Subject:
|
Re: malicious behavior
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:58:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
7148 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
<snip>
> Using an unjust law to have something legal removed from a website (something
> that had been up for months) is immoral. It may be legal but there are very few
> people outside the legal departments of multinational entertainment companies or
> the ruling parties in dictatorships that consider a law that holds someone
> guilty until proven innocent to be moral.
>
> So my moral ground is that you have recently, and maliciously, used immoral
> means to attack me freedom of speech.
>
> Tim
I couldn't give a rats ass about DMCA, 'fair usage', 'freedom of speech' or '1st
ammendment rights' or whatever people are going on about now--it's all
obfuscating the actual issue.
Here's the relevant text from the top of this thread--
In lugnet.technic, Bob Parker wrote:
> Seems to be some link problems with the Sidebar here. Do we need a
> Co-Curator? ;-)
Have you tried contacting the curator of the group? (Assuming you're talking
about broken links?)
Otherwise, it would appear that the images for Eric Sophie's models (and ONLY
Eric Sophie's models) were explicitly set to be a "broken" image:
http://www.maj.com/gallery/Lazarus/misc/Macros/thumb/broken_again.png_thumb.jpg
I have set the images to show Eric's creations properly. However, I expect that
this was done intentionally with malice toward Eric, given his history, and I
will attempt to look at the server logs to find out when this happened and who
specifically set these incorrectly. If this was done intentionally it is NOT
suitable behavior.
DaveE
---
Someone changed and 'mislinked' Erics creations in the sidebar of Technic to a
different pic that wasn't Erics.
It wasn't suitable behaviour, as DaveE stated. This has nothing to do with
copyrights or 'free use' or Eric's response--the links in the sidebar that were
linking to Eric's creations--and only Eric's creations--were tampered with and
FOR THIS ALONE Eric deserves an apology (if it is shown that it was done
intentionally and maliciously, and right now, just by understanding 'the usual
suspects' and the history of some LUGNETters regarding Eric, I really can't
believe that it wasn't malicious in intent and execution).
All other yippage by all parties (including me, so it seems) is specifically
irrelevant to this point.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) (*this is such a joke, I am just having fun in the way I transcribe the events*) Righgght! Brilliant, and upon further research one can plainly see, that another party, usual suspect, utters a complaint unto Eric Sophie's person, there by (...) (17 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) --snip-- (...) If you think that Eric deserves an apology then perhaps you should apologise to him. Since you had as much to do with the original issue as I did then you owe him an apology as much as I do. Furthermore I've never argued that (...) (17 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) Eric, The last thing you did wrong was to submit a DMCA image against me for an image the wasn't breaching your copyright. The image was legal. As I have explained to you by email it is called Fair Use for parody. That happened a few days ago (...) (17 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
183 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
