|
|
| Author |
Message |
jp2
|
|
The Censored Log (redux)
| 
Oct 26 19:47 UTC 2001 |
This item has been erased.
|
| 43 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 1 of 43:
|
Oct 26 19:48 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 2 of 43:
|
Oct 26 20:01 UTC 2001 |
This item should be titled "Help jp2 masturbate in public, because he
can't handle it himself."
|
other
|
|
response 3 of 43:
|
Oct 26 20:01 UTC 2001 |
<forget>
|
jp2
|
|
response 4 of 43:
|
Oct 26 20:04 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 5 of 43:
|
Oct 26 21:01 UTC 2001 |
Questions:
1. When did you explicity put your works under protection.
2. If the censored log is world-readable and unencrypted (or otherwise
protected), how is anybody circumventing it?
|
dunne
|
|
response 6 of 43:
|
Oct 26 21:06 UTC 2001 |
Two Questions:
1) Is this jp2 fellow local to Ann Arbor?
2) If so, couldn't one of the grex people go round his house and give
him a good hammering?
|
jp2
|
|
response 7 of 43:
|
Oct 26 21:12 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 8 of 43:
|
Oct 26 21:13 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 9 of 43:
|
Oct 26 22:23 UTC 2001 |
Re 7:
2) The log is a feature, put there by the designer of the software. It is
not a circumvention device.
|
styles
|
|
response 10 of 43:
|
Oct 26 23:09 UTC 2001 |
I would argue that intellectual content, posted in a public forum, is the
property of the creator of that content, and the owner should be able to
remove that content from said public forum at will, and that said feature is
preventing the owner from doing so.
I have two questions regarding this matter. They are very simple questions,
and i would appreciate if anyone interested would reply simply:
1) Do you think that grex should keep censored responses open to
anyone knowledgable of the fact that censored items are only
censored within the scope of picospan software, but still within
the scope of the limitation of usage of this system?
2) Why or why not?
|
scott
|
|
response 11 of 43:
|
Oct 27 00:05 UTC 2001 |
After thinking about it for a couple days, I think there shouldn't be any
censorship option at all.
|
jp2
|
|
response 12 of 43:
|
Oct 27 00:35 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 13 of 43:
|
Oct 27 00:58 UTC 2001 |
Shoot.
I was really hoping that the problems with the scribble log could be
addressed, but now that jp2 is supporting the idea I don't think anyone
will vote for it, especially since he's using spurious legal arguments
based on an unpopular law.
Under his argument, the 'Copy', 'Save', and 'Print' commands of a web
browser would be an illegal circumvention device, and would have to be
removed. Clearly this is ridiculous, and complying fully with his
reading of the law means that we would have to write a custom client
for Grex's conferences that would not allow data to be saved, printed,
copied, or stored.
|
jp2
|
|
response 14 of 43:
|
Oct 27 01:02 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 15 of 43:
|
Oct 27 01:42 UTC 2001 |
The DMCA does not make any allowances for fair use.
|
jp2
|
|
response 16 of 43:
|
Oct 27 01:46 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
keesan
|
|
response 17 of 43:
|
Oct 27 02:49 UTC 2001 |
But you could print something and then the author would scribble it.
|
styles
|
|
response 18 of 43:
|
Oct 27 02:59 UTC 2001 |
#11: so, do you think users should assume that anything posted in a grex
forum, whether presumptively "censored," should be open to the general public
to read? For instance, if I wanted to scribble this post, why does one assume
that I know that this response will be viewable by anyone on the systmem that
has the knowledge that such scribbled resonses will be viewable to the rest
of the system? If i censor the response, one can "only <respnum>" to see the
response. If I scribble the response, or whatever the command syntax is for
grex, who is to say that the user should assume that that response will
actually exist in world-readable logs?
So, back to #10, would anyone really care to answer?
Or maybe you think it's a stupid question?
If so, why?
Does it bother you that I am asking you these questions?
If so, WHY?
k thanks.
|
janc
|
|
response 19 of 43:
|
Oct 27 03:13 UTC 2001 |
I think this part is dead wrong:
When something is posted on Grex, Grex is given a license to republish
that material until such time as the author revokes that license.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
To the best of my knowledge, most assignments of rights under copyright law
are not revokable except under terms explicitly described in a license.
If I mail you a letter, you have the right publish that letter. There is
nothing I can do to revoke it.
If I sell you a book, you have the right to read the book. There is nothing
I can do to revoke it.
If I submit an article to a magazine, they have a right to publish it. There
is nothing I can do to revoke it.
So there are lots of situations where the right to reproduce a copyrighted
work can be given away and not revoked.
Why do you believe that the right of Cyberspace Communications to publish
your postings must be revokable? I've seen nothing to support this claim.
|
jp2
|
|
response 20 of 43:
|
Oct 27 03:48 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 21 of 43:
|
Oct 27 06:05 UTC 2001 |
#18: I'm not sure you understand what I said in #11. I'm actually saying
the scribble command (called "censor" on some other systems) be disabled, so
that there's no confusion about whether something is actually censored
completely.
|
styles
|
|
response 22 of 43:
|
Oct 27 06:37 UTC 2001 |
#21: so you're saying that there should be no option whatsoever to "scribble"
(in m-net terms, that means "write random data over the response so that the
response is irrecoverable")? If so, I understand what you are saying, but
I don't see how eliminating one option will make the other more clear. Are
you guggesting that if a system (we'll say grex for the sake of argument) were
to eliminate "scribble", or expurgated, as it seems to be on grex, that that
would eliminate confusion about whether a post was actually being *deleted*
or not? What I am suggesting is that the bbs software itself does not imply
that scribbled responses will exist for the rest of the world to read after
scribbling, and that that bbs oftware implies the opposite, namely that a
response unreadable via that bbs software is actually readable by the rest
of the system.
If you want the "censor" command eliminated completely, then that is another
story. It would mean that you want any post made to the system be the
property of the system and its staff. And, when I mean censor, I mean
"censor," "scribble," "expurgate," ort whatever the command may be. Do you
really think that a command which eliminates an individual user's response
should be eliminated? Should a user not have have the right to remove one's
response from the system that said user responded in? If I were to respond
to an item, for instance this item, would i have to explicitly say that the
words in this response are my words and my words alone, and that these words
are my intellectual property and that you have no say as to whether these
words can be altered or not, as they are my words, in order to protect that
which i say?
|
mary
|
|
response 23 of 43:
|
Oct 27 11:15 UTC 2001 |
I strongly agree with Scott's #11. Despite many discussions about
the limitations of the scribble command, confusion persists.
It should be made perfectly clear, somewhere, that when a user
chooses to post (or publish) here, it's not a revocable decision.
If you have doubts about whether you're going to like having to
live with your words then don't enter them.
|
remmers
|
|
response 24 of 43:
|
Oct 27 12:19 UTC 2001 |
Indeed.
|