Re: Expanded Oracle DBA Site

"Jeffrey Hunter" <JeffreyH_at_comanage.net> wrote in message news:<157A4D97A88D7143B80E43C1B000B6E83D67F3_at_comail1.comanage.net>...

> Upon finding his article being hosted on my site (and without his
> permission) Howard posted to the same news groups I used to advertise my
> website with its recently added content. I don't check and contribute to
> news groups on a daily basis. In fact, it was a friend that emailed to say
> that I was being "publicly accessed of stealing" and provided me with the
> appropriate links to these threads. After reading through the threads, I
> instantly removed the document and the link to it. Two things came to mind:
> (1) Why hadn't Howard emailed me personally?

You mean the onus is on me to come up with a means of contacting you "appropriately"? Surely the onus is on you not to host without permission in the first place. And the onus is also on you to check for follow-ups to posts you make to this group.

>I have two email addresses
> clearly marked on the home page of my site. (As well as the ISP hosting the
> site).

The email address is at the foot of the home page, which is not visible on my laptop screen, unless I scroll down. When I visited the 9i New Features page, your email address became no longer visible.

Besides, you posted about the site here. You should always be prepared to follow up anything you post here. Not drop in and drop out as the mood takes you.

>(2) Why were his first reactions to my intentions so rushed? Why is
> it that his first instinct is that I stole the document and was going to
> continue to use it without his permission?

Get your facts straight. I posted a two-sentence message saying that it sucked you were hosting my material without acknowledgement or permission, and that I would like you to remove it along with anything else you might have "pinched" from me.

Pinched. Not stolen.

And there was nothing there indicating I thought you would continue to use it without my permission, merely astonishment that you already had done so.

> When I need to work with people, I take every means to contact them directly
> and use tact when confronting them; always assuming that people mean well.
> Howard didn't think so.

First, we aren't working together. Second, you don't know what I think.

>He assumed that I would be hanging out on the
> newsgroup waiting for a reply.

Actually, not an unreasonable assumption. You post here to advertise your site. You ask for comments about it. One would have thought you would have been back to check.

>When he didn't get a reply from the newsgroup
> (me) in a time he felt sufficient, he continued to use a demeanor that was
> unprofessional, making my site look like an "underground rouge site that
> engages only on stealing content and calling it his own or publishing it
> with no respect to the intellectual property of the author".

I have no idea where that quotation is coming from, but it wasn't mine. I didn't say it, and it is wrong of you to suggest that I did.

> As for Bob's comments on this thread. You first indicate that me calling
> Howard "unprofessional" was because I wasn't allowing him to "exercising his
> own right to his own intellectual property". Wrong Bob. I called him
> unprofessional for his demeanor, tact and failure to contact me directly.

Tactlessness would have been posting 'Get my f****ing document off your site, you worthless thief of other people's property'. I didn't say that, and what I did post was quite carefully tactful. You're pissed that I didn't email you, but replied to you through the medium you yourself had originally chosen to adopt, namely this group. Get over it. You are embarrassed, and rightly so, at being called on the issue. Get over it.

When you breach copyright, the copyright holder has no obligation to make contact with you via a method of your own choosing. The onus is on you not to breach copyright in the first place, and to remedy the situation as promptly as possible when it is pointed out to you that you have nonetheless done so, however that pointing out is done.

The onus is probably also on you to stop digging when you're already in a hole. Quoting me as having said something which I didn't say at all isn't exactly tacful, professional, ethical or sensible.

[Snip]

>
> Well, half right and half wrong. You are right; I didn't show penitence for
> posting Howard's article. Had it been something I did while knowing that it
> was wrong, this would not only be wrong but also reason to have the site
> shutdown. I had every right, however, to libel Howard for his attitude and
> knee-jerk reaction that I intentionally stole his work and assumed to keep
> it published without his consent. This is one reason Howard will not get an
> apology from me.

You have no right to libel anyone, any time. But that's a side issue. Unlike some people on this group, I don't accuse people of libel at the drop of a hat, and I haven't done so regarding you. What I resent is the idea that I reacted by assuming you had intentionally stolen my work and 'assumed [you would] keep it published without [my] consent'. I didn't accuse you in the first place of stealing it, and I didn't assume you would keep it there. Read my first post here again, please, and then dispute the issue.

And what a lot of kerfuffle for something which could have been recitifed in a moment by you (1) monitoring replies to your own posts and (2) being prompt in rectifying your own faults and (3) having a sense of common decency.

Ah well. Part of life's rich tapestry, I suppose.

HJR Received on Tue Apr 08 2003 - 03:43:53 CEST