Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:09:05 04/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 10, 2000 at 10:20:41, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On April 10, 2000 at 09:23:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>there is no "hindsight" here. The email was _not_ posted here by the >>author. It is _always_ improper _and_ illegal to do so without the > >How should we have known that RR is not Ossi? Wrong angle. The question should be "Am I sure this _is_ Ossi, so that this posting of an email by him is ok?" and not "Am i sure this is _not_ Ossi, so that this email posting is wrong?" I read _nothing_ that suggested this was written by Ossi. The wording sounded wrong (ie I rarely talk about myself in the third person...). > >>author's permission. Copyright law is pretty clear about who owns something > >How should we have known that RR did not have Ossi's permission? Again, you miss the point. You must know that he _does_ or the post should be deleted. Just like any web manager will tell you... If there is any doubt, remove first, reinstall later if necessary. > >I tried to determine these facts immediately after I read the post. But by then, >the discussion was all but over. So should I have "shot first and asked >questions later" by immediately deleting a dozen messages that were probably >legitimate? (I was pretty sure that RR was Ossi.) I don't think that's the >proper way to run a forum like this. > If you have data that suggests that RR was Ossi, then leaving it here was fine. I didn't see anything in the actual post that suggested this however, so with the data _I_ have in front of me, _any_ post with a private email should be summarily deleted unless it is clear it was posted with permission. Again, common usenet policy for email should apply... >>>When you consider that Ritter Rost might have been a name that Ossi uses, or >>>that Ritter Rost may have had explicit permission from Ossi to post the e-mail, >>>well, that complicates the situation, doesn't it? >>Not particularly. Do you continue to let a newspaper story run, until the >>facts are verified, or do you wait until the facts are verified before running >>the story. (IE National Inquirer vs NY Times). We know who gets sued all the >>time for 'printing without verification'. > >This analogy makes no sense. A newspaper and the CCC are totally different. We >don't print/run stories. They appear. Or are you suggesting that the moderators >check every post for content before they get posted? No. I am suggesting that when you see something that is _obviously_ not supposed to be here, you delete it. Private email should _never_ be posted by anyone other than the person that wrote the email. > >>>Personally, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt instead of >>>immediately deleting everything that looks slightly suspicious to me. >>I don't disagree. But this wasn't slightly suspicious. It was obviously >>private email written by someone else. No chance it was Ossi doing the posting >>as he would have referred to "I wrote the following"... > >That's absolutely absurd. It would be like writing, "Here's a letter I wrote, >just in case you can't read the name at the bottom." In fact, I would expect the >exact opposite. If you posted a letter by someone else, wouldn't you precede it >by, "Here's a letter someone else wrote..."? > No.. I would clearly write at the top: Here is an email I sent to <xxx> explaining my position on this: >>>By the time I found out that the post was actually illegal, it had "naturally >>>expired" so there really wasn't anything I could do about it. >>what does "naturally expired" mean? So far as I know nothing 'expires' here, >>if you keep going back using 'next group of messages'... > >From my standpoint, the post is gone. I (virtually) never click on "next group." >If you're still hell-bent on having this post deleted, again, I suggest you send >the moderators some e-mail. I'm not "hell-bent" on anything. Just trying to explain a mistake that was made, and how it should have been handled, and how it should be handled in the future. It was wrong when it was posted, unless RR is Ossi. It is wrong for it to still stick around, unless Ossi gave/gives his permission. > >>I would assume that anyone running as a moderator would _know_ that copyright >>laws apply to email just as effectively as these laws apply to books. It has >>been discussed both here _and_ in r.g.c.c several times in the past. I was a >>moderator for the first 'shift' when we created CCC. I have declined to run >>each time since as I don't have the time. If you don't have the time, then >>why did you run??? It does carry a responsibility with the title... > >Yes, of course I am aware of this law. But I've already justified my decision >above. > >I _do_ have enough time to do this job. But I don't have enough time to go >through every single post every waking moment. That's not what the job is about. That excuse won't fly. You _did_ read the post, because you asked for details to support it. IE you read it, but didn't act to remove it, which (IMHO) you should have. If you don't read a post, it is hard to know it should be removed unless someone points it out. But if you _respond_ to a post, you ought to know it was inappropriate when it included an obviously private email message. > >If you see a post that you don't like, or you see one that you KNOW is illegal, >then simply e-mail the moderators. Because we might not notice it ourselves. Is >that our fault? No. Is it your fault for expecting us to do exactly what you >want with no imput from you? Yes. > >-Tom I logically assumed that since you read it, and then responded to it, that you had "read it". I can't imagine anyone not knowing the basics of copyright law with regard to internet stuff... it has been discussed both here and in r.g.c.c many times.
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.