At 05:17 PM 2002-08-19 -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >On Monday, August 19, 2002, at 04:11 PM, Charlie Summers wrote: > >> Why are you so intent on placing the responsibility on the publisher and >>not the archiver? > >because that's where I think it belongs?
In my neighborhood, we put garbage cans on the street for the garbagemen to pick up (the contents, that is). No one steals them. Maybe we lose one from the block every five years, it probably blows away. We don't label the cans because of that. No one locks their pool doors (the standard is that the handles are out of the reach of small children) and no one steals our BBQs or even our gas bottles. If someone did steal a bottle, I still might not start locking my pool door. The value of a screen panel is more than anything that would be likely to be stolen. >I lock my door when I leave the house, too. I don't depend on passerbys >not going in and checking out my bathrooom.... > >Why are you so intent on pretending the owner of content has no >responsibility to make their wishes for that content known? Because even if you left your front door open, the person who comes in to use your toilet is a trespasser, and your wishes are already apparent --- you want to ventilate your house, or you want light or maybe you are trying to add to your mosquito collection. This does not imply that the local teenagers have permission to use it for a rave. The presumption is that it is your property. You do not need to lock your bicycle to make it theft for someone to steal it. You do not need to lock your door to make your wishes known -- that only stops a certain class of thief and would not stop any serious thief. The whole concept that a copyright notice changes anything with regard to ownership is rather doubtful. For you or I to say, "I think it is a good idea to put a label on postings and I am going to put some on mine" is one thing. For someone to propose, as a standard, that you must have a notice or it is a free for all, well, that is an attempt by a small group to make law that is in contradiction to extant law. If anything is formalized, what should be formalized is permission. Doing nothing == no permission. The extant practice is not only rude but arguably illegal. Another point is that there are no where near as many archivers as there were search engines when robots.txt was put forth. There is still time to change the practices of the two or three extant archivers that are of any account ---- perhaps simply a letter asserting that the polite and legal thing to do is to ask is all that it would take. I am going to repeat a point I tried to make earlier. From my point of view, we are having this discussion because the number of active mailing list archivers went from zero->one. Now, we can draw a graph, and put two points on it, and this will definitely form a trend. However, I see no evidence that this number will ever accelerate. That is, I see no evidence that the trend will continue and over some unit time, we will add another one-several archivers. Does anyone know of any projects that are on the horizon which would indicate that this might happen? People have joked about google groups. Does anyone have any evidence that there might be a google groups on the horizon or is that a talking point? Is this much ado about onething? That is, is this really a gmane issue as opposed to a general problem with a plethora of public mailing list archives? I went looking, and with the obvious search string, I found a bunch of local archives for one or five mailing lists, but not a bunch of listings for various mailing list archive services. By the way, Chuq, did you make an assertion that google would not download a page with a copyright notice on it? http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html http://216.239.37.100/search?sourceid=navclient&q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2Fref%2Fmembercenter%2Fhelp%2Fcopyright.html -- "Forgive him, for he believes that the customs of his tribe are the laws of nature!" -- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) Nick Simicich - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
