Prosco

Message ID: 191877
Posted By: idiot_spavint
Posted On: 2004-10-13 16:47:00
Subject: Prosco. New article on Groklaw.

The mission statement has been altered today as well. I believe it says that comments are copyrighted and may not be compiled, copied, modified, deep linked, distributed or reproduced elsewhere without permission.

Message ID: 191912
Posted By: heimdal31
Posted On: 2004-10-13 17:44:00
Subject: No Deep Linking?

<< The mission statement has been altered today as well. I believe it says that comments are copyrighted and may not be compiled, copied, modified, deep linked, distributed or reproduced elsewhere without permission. >>

From http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20040923045054130

"Comments . . . may not be . . . deep linked, . . . without permission."

I guess that means no more posting links to Groklaw comments. I do wonder why they have that link in each comment to create a direct (i.e. DEEP) link. Hopefully they'll pull that soon to remove the temptation.

When we were talking about the comments over the weekend, I was arguing that my understanding of the comments policy was what I thought it was changed to. That is, that only the articles are CCL and the copyright of all comments resides with the poster.

I gotta say that not allowing linking to comments really, really undermines the value of Groklaw as a resource to fight SCO, MS, SUN or whomever else.

Now, you can only link to articles. So, if on Slashdot, here or elsewhere you want to point out a particularly salient and devastating insight made by a Groklaw poster, you cannot. Plus, since Groklaw allows anonymous posts and has no system for e-mailing the people leaving comments, it is very difficult for you to track down the person to get permission.

I hope that this is not the real intent.

Message ID: 191925
Posted By: heimdal31
Posted On: 2004-10-13 18:11:00
Subject: Re: No Deep Linking?

http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20040129172401302&title=MS%2 0and%20SUN%20deals%20treated%20as%20loans%2Fequity%20financnig&type=article&orde r=&hideanonymous=0&pid=0#c62443

This is the kind of comment that cannot be deep-linked. (Since it is my comment, I can do it.) Hopefully, my reply to that comment from just now will be noticed by any who might want to deep-link in the future.

Message ID: 192008
Posted By: mck9@swbell.net
Posted On: 2004-10-13 23:36:00
Subject: PJ responds

On Tuesday, in a comment under the article titled "Ah, To Be in Paris& a Mr. Merkey Shows Up Again," PJ took note of the debate here stemming from w4rmc47's proposal to provide an indexing service for Groklaw. She described the discussion as "a SCO astroturf production."

I protested that this characterization was unfair.

On Wednesday at 2:39 PM she responded. Fair use excerpt:

"I think what is going on on Yahoo is mean-spirited and short-sighted. To me, it's also unethical. Some of the proposed plans are illegal, in my view. You are all free to think what you like, but so am I. And that is what I think."

I'm not allowed to provide a deep link, but the thread title is "OT - a quick poll."

I don't want to spark another Grokwar, but many of you might like to read her response. Since the comment is now buried several stories deep you may easily have missed it.

Message ID: 192051
Posted By: boyle_m_owl
Posted On: 2004-10-14 01:23:00
Subject: Re: No Deep Linking?

Ok, so I went to see what the brouhaha was about, and like it says...

"Comments are copyrighted and may not be compiled, copied, modified, deep linked..."

I thought that maybe people were taking things out of context. Errh...I guess not. :-/

My thoughts, think of them what you will:

Publishing things via the WWW and saying "No Deep (direct) Linking" attempts to erase the H in HTML. If one of PJ's goals is to have a proprietary non-linkable BBS database, then she should use something *other* than HTML. There are ways to do this. But then her site wouldn't be as popular as it is. She _owes_ her popularity to the H in HTML. She can fight that H all she wants, but it won't do her any good, because:

Direct (Deep) links are legal. And without that H, say goodbye to bookmarks and the casual visitor, who would have to drill down from the top page to find a specific thread.

People can be _polite_ and not direct link, *if she asks nicely, and says "please" in that sentence, but it won't stop and shouldn't stop people referring to individual posts from the outside.

All of the above is in light of the fact that there are no registered accounts needed to peruse Groklaw. One can go to PJ's site at will and go to any thread anywhere, without logging in, and read. If she were to do things the way she intends, she could do what the NY Times and various other free sites do - free registration. Then she can require people to actually log in with usernames and passwords before displaying a direct link.

But I seriously doubt she wants to get involved in that. It would close off her site to the casual visitor, who would just go elsewhere (as I do when given a NY Times link) and reduce her audience immensely, which *is* one of the basic reasons why PJ put the site up in the first place (it's not stated, but everyone needs an audience...we are all players on the stage, as Wm Shakespeare said).

--
BMO

Message ID: 192083
Posted By: hgclayton
Posted On: 2004-10-14 06:28:00
Subject: Question for heimdal31

The comment you link to on GL, #c62443, seems to be gone.

Could you please confirm this.

-hgc

Message ID: 192102
Posted By: heimdal31
Posted On: 2004-10-14 08:19:00
Subject: Re: Question for heimdal31

<< The comment you link to on GL, #c62443, seems to be gone.

Could you please confirm this.>>

It appears that I am now a non-person.

My groklaw userid "rushing" no longer appears to exist. It isn't even in the drop-down of authors on the search screen.

Now, I find this a bit annoying, but it is the kind of deletion I respect. It is obvious to everyone, including me that my id is gone.

Message ID: 192128
Posted By: jcauseyfd
Posted On: 2004-10-14 09:05:00
Subject: Re: Question for heimdal31

heimdal31,

I just tried from here and you are correct that your userid no longer appears in the drop down list of authors on the search page.

I also did a search on "rushing" which brought up quite a few results. However, none of the ones I checked indicated any postings by you. Potentially your postings were changed to be shown as "anonymous".

However, I seriously doubt that. Knowing how geeklog is administered, which usually has a disclaimer whenever you delete something to let you know anything related to what you are deleting is also deleted (e.g. delete a topic and you lose all the stories, delete a user and you lose all comments/postings), I'm guessing your userid was deleted along with all related material.

The texts of these Yahoo Message Board posts have been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board users "idiot_spavint", "heimdal31", "mck9@swbell.net", "boyle_m_owl", "hgclayton", "jcauseyfd" under the following license: License: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.