappeared anyway. In my
personal opinion, you're burying something that was (and to a certain
extent still is) an important piece of net.goth culture. And I just
can't understand why.
So what was the motivation behind this? Why decide all of a sudden
that you want all extant copies to be permanently flushed into the
aether?
--
"Because you can't cotton to evil. No sir. You have to smack evil
on the nose with the rolled-up newspaper of justice and say, 'Bad
evil. Bad, BAD evil.'"
- David Gerard <f...@thingy.apana.org.au>
Remove the anti-spam dongle to reply via e-mail.
Jetrock
For the record, I will not repost any version of the GothCode to Usenet in
the future.
Had I been aware of the desire of its author to suppress it, I wouldn't
have--but I was not aware of that desire. This situation has been
remedied.
I won't make it into a web page, either.
Heck, I don't even think I'll print it out.
I'm not planning on making my own versions of the GothCode either.
If I provoked ire by my repost of what I considered to be a fun, witty,
entertaining Usenet post which included implicit permission to repost, I'm
sorry. I didn't mean to cause anyone distress or upset.
And that, as they say, is that--I hope.
G. R. Perye III (Mac)
>>I really don't think you're quite aware of how angry your reposting this
>made me. I've had to take a break before posting my response, lest my article
>be replete with swear words.
>
>The Goth Code Homepage at http://code.goth.net/gothcode/ made it clear that
>I wanted all copies of Goth Code off the Internet. Yet, you've gone 180
>degrees against my wishes and reposted a version here. What gives?
oh quit your fucking cyring already, you self rightious git. Why not be
happy with the fact that you created something people actually enjoyed and
obviously STILL enjoy instead of bitching and complaining and threatening
people with lawsuits all the time.
All I see out of your address is "me me me me me". You created something for
the public. The public embraced it. DEAL.
-Mac
(who thought it quite selfish that whiner boy here not only threatened me
and my ISP's with a lawsuit for not taking down a mirror fast enough, but
then proceded to block my mailing addresses so he wouldnt have to be held
accountable for his deplorable behavior.)
Canticle
Aidan Skinner wrote:
>
> Canticle <cant...@escape.ca> writes:
> > An author who does not defend his or her creative works when they
> > realize copyright has been violated can lose that creation.
> No, this is not true.
>
> You can *never* lose copyright on something.
>
> You're thinking about trademarks and/or patents.
>
> Copyright is *very* different.
Trust me, it isn't.
There's a very good reason a vast number of celebrity works which would
normally be considered under the protection of Copyright law are now
considered public domain.
The Pam Anderson/Tommy Lee video comes to mind.
Jeff-boy
G. R. Perye III (Mac)
>>I know people still enjoyed encoding and decoding gothcodes. Therefore, I
>would like your permission to write a different gothcode (not using the
>term gothcode; perhaps Gothic Code or something else that would be
>acceptable to you?). Please let me know. Thanks.
Dipshit didnt invent the *-code concept, and therefor has no say over anyone
making up any kind of code they see fit. Only thing you cannot do, without
having him threatening you, your ISP and your mom is copy his particular
code.
and with that in mind, I say let there be a hundred goth codes in all
flavors. Power to the people. ;)
-Mac
G. R. Perye III (Mac)
>
>Why is he a wank? Because he wants to enforce the copyright of his
>work?
no, becuase he's been a spoiled little asshole about his desires thru the
entire process. Going about a little holy crusade to strip the world of a
gift he gave it for several years without even being half way polite.
-Mac
G. R. Perye III (Mac)
>I'd probably still be lurking if not for the GothCode.
So doesnt it upset you even a little that the minute you or anyone else ever
brings up this forbidden fruit of labors past that you'll get
typographically punched in the groin for *gasp* ressurecting a work that the
author has tired so fervently to make the world forget for whatever reason?
Personally, I never spent much time playing with the code myself. My own
bitterness stems from mirroring it free of charge or obligation for years
and the only thanks I got was a legal threat and an excuse for removal which
now appears to be an outright lie.
-Mac
G. R. Perye III (Mac)
>Or C) if someone requests it be removed from whatever media. Which
>Synic did.
So if you one day decided that all traces of Legends Magazine were to be
expunged from the earth, would you come to my stuidio and take all my back
issues?
-Mac
Flight
Canticle wrote:
> Pam and Tommy made a cardinal error of not making an effort to do
> anything about it until it was too late and it was well into
> distribution. It was successfully argued that if they didn't want it in
> the public domain, why did they wait so long to complain about it?
I'll try to look up some references, but the news articles that I read
at the time stated that the sole reason that they lost the rights to
them was because they'd discussed them in a public forum, making them
public. You are right, that this doesn't apply to the goth code as it
was copywritten before it was released though.
Flight
Flight
Canticle wrote:
> It has already been successfully put forward that even posts on the
> Internet can be considered intellectual property, but since the effort
> of defending the copyright of each and every single post you make to a
> newsgroup can be prohibitive and quite useless, few people do.
>
> Some have, however, and they have done so successfully. Much to my
> amusement, since it seems a large waste of time, but the point is they
> did it, and did so successfully.
They probably had a Hell of a lot of money to throw around as well.
There may be big fat grey lines, but random posts to public forums
belong to the public sector. Posting something under a copyright notice
to a public forum should be treated with respect as an item under
copyright, but it is still now open to the public for review and comment
and reference.
I'm curious as to the specifics of the cases you mentioned.
Flight
Flight
Marcus Pan wrote:
>
> >I do more than a fair bit of writing. The ONLY time a copyright
> >violation is an insult or morally wrong is if:
> >A) The artist is going to lose money on it -or-
> >B) It is going to be passed off as someone elses work.
>
> Or C) if someone requests it be removed from whatever media. Which
> Synic did.
No, he asked that it not be developed further and that mirrors be taken
off of the web. He said nothing about Usenet, nor about reposting it on
Usenet, nor that he would take issue with people that did, nor did he
appear to make any effort to inform newsgroups that have "gothic" in
their titles of his wishes.
Flight
Courtney
This whole debate is absolutely stupid. For someone to first "create"
something (i have no proof that others had not thought/done similar
things before the "code" in question was made) and have it linked all
over gods creation then to throw a hissy fit because someone, less than 2
months after the "funeral" for it, posts it on Usenet, where it's
probably available through Deja News anyway is the most idiotic thing
I've ever seen. Being so forceful in saying the creator doesn't want it
posted shows that it's NOT about any copywrite bullshit, it's about
someones ego getting a hold of them and saying "I am so mighty, bow to my
code that I will yank from your feet". If you CREATE something that is so
prominant (i can't spell today, fuck off) in an area and then expect for
people to a) stop thinking about it b) looking at copies c) bothering to
take the time to actually do the thing you obviously need to touch
reality. It's not going to happen, copywrite laws or not. You pulled the
lame code from the main site, you said you wouldn't create it anymore,
grow up and get on with life. There are a lot fucking more important
things than jumping down someones throat for posting the thing on usenet.
Courtney
(who is in an *extremely* pissy mood today)
--
___________________________
www.front242.net/vein/
efnet: vein icq: 1831913
___________________________
Rosser Schwarz
: If I publish a book, and sell it to people, then decide I don't want it to
: exist anymore, I sure as heck do NOT have the right to go to the people
: who bought it and demand they destroy it!
that's because:
1. if you publish a book, nine times out of ten, you don't own the
copyright, the publishing company does, so the point is moot.
2. it's bad business to run around demanding your customers destroy
something you sold them. if you absolutely must, you issue a voluntary
recall and give them an equivalent item, but recalls are usually only
done for safety reasons, and i can't think of many books that are a
choking hazard or have faulty airbags, can you?
3. the people who bought a copy of the book paid as much for the
physical tome, which they -do- own, as for the license to the material
printed thereon, which they don't.
: It is THEIRS now!
the physical object, yes. not the intellectual property.
in a purely digital medium, such as this one, the extent of physical
ownership of a work is pretty much confined to the spin-state of a
couple-dozen-billion-odd electrons somewhere on a ferrous platter.
whoop-de-friggin'-doo.
electrons' being eminently recyclable rather invalidates your claim of
destruction, doesn't it?
: They can't republish it,
which is what you did by reposting, good intentions or otherwise.
look, i don't necessarily disagree with you that copyright can suck. i
was pissed off when the harry fox agency decided to sue lyrics.ch and co
for copyright infringement, so don't even try to take me as wholly on
the side of copyright.
whether or not i agree with every dotted t and crossed i in copyright
law is irrelevant. the gothcode is synic's intellectual property, and
he, being sole owner of that property, has every bloody right in the
world to say, "hey, guys? i think the gothcode bites and i don't want
it up on the net any more."
hell, he even has the right to say, "hey, you pansy-ass cunts, i made up
the gothcode so you'd all worship me and wish you could be as cool as
the geeks, and now i'm gonna take it away to show you you'll never match
up."
not that i'm saying he did or believes any such thing, but as sole owner
of the intellectual property, that's 100% within his rights.
: or release it as their own work, but they can own it,
the physical object, -not- the intellectual property. that is always
and forever solely the author's, unless and until such time as sie
disclaims all copyright and ownership.
or 75 years pass and no one bothers to renew the copyright, whichever
comes first.
: they can read it to friends, or they can even sell it to a used
: bookstore. That is NOT covered by copyright notice.
no, it's not, because that's about the physical object.
the author and publishing company, in the case of a used book, have
already received their fee/royalty for the intellectual property, all
they're entitled to receive for that particular instance of that par-
ticular title.
when you sell your copy of "misunderstanding intellectual property for
dummies" to the used bookstore down the block, all you're selling them
is a chunk of processed dead tree.
i say again, whoop-de-friggin'-do.
--rosser
--
i should have been a plumber.
-- albert einstein
G. R. Perye III (Mac)
>And if you created a work which:
>
> a. serves no functional purpose anymore,
this point has already been disproven.
> b. creates indifference in the vast majority of readers,
Apparently this thread proves otherwise.
> c. unwittingly encourages young people to disclose far more information
> to the general public than what is safe,
Prove it.
> d. serves unwittingly to channel the individuality of newbies into
> stereotypes (where it was originally intended to be humour),
And what method do you guage what others find humorous?
> e. contains little relation to the interests of the scene which it
> proports to represent anyway,
Also disproved. If the people who embraced it didnt feel that it represented
themselves, they would not have used it to begin with.
> f. which is often taken to be a quazi-informative document, representing a
> social scene which you're now utterly embarrassed to have been
> associated with, thereby also suggesting current membership,
NOW we see the real rub. Poor ol synic is all grown up and doesnt wanna be a
goth any more. HAHAHAHAHA. Thats funny. Whats a matter, trying to impress a
new girl?
> g. has been nothing but trouble in terms of having to watch its
> continued blatant plagiarisation in just about every new signature
> code written since 1996,
> h. has required you to scan the web for the latest illicit copy added
> to the web by some website designer with a desire to run Photoshop
> and a webpage editor but cannot write an interesting bit of text
> for themselves to save themselves,
> i. has led you to discover knock-offs of your website in the past,
> j. owes its most popular incarnations not to any interest you had in the
> goth scene, but, to a personal interest in legible and ascii binary
> encryption mechanisms, and,
> j. has gained little but flack any time it's been mentioned on this
> newsgroup in the past four years.
SO DITCH THE COPYRIGHT, TAKE YOUR NAME OFF OF IT AND LET THE PEOPLE WHO WANT
TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT DO SO. You can then crawl into your little hole and
we'll all pretend you never existed.
The people get their code, you get your freedom from the grips of being a
goth and everyone is happy. Just think of all the free time you'll have not
having to monitor the network for your copyright and send out legal threats
from your little bedroom down in Australia!
>So, my learned friend, what the fuck would you feel like doing were you
>in my position? Feel proud?
Still nothing but a fucking cry baby.
Get stuffed, Pete.
>Goth Code is dead. It's been dead since December 15th last year. I've
>received email from four people regarding it so far. It was it's right
>time to depart the Internet. Given my personal reasons for wanting it
>gone and the complete lack of interest in it from the majority, I feel
>utterly vindicated in persuing its removal as hard as I have.
And we never miss something til it's gone, right?
Piss off, Wank.
-Mac
Marcus Pan
wrote:
>Well, I **DIDN'T** know he didn't want me to!! He may have made it clear
>in no uncertain terms to others--but I *DID NOT* receive any indication of
>this! I was TOTALLY UNAWARE of this GothCode prohibition until its author
>had a public hissy fit on the subject.
Didn't have the courtesy to check the website that the goth.code has
been stationed at for what...five years or something now?
>I don't remember the last time I was a really solid alt.gothic poster, but
>I really didn't start posting much here again until last month. I didn't
>lurk here much either, and didn't read every message. So I apparently
>missed out on this giant Veil of Silence surrounding the GothCode
>entirely. I know about it *now*, but I didn't know about it *then*, and
>the information in the post lamenting the death of the GothCode did not
>mention its prohibition from reposting.
No veil of silence. A clear and public announcement available at the
aforementioned website. You never stopped to think to stop by there
and see why it was laid to rest? Why?
>And this whole thing would already be dead if he hadn't had the public
>hissy fit. If he had emailed me stating "Please don't post the GothCode
>for the following reasons" I would have said "oop, sorry" and went on my
He stated he was angry. I'd be too. And as Jeff is right about
having to protect copyright violations like that, he had no cnoice or
else possibly face loss of that copyright. You still could say that,
by the way.
Poppy Z. Brite
>
>1. if you publish a book, nine times out of ten, you don't own the
>copyright, the publishing company does, so the point is moot.
>
Not unless you have a really crappy agent or you're doing work-for-hire.
Generally, a publisher buys the right to publish a book in certain parts of the
world for a certain length of time, but the copyright never stops belonging to
the author. (In work-for-hire -- for instance, most comics and "franchise"
books -- the publisher buys all rights forever.)
PZB
Marcus Pan
wrote:
>Two words: Who cares?
You should. Assuming there's any decency in you.
Marcus Pan
wrote:
>A writing is a child you incubate in your skull.
>He's locking his kid in the cellar for no apparent reason.
That's a real far-fetched analogy, Empty. Really reaching.
>~Empty, who believes writings should be *free*.
What about those of us who live off of it? What about my real
children, who will end up living in that same cellar if I can't earn
something on what I write?
Marcus Pan
(G. R. Perye III (Mac)) wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Feb 2000 17:28:55 GMT, p...@zenweb.com (Marcus Pan) wrote:
>
>>Or C) if someone requests it be removed from whatever media. Which
>>Synic did.
>
>So if you one day decided that all traces of Legends Magazine were to be
>expunged from the earth, would you come to my stuidio and take all my back
>issues?
Nope. I wouldn't make that decision. And Synic didn't say he was
going to go hunting in your file cabinets for it neither. What
issues developed that had him decide to make that type of request, I
don't know. But I don't think Iever would make a similar request. I
just believe that if the man asks it not be webbed or in whatever
media, then that should be respected.
Plus there's the added fact that there are a multitude of people who
contribute to Legends including yourself, that I as Editor am nothing
more than the guy who puts it together. So I don't feel I have a
right to make that decision, either.
But Synic does and did. GC is all his.
Rosser Schwarz
: Rosser Schwarz (no "t") wrote:
heh. <g>
: >1. if you publish a book, nine times out of ten, you don't own the
: >copyright, the publishing company does, so the point is moot.
: Not unless you have a really crappy agent or you're doing work-for-hire.
: Generally, a publisher buys the right to publish a book in certain parts
: of the world for a certain length of time, but the copyright never stops
: belonging to the author...
really?
clearly, i'll defer to your experience on such a matter, but my fuzzy
memory has images of the "legalese" page of books saying things to the
effect of, "copyright © [year], [publisher]," as opposed to [author].
i could be mistaken, however. i've mis-remembered things i've been much
more certain about than this.
--rosser, thanks for the correction. :)
--
i would dazzle you with brilliance if i only had the knack.
-- boingo
Marcus Pan
(G. R. Perye III (Mac)) wrote:
>brings up this forbidden fruit of labors past that you'll get
>typographically punched in the groin for *gasp* ressurecting a work that the
>author has tired so fervently to make the world forget for whatever reason?
Synic hasn't asked to eliminate it from your head nor your hard drive.
He asked it not be posted any more. Like he said, it's usefulness has
run out in this day and age and he wants to give it a proper burial.
While, yes, I am upset - I think it might have lived a little longer.
But that's not my decision, and I have to respect Synic's decision on
the matter because it is his.
>Personally, I never spent much time playing with the code myself. My own
>bitterness stems from mirroring it free of charge or obligation for years
>and the only thanks I got was a legal threat and an excuse for removal which
>now appears to be an outright lie.
I'm not aware of any legal threats made to you, however. Nor any lack
of appreciation. I can see a point from where you sit, yes, but I
have to confine my feelings toward this thread because I can see what
happened here. I don't know what went on with the mirror sites.
Marcus Pan
<mag...@monkeyTRAPbrains.net> wrote:
>No, he asked that it not be developed further and that mirrors be taken
>off of the web. He said nothing about Usenet, nor about reposting it on
>Usenet, nor that he would take issue with people that did, nor did he
>appear to make any effort to inform newsgroups that have "gothic" in
>their titles of his wishes.
I was informed of it before I had visited the site. Unfortunately, I
can't remember where I read it - are we sure it wasn't posted here or
elsewhere on Usenet and I came across it there? It was one of those
things I read and moved on to the next post or message or whatever it
was I was reading it in. :/
Marcus Pan
wrote:
Absolutely correct. That video would not be sellable nor public
domain if those two immediately went after it the moment it went
public
Marcus Pan
wrote:
>I have writings on my web page that I think are shit, now. I keep them
>online because someone may want them someday. Someone may appreciate
>them. And they are my children, regardless of a few of them riding the
>short bus.
Likewise, any issues of Legends before, say, 70 suck ass in my
opinion. But I keep them there as well, and those are OUR decisions.
That doesn't mean Synic has to have the same decision for his work,
though. That's the point. It's not about me, it's not about you,
it's about him and his work. Postulation on what *I* would do is
totally irrelevant.
>A "Please don't ever do that again" would have been eloquently
>beautiful.
So would a "woops sorry" from Jetrock as well. I guess both could end
the whole thing by one saying, "I'm sorry I didn't know," and the
other saying, "I'm sorry I gunned so hard." So that point is
understood.
But I still must say - Jetrock's complete and total disrespect for
copyright law (i.e., "Who cares?") irks the living hell out of me
regardless of the outcome of this thread. Good to know where people
stands on respect issues like that.
Marcus Pan
wrote:
>Quoth p...@zenweb.com (Marcus Pan) on Thu, 10 Feb 2000 17:33:13 GMT:
>
>>What about the feelings of the guy who created it? Doesn't that kind
>>of thing count any more?
>
>Feelings cease to be an issue when the first hint of legalk threat
>moves in. At that point, it becomes strictly "CYA" time.
I didn't see any legal threat. Hold on...I'll look back. I still
don't see a legal threat.
G. R. Perye III (Mac)
>But Synic does and did. GC is all his.
Thats not true at all. The concept of a code was borrowed from the 'geek
code'. So in factm while the contents of this particular flavor are his,
(and those of the people who made countless suggestions over the years as
revisions were made and requests for comments were sent.) the concept of the
gothcode is not.
-Mac
G. R. Perye III (Mac)
wrote:
>So what was the motivation behind this? Why decide all of a sudden
>that you want all extant copies to be permanently flushed into the
>aether?
It's sadly nothing more than pete's way of taking his bat and ball and going
home and making damn sure the whole world knows about it. This whole "I'm
not a goth and I dont want to be assoiciated with goth" line of crap temper
tantrum testifies to that.
Just like the half wit little shits that post a 6 page diatribe about how
everyone and everything on a newsgroup/mailinglist sucks and lists every
reason how come theyre unsunscribing before doing so, This is Pete's way of
causing a fuss and making sure we all know he's leaving instead of just
fucking off and going away quietly.
-Mac
G. R. Perye III (Mac)
>I'm not aware of any legal threats made to you, however. Nor any lack
>of appreciation. I can see a point from where you sit, yes, but I
>have to confine my feelings toward this thread because I can see what
>happened here. I don't know what went on with the mirror sites.
While I'm sure Pete will come back with his own tale of woe about his
perception of my lack of dropping-everything-to-do-his-biddging as being a
rogue webmaster unwilling to comply with his ludicrist requests, [even thou
he's NOTa-Goth(c)(tm)(r) and doesnt associate with *THIS* culture any more]
the business goes like this:
I hosted a mirror of the code for 5 years or so. It was originally added
after a requests for mirrors was made by the author.
Pete requested I remove it. no explanation.
I asked why, he replied a day or two later with what I discovered today was
a bullshit explanation.
When I didnt jump right into my editor and start making changes to the site
his code was on (didnt even see his request til it was a day or three old in
my 'catch all' mailbox since he was incapable of writing to me directly)
Pete sent letters threatening legal action to my ISP/hosting providers, who
then notified me that they were going to cut my server off.
Had I been out of town that week or not idley checking my catch-all mailbox
while bored at work, IPM, digitalangel and DETgoth would have all gone down
over some little shit's tempertantrum over a work we claims to not even care
about anymore.
So yeah, I have a chip on my shoulder. I have no respect for anyone who
walks this earth and makes legal threats over any and everything to get his
way.
-Mac
Hardrock Llewynyth
the Unworthy write in this Year of Our Lord Thu, 10 Feb 2000 21:09:01
GMT:
>Dipshit didnt invent the *-code concept, and therefor has no say over anyone
>making up any kind of code they see fit. Only thing you cannot do, without
>having him threatening you, your ISP and your mom is copy his particular
>code.
Indeed, some of it seems lifted almost wholesale from the Geek and
Twink codes which preceded it (and which was, i believe, admitted; at
least in earlier versions).
While i can understand Synic's position, and appreciate his side of
the Copyright issue; i think he is being a whiney brat. He doesn't
like us anymore so he wasnts to take his ball and go home.
Little note, when everything you create is based on public doman and
open-source sources, you really have no room to bitch about copyright.
Hardrock
--
Hardrock Llewynyth GAC DNRC hard...@speakeasy.org
http://www.speakeasy.org/~hardrock/
I will honour and express all facets of my being; regardless
of state and local laws.
TSM
wrote:
>Empty <emptyCA...@theriver.com> wrote:
>> If someday I were to create a literary work that someone loved enough
>> to archive and mirror, I would be proud.
>
>And if you created a work which:
>
> a. serves no functional purpose anymore,
Anymore?
It -never- served a purpose.
It was fun, it was a gag,
something to pass the time and chuckle at.
I remember the first time you posted
the damned thing and you said as much.
Sorry, ain't buying it.
> b. creates indifference in the vast majority of readers,
Oh yeah, well that one I can see from the
perpetual torrent of mass-approval and excitement
that -everything- on Usenet garners these days.
Whatever.
Moot point no. 2.
> c. unwittingly encourages young people to disclose far more information
> to the general public than what is safe,
Pardon me if this sudden interest
in the protection of the young people
you seem to revile with such fervor
comes off as a little transparent.
"I'm not a Paladin, I just play one on Usenet,
and then only in one thread on one newsgroup."
> d. serves unwittingly to channel the individuality of newbies into
> stereotypes (where it was originally intended to be humour),
Oh yeah, and the GothCode was the first
time that kind of thing ever happened -anywhere.-
If someone's going to be a sheep, they're going
to be a sheep no matter what means are at
they're disposal.
It's like psychos and crowded places,
it don't matter how hard you try to keep
the gun out of his hands,
if he wants to kill a bunch of people bad enough,
he's gonna kill a bunch of people.
No fucking dice.
> e. contains little relation to the interests of the scene which it
> proports to represent anyway,
Don't even insult my intelligence
by saying you give a flying fuck about
"representing the scene" seeing as I've
already read. . .
> f. which is often taken to be a quazi-informative document, representing a
> social scene which you're now utterly embarrassed to have been
> associated with, thereby also suggesting current membership,
. . .which is indeed the meat of this dialogue.
If -you're- ashamed of the choices that -you-
made and the things that -you've- done,
then that is absolutely 100% -your- problem,
-mate.-
If you happen to lack the personal integrety
to just shrug and say "I was young" if it comes
up in conversation, don't even think for a second
that it's somehow -our- responsibility to babysit
the skeletons in your closet.
> g. has been nothing but trouble in terms of having to watch its
> continued blatant plagiarisation in just about every new signature
> code written since 1996,
> h. has required you to scan the web for the latest illicit copy added
> to the web by some website designer with a desire to run Photoshop
> and a webpage editor but cannot write an interesting bit of text
> for themselves to save themselves,
> i. has led you to discover knock-offs of your website in the past,
> j. owes its most popular incarnations not to any interest you had in the
> goth scene, but, to a personal interest in legible and ascii binary
> encryption mechanisms, and,
> j. has gained little but flack any time it's been mentioned on this
> newsgroup in the past four years.
Yeah, and all of the above is more or less
an extension of your disdain for ever being a SKIB,
to be clear,
an itemized recount of your frantic scurrying
about the internet in an attempt to mop
up the mess you so fervently belive you made
of your sterling whitebread reputation.
Boo Fucking Hoo.
Now I'm a pretty strict advocate of
the rights of the indivdual when it
comes to intellectual property.
You can count on my support in your eradication
of the GothCode, in that I won't be using it,
but then I never did, really.
But then at the same time,
it comes off as somewhat odd to me
that you didn't project this outcome when
you publicized the code all those years ago.
What you're doing now is like trying to recall
every copy of the Linux kernel ever downloaded.
Indeed it seems like you decided to care
about your precious copyright just
a few steps too late in the game.
Of course that's not really what this is about, is it?
>So, my learned friend, what the fuck would you feel like doing were you
>in my position? Feel proud?
You've created something people clambor for.
-Worse things can happen, little man.-
I have very little sympathy for your
own personal embarassment seeing
as I seldom have anything
nice to say to or about hypocrites.
>Goth Code is dead. It's been dead since December 15th last year. I've
>received email from four people regarding it so far. It was it's right
>time to depart the Internet. Given my personal reasons for wanting it
>gone and the complete lack of interest in it from the majority, I feel
>utterly vindicated in persuing its removal as hard as I have.
>
>For many of the reasons I have mentioned above, I'd say it was in your
>online scene's interests to be supportive of that goal.
You worry about your feelings,
and we'll worry about ours, thanks anyway.
What a pathetic little display this has been,
I'd always thought much more of you than this.
You dissapoint me.
--TSM
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> Rosser Schwarz (no "t") wrote:
>
> >
> >1. if you publish a book, nine times out of ten, you don't own the
> >copyright, the publishing company does, so the point is moot.
> >
>
> Not unless you have a really crappy agent or you're doing work-for-hire.
> Generally, a publisher buys the right to publish a book in certain parts of the
> world for a certain length of time, but the copyright never stops belonging to
> books -- the publisher buys all rights forever.)
Nice to see you posting again, I hope the vacation was fun! Or that you
actually got some writing done.
But to move back to a major point in the post to which you've responded...
I've been pondering the wisdom of ever publishing anything I write on the
InterNet, other than (obviously) my UseNet postings, since all too often
people just plain appropriate it -- and I don't mean just mirroring it,
which is pretty forgiveable. I suppose that if one tells a neat story, one
should be flattered if someone steals it and re-arranges it slightly and
claims it as their own. But assuming that you don't get a cent for it, and
if you try to get published afterwards, because _you_ are "clearly"
deriviative, what's the possible remedy? I guess it's probably better to
never self-publish on the web (and maybe never get published anywhere) and
not risk having your stuff just-plain ripped-off.
>
> PZB
--
"We look through a glass but darkly:
What we see is more colored by our beliefs,
than what we believe is colored by what we see."
Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow. http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/
Tiny Human Ferret
Actually, under US law, you cannot copyright ideas, only their presentation.
So the concept of the code is not the issue, the copyright actually goes to
the documents on how to construct or interpret it.
I discovered this when I saw a work I published on BBSes and on the web made
into a TV series. I have yet to get a dime. Know why? The swapped the
genders on my characters and had other writers introduce extraneous plot
differing from my own original plot.
>
> -Mac
Jetrock
>On 10 Feb 2000 12:30:44 -0800, jetrock@REMOVE_ME.emrl.com (Jetrock)
>wrote:
>
>been stationed at for what...five years or something now?
>
was unaware of its existence.
>No veil of silence. A clear and public announcement available at the
>aforementioned website. You never stopped to think to stop by there
>and see why it was laid to rest? Why?
A clear and public announcement THAT I NEVER READ because I WAS NOT HERE
WHEN THE ANNOUNCEMENT WAS MADE. I never read the website either, because I
never VISITED the website, as I mentioned above.
>He stated he was angry. I'd be too. And as Jeff is right about
>having to protect copyright violations like that, he had no cnoice or
>else possibly face loss of that copyright. You still could say that,
>by the way.
>
But a courteous, "Please don't do that" email would have done it far more
effectively and with less flamage.
--
--Rev. Jetrock, founder of UBERKUNST, Freelance Digital Appliance Healer
http://emrl.com/~jetrock for UBERKUNST and MONSTER ATTACK information!
fuzzy pink satan (also known as skerry)
>~Empty, who believes writings should be *free*.
o/` flyyyyyyyyyyyyy, lesbian seeeeagullllllllll.... o/`
"information just wants to be free!"
"li-NUX! li-NUX! li-NUX!"
peace out,
carrie :p ;)
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://ossuary.net/~skerrella/ - ph47 l4b h1-j1nk5!
delete the thpam to reply. :P
Flight
Marcus Pan wrote:
>
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2000 12:39:04 -0800, Flight
> <mag...@monkeyTRAPbrains.net> wrote:
> >No, he asked that it not be developed further and that mirrors be taken
> >off of the web. He said nothing about Usenet, nor about reposting it on
> >Usenet, nor that he would take issue with people that did, nor did he
> >appear to make any effort to inform newsgroups that have "gothic" in
> >their titles of his wishes.
>
> I was informed of it before I had visited the site. Unfortunately, I
> can't remember where I read it - are we sure it wasn't posted here or
> elsewhere on Usenet and I came across it there? It was one of those
> things I read and moved on to the next post or message or whatever it
> was I was reading it in. :/
He very well may have, though I have been reading AG regularly since
then and I don't remember it. It could have been in a week in which I
was only checking to see if people were replying to my posts. :{
I should reiterate that I don't think anyone wants to disrespect synic,
nor defy his wishes (though I certainly think he deserves a good HCL
enema for carrying on the way he has). I certainly won't be reposting
goth code, not that I ever had much interest in it. I wish he would
rescind ownership and let the thing float, it's very much part of
net.goth lore and it's a shame to see him trying so hard to destroy his
part in creating that sub-subculture.
I guess I'm trying to say I wish he had politely responded to Jetrock's
post, but then, Jetrock is my big brother, and if I can't let someone
who flames Greycat get away unscathed, I certainly have to stick my big
fat opinions in where he is concerned. :P
Regardless, I am of the opinion that synic did put gothcode in the
public domain, gave people permission to distribute it on Usenet
(explicitly. Just go back and read the copy Jetrock posted) and should
have been more understanding when Jetrock took the initiative to repost
it without first investigating the off chance that "synic" decided to
kill it a couple months ago. I personally don't feel that he now has
the "right" to take that permission away at this point. As an artist
and writer I will abide by his wishes, though I have absolutely no
respect for them or his actions whatsoever.
His acts are more reminiscent of B.Gates's Open Letter to Hobbyists, but
without the justifications in this context. We are not in the habit of
treating such things as highly regulated objects of intellectual
property so much as part of the Usenet culture. Usenet was created to
share information and it's unreasonable not to expect people to do
exactly that.
When people start trying to sell goth code, or publish it as a tome of
the lore of alt.gothic and "synic" refuses to let it happen then we will
se the damage that such behavior causes.
It causes history to be rewritten.
Flight
(not maggot! I was never maggot! I always had a cool, lofty name!)
Flight
Rosser Schwarz wrote:
>
> while you weren't looking, Poppy Z. Brite wrote:
> : Rosser Schwarz (no "t") wrote:
>
> heh. <g>
>
> : >1. if you publish a book, nine times out of ten, you don't own the
> : >copyright, the publishing company does, so the point is moot.
>
> : Not unless you have a really crappy agent or you're doing work-for-hire.
> : Generally, a publisher buys the right to publish a book in certain parts
> : of the world for a certain length of time, but the copyright never stops
> : belonging to the author...
>
> really?
>
> clearly, i'll defer to your experience on such a matter, but my fuzzy
> memory has images of the "legalese" page of books saying things to the
> effect of, "copyright © [year], [publisher]," as opposed to [author].
>
That usually refers to that publication, specifically that version of
the book. The content almost always remains in the hands of the author
in the sense that the publisher would have to seek rights to publish it
a second time. Any decent agent will insist on this as it protects the
author should the book be a success or later events bring about a demand
for a re-release.
But again, that applies to successive releases, not the copy you might
have in your hands.
Flight
(AFAIK)
fuzzy pink satan (also known as skerry)
fpevooyrq onpxjneqf sbe fngna:
>The last time I checked, alt.gothic
>was filled with a bunch of people that gave a shit about things like
>this.
if i want to get my paycheck a day early, i fork over $1 which is
then donated to the CMN[1]. not that i give a shit about that either.
i just want my cash so i can pay my LD phonebill and buy ceedeez.
that's enough do-gooding for me, & i'm hardly inclined to care
about soothing the hurt feelings of someone who's pitching
a fit and embarrassing himself.
if you're railing against me for stating the bare facts that it's
basically futile for him to try to completely annihilate his little
creation based on the basic nature of this GLORIOUS electronic
medium (and by the way, who the hell ever said i was referring
to alt.gothic/usenet ONLY?), then i'm afraid i cannot help you
anymore.
>It's the simple mater of Synic MADE it. And someone else
>posted it not only without permission, but complete against the
>author's wishes.
actually, he based the gothcode on several other versions of
code similar in purpose, and let us not forget the suggestions that
shaped & changed the code over the long, dark years, but
regardless...
i am quite aware of the situation. if you'll notice, i stated that
i am most disinterested in making bOoTlEg CoPieZ of his bastard
code and violating his virgin copyright, rather choosing to focus
on his utter inanity.
i'll let you finish, though. by the look on your face you're on
a moral crusade, and probably have a grand finale' tucked away
in your cape.
>This isn't a place of porn sites.
[snip]
>That's the ONLY issue. If you think alt.gothic is nothing more than
>another WaReZ or pr0n site, then I pity you.
why marc, that strawman doesn't look a -bit- like me, despite
the great hair and smashing apparel.
carrie
[1] first person to make a snarky remark about that comment
despite me saying that i don't give a fuck about charity is an idiot.
Courtney
mac...@FILTERgothicindustrial.com says...
> It's sadly nothing more than pete's way of taking his bat and ball and going
> home and making damn sure the whole world knows about it. This whole "I'm
> not a goth and I dont want to be assoiciated with goth" line of crap temper
> tantrum testifies to that.
Funny how if he's really not a goth and involved and the such anymore, he
found these posts on a.g, no? You'd think that if he really gave a damn
about the content, instead of flipping out and acting like a spoiled 3
year old, he'd have written something a bit better...
Someone has a case of "waahh no one is bowing to my feet anymore"...
Courtney
(still in a bad mood)
--
___________________________
www.front242.net/vein/
efnet: vein icq: 1831913
___________________________
Flight
Canticle wrote:
>
> Flight wrote:
>
> > > Some have, however, and they have done so successfully. Much to my
> > > amusement, since it seems a large waste of time, but the point is they
> > > did it, and did so successfully.
>
> > They probably had a Hell of a lot of money to throw around as well.
>
> This is requirement one in the United States, but a lot of Canadian
> attorneys will take it up on the understanding that when they win, the
> loser in the lawsuit will pay the resulting fees. Sometimes I love our
> legal system. Not often mind you...
Many American lawyers will take you on contingency if they think they
can win. However, I doubt this was a contingency case that you refer
to. I was referring to the fact in America that if you have a lot more
money than the other guy... You win.
> ...excepting when
> people choose to defend explicitly implied copyrights.
Well, given that it was freely posted and exchanged for five years I'd
say it's too late for him to be complaining now since he explicitly gave
permission to post on Usenet until two months ago.
>
> > I'm curious as to the specifics of the cases you mentioned.
>
> They did, technically,
> have the works under copyright and when they were distributed, verabtim,
> without consent, on the 'net, they had the obligation (under law) to
> pursue the people who did it.
Different matter entirely. They never gave permission for people to
distribute it online at all, unlike synic, much less distribute it in a
forum that allows and encourages instant duplication. Furthermore there
were probably damages that could be proved in court to the effect of
loss of money.
Of course, it goes without saying that Scientology has *lots* of money
to throw around in these cases.
Flight