![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 39 to 63 of 63. Go back in thread:
Posted by tina on July 24, 2001, at 18:41:25
In reply to Re: blocked for one week, posted by Willow on July 23, 2001, at 21:35:28
Guess I'm just being canadian here again. I can never figure out what everyone is getting so pissed about. I must be dumb.I hate to see the discord though.
"weeping" Tina
Why single out one person when there are others rocking the boat harder Doc? Maybe just stepping back and seeing where the arguments go before jumping the gun and banning? In my experience, the topic becomes beaten to death and the conversation dies naturally. Think you may be a little too sensitive doc? Just a thought........
> Jeepers Boss above! Cam offers much more than this other poster in the way of support versus harrasment. (I'm not trying to discount the other souls motives.) I'll try to play the saviour, block me and let Cam stay. You'll be doing everyone a service including myself.
Posted by Willow on July 24, 2001, at 21:09:16
In reply to Re: blocked for one week..Jeezzzzz, posted by tina on July 24, 2001, at 18:41:25
Tina
Maybe once the smog clears the thinking will get clearer. Though are we being partial because it is one of our own that has been banned or is it that he just speaks our everyday polite frank language?
ewww, would I ever like to use proper pronouns.
or perhaps our good quality weed just makes us more laid back? I don't inhale so it could just the aroma!
Whistling Willow
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 25, 2001, at 19:32:01
In reply to Re: blocked for one week..Jeezzzzz, posted by tina on July 24, 2001, at 18:41:25
> Why single out one person when there are others rocking the boat harder Doc?
The person you're probably thinking of I keep blocking, but keeps coming back under new names, and there's not much I can do about that.
> Maybe just stepping back and seeing where the arguments go before jumping the gun and banning? In my experience, the topic becomes beaten to death and the conversation dies naturally. Think you may be a little too sensitive doc?
I might be. But better too sensitive than not sensitive enough, I think...
Bob
Posted by Willow on July 25, 2001, at 20:22:38
In reply to Re: blocked for one week..Jeezzzzz, posted by Dr. Bob on July 25, 2001, at 19:32:01
But why Cam?
Willow
looking for answers
Posted by tina on July 25, 2001, at 20:54:44
In reply to Re: blocked for one week..Jeezzzzz, posted by Dr. Bob on July 25, 2001, at 19:32:01
I don't envy your position doc.
Too bad we can't keep out the "bad apples"
Why do they continue to come back I wonder? What is their motivation?
a confused tina
> > Why single out one person when there are others rocking the boat harder Doc?
>
> The person you're probably thinking of I keep blocking, but keeps coming back under new names, and there's not much I can do about that.
>
> > Maybe just stepping back and seeing where the arguments go before jumping the gun and banning? In my experience, the topic becomes beaten to death and the conversation dies naturally. Think you may be a little too sensitive doc?
>
> I might be. But better too sensitive than not sensitive enough, I think...
>
> Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2001, at 8:58:04
In reply to Re: blocked for one week..Jeezzzzz, posted by Willow on July 25, 2001, at 20:22:38
> But why Cam?
Because of what he posted?
Bob
Posted by Willow on July 26, 2001, at 9:59:16
In reply to Re: blocked for one week..Jeezzzzz, posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2001, at 8:58:04
> > But why Cam?
>
> Because of what he posted?
>
> BobThe truth?! Sometimes it hurts, but is good to hear for all concerned.
Posted by Noa on July 26, 2001, at 10:34:24
In reply to Re: blocked for one week..Jeezzzzz, posted by Willow on July 26, 2001, at 9:59:16
I am a Cam fan, myself. He is an important member of this community and I respect him a lot. But sometimes he gets his buttons pushed, especially by certain people, and I, personally, think having a temporary "time out" might be helpful, ie, I feel Dr. Bob's decision to block for a week seems reasonable to me. I'll miss Cam, of course, but look forward to seeing him when he returns. As for the truth--telling it like it is is good, but the real truth (as I see it, of course) is that sometimes ignoring certain posters is a much better option, because they are trying to provoke and if you get provoked and drawn in, it gives them the power we don't want them to have. I know this from experience, as I, at one time, was targeted by a certain poster's disruptions and attacks, and it really pushed my buttons.
Posted by tina on July 26, 2001, at 10:54:48
In reply to Re: blocked for one week..Jeezzzzz, posted by Noa on July 26, 2001, at 10:34:24
> I am a Cam fan, myself. He is an important member of this community and I respect him a lot. But sometimes he gets his buttons pushed, especially by certain people, and I, personally, think having a temporary "time out" might be helpful, ie, I feel Dr. Bob's decision to block for a week seems reasonable to me. I'll miss Cam, of course, but look forward to seeing him when he returns. As for the truth--telling it like it is is good, but the real truth (as I see it, of course) is that sometimes ignoring certain posters is a much better option, because they are trying to provoke and if you get provoked and drawn in, it gives them the power we don't want them to have. I know this from experience, as I, at one time, was targeted by a certain poster's disruptions and attacks, and it really pushed my buttons.
Posted by Willow on July 26, 2001, at 11:30:24
In reply to Re: blocked for one week..Jeezzzzz, posted by Noa on July 26, 2001, at 10:34:24
Noa
You are so right, but can't we accept Cam with this trait. I'm sure he's aware of it. I haven't followed the whole thread, like in real life I have a tendency to jump in and make assumptions with half the facts, but wouldn't it be easier to block the instigator.
BEST REGARDS
Willow
Posted by stjames on July 26, 2001, at 22:28:37
In reply to Stay Away --new BoBB incarnation(np), posted by tina on July 26, 2001, at 10:54:48
Are you saying Noa is BoBB ? Noa has been here a long time and is not BoBB.
james
Posted by Noa on July 27, 2001, at 9:38:44
In reply to Re: Stay Away --new BoBB incarnation(np), posted by stjames on July 26, 2001, at 22:28:37
> Are you saying Noa is BoBB ? Noa has been here a long time and is not BoBB.
>
> jamesThank you James. I was wondering if Tina thought that and decided no, she must have just posted after my post. I hope.
Posted by Noa on July 27, 2001, at 9:44:12
In reply to Re: blocked for one week..Jeezzzzz » Noa , posted by Willow on July 26, 2001, at 11:30:24
Willow, for me, accepting Cam with any "trait" (I see this more as a behavior than a trait, actually) isn't a problem. I accept Cam. I may be stepping over boundaries here (and Cam, I apologise if I am), but to me, when Cam lets himself get pulled into the nonsense from the instigators, I don't think it is good for Cam, given what he has been through. Having a limit set sometimes is helpful to the person themselves.
As for blocking instigators, absolutely, I would love to see that happen, but as Dr. Bob said earlier in this thread, sometimes it is hard because instigators can be tenacious and know how to skirt the system, by changing identities frequently, by coming up to but not actually crossing the line of incivility, etc. Again, I feel the best course of action is to ignore them. What they want is reaction, so why give it to them?
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 27, 2001, at 13:41:02
In reply to Re: Stay Away --new BoBB incarnation(np), posted by stjames on July 26, 2001, at 22:28:37
> Are you saying Noa is BoBB ?
I assume she meant the other person, "Justice" et al...
Bob
Posted by Pennie Lane on July 30, 2001, at 18:49:04
In reply to Re: new boBB incarnation, posted by Dr. Bob on July 27, 2001, at 13:41:02
The University of Texas primer cited above to support the posting of copyrighted articles as a fair use says:
“A nonprofit use of a whole work will weigh somewhat against fair use.”
http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/IntellectualProperty/copypol2.htmThe Consortium for Technology in University Systems (whose link was cited) encourages the use of passwords to limit access to articles copied electronically for educational purposes.
“By limiting the range of users who may find the document, the professor can minimize or eliminate any possibility that someone will retrieve the work from the network instead of purchasing a copy.”
http://www.cetus.org/fair6.htmlThis practice of posting whole articles goes against the well-intended efforts of distance-learning professionals to preserve their right to use copyrighted material in limited educational settings. If not illegal, it invites lawmakers to tighten copyright laws. The consortium, in principles intended to protect the right of fair use by universities, says:
“ Higher education has an obligation to educate its constituencies about intellectual properties and about the lawful uses of copyrighted material.”
http://www.cetus.org/fair4.html> ( from http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/IntellectualProperty/copypol2.htm#test )
> The four fair use factors:
> 1.What is the character of the use?This site can be viewed for any purpose by anyone with a web browser. It is not, as exempted in Sec. 110 of the copyright code (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/110.html ) “a *regular part of the systematic instructional activities* of … a nonprofit educational institution … primarily for reception in classrooms or similar places normally devoted to instruction, or for reception by persons to whom the transmission is directed because their disabilities or other special circumstances prevent their attendance in classrooms or similar places normally devoted to instruction.”
Sec. 110 allows display of a work by the public reception of the transmission on a single receiving
apparatus of a kind commonly used in private homes, *unless - the transmission thus received is further transmitted to the public*> 4.What effect would this use have on the market for the original or for permissions if the use were widespread?
( from http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/IntellectualProperty/copypol2.htm#test )If this practice were widespread, it would significantly damage the market for permissions and allow any Internet site that describes itself as educational to post any article it wanted, regardless of copyright restrictions.
Posted by Mark H. on July 31, 2001, at 21:36:29
In reply to More copyright violations, posted by LarryS on July 19, 2001, at 0:39:13
I'm not going to defend the original poster, but I would like to point out that, to someone who was new here and attempting to figure out what is appropriate to post, much of this thread would appear to contradict the broad guidelines of civility and supportiveness advocated by virtually all of us.
There is nothing civil or supportive about calling someone a troll, telling him to go away, asking why he returns when he is unwelcome here, questioning his motives, or otherwise directing blatant hostility towards him.
It's as though, because "boB" has been a focus for anger and hurt in the past (I won't say "caused" -- we're all responsible for our own feelings, right?), the guidelines fly out the window and attacks on him are encouraged, cheered and defended by others.
I see two problems with that. First, if we're only civil and supportive to the people we like, what does that say about us? Second, despite the heated opposition they elicit, outspoken critics of "common wisdom" are often right.
If we lose our compassion and violate our values out of anger, and in the end we turn out to be wrong about our position on the subject matter (which is at least a possibility), then we do a double harm to ourselves and others.
I'm not claiming to be anywhere near mastering the level of equanimity and fairness that I advocate. I'm still at the "bite my tongue and say nothing" phase of integrating my values, and I fail even to do that far too often.
But I have too much respect for many of the people who responded to this thread not to say something. This is just my opinion, of course, and I appreciate your consideration.
Best wishes,
Mark H.
Posted by stjames on August 1, 2001, at 11:19:36
In reply to Copyright infringement and fair use, posted by Pennie Lane on July 30, 2001, at 18:49:04
I still maintain that these posts in question fall under "fair use" despite the information you posted. I am going to wait, on this subject, for an expert (if Bob can find one) to comment more on this one. Tired of ankle bitters.
Posted by somebetter on August 1, 2001, at 11:44:11
In reply to Civility and Supportiveness?, posted by Mark H. on July 31, 2001, at 21:36:29
Thank you, Mark. Intelligently put, I wish I could put my feelings on the subject into words so clearly. I'm so glad you wrote.
Posted by medlib on August 2, 2001, at 0:25:01
In reply to Civility and Supportiveness?, posted by Mark H. on July 31, 2001, at 21:36:29
Hi Mark--
Thanks much for another thought-provoking post. It's great to see you back! I always enjoy your posts, particularly when I don't agree. More, please!!
Well wishes---medlib
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 2, 2001, at 10:47:39
In reply to Re: expert on internet copyright issues, posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2001, at 17:26:16
> > Does uchicago have a law school ?
>
> Hmm, maybe I'm spending too much time in cyberspace. :-) In fact, we do, just down the street, and there are a couple people I could try...I ended up trying someone who used to be down the street:
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig
And he responded:
> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 17:56:37 -0700
> From: Lawrence Lessig
>
> This turns out to be a hard question. In my view, it is or should be fair use, but there is some authority to the contrary. Is there a reason you can't simply publish links?So, as I said, it's complicated. But I guess it doesn't have to be just left at that. IMO, there are three possible scenarios:
1. It can be pretty clearly OK. Simply posting a link, as suggested above, would be an example. This type of posting is encouraged.
2. It can be pretty clearly not OK. Posting a password that's intended for only your use would be an example. This type of posting is prohibited -- and if I become aware of such a post, I'll delete some or all of it.
3. It can be debatable. Posting without permission the full text of an article copyrighted by someone else would be an example. If access to the article were free, it would be more OK; if not, it would be less OK. This type of posting is neither encouraged nor prohibited, ie, is discouraged but allowed.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#copyright
How about that?
Bob
Posted by Mark H. on August 2, 2001, at 21:35:38
In reply to Re: Civility and Supportiveness? » Mark H. , posted by medlib on August 2, 2001, at 0:25:01
Thank you for your kind response. I suppose I should clarify for those who don't know me that I support and agree with the way Dr. Bob has handled this, including asking "boB" to remain blocked. My comments were limited to uncharacteristic name-calling and hostility that were based on past interactions.
The "guy who used to be down the block," Larry Lessig, is arguably the best informed legal scholar on Internet law and policy in the United States. His wonderful book (Code), though dry at times (as any legal explanation for us laypeople must be), is a fascinating must-read for anyone interested in Internet development.
I think Dr. Bob's new policy is as close to perfect as we're likely to get for awhile. I have mixed feelings about re-posting complete articles or other material that is copyrighted. As a consumer of information, the redundancy not only increases the likelihood of my finding it in the first place, but also helps to insure my access (as for instance when I recently was searching for a copy of the Beck depression inventory for a colleague at work, and another in which I was looking for the article "296 vs. 314," which apparently was removed from the site where it was originally posted). On the other hand, I work in a field that has struggled with the necessity of combating pirating of copyrighted programs in other countries, both to protect the property rights of the original producers and to insure the political legitimacy and independence of private broadcasters.
I see two trends in Internet usage in this area that I think are healthy. First, more people are asking for and receiving permission to reprint with credit to the original site and author. Second, some sites now post borrowed material with a fair use disclaimer, stating that they believe the material to be republished within the meaning of fair use, but that if the rights holder has any objection, they will immediately remove the material if requested. Absent legal guidelines that are more clear than we currently have, these trends seem to be a matter of good manners and mutual respect.
Where you and I may disagree (and I'm glad we remain friends even when we do) is that I still see good coming from interactions that are sometimes painful, as happened with this thread. I'm as tempted to resort to name-calling and hostility as anybody, even though they are contrary to what I believe is right. If we're never tested, how are we to know whether we've grown? It's the person we find irritating who teaches us real compassion and shows us where we need to work on ourselves.
I'll be traveling and off-line for the next three weeks, but I'll return as a regular lurker after that.
Best wishes,
Mark H.
Posted by afatchic on August 3, 2001, at 16:49:25
In reply to Re: Stay Away --new BoBB incarnation(np), posted by Noa on July 27, 2001, at 9:38:44
Noa! I didn't know you were BoBB ;-)(np)
> > Are you saying Noa is BoBB ? Noa has been here a long time and is not BoBB.
> >
> > james
>
> Thank you James. I was wondering if Tina thought that and decided no, she must have just posted after my post. I hope.
Posted by Pennie Lane on August 3, 2001, at 18:16:04
In reply to Re: Stay, posted by pennie lane on August 3, 2001, at 17:33:24
> Would you be more effective if you were healthy and strong?
Oops....that inadvertant paste was not intended to be posted here. It sounded like I was pressuring others. I must have clicked submit in the wrong window.
What I meant to send was an answer to the post asking "How about that?"
The copyright guideline at least lets readers know what standards apply here. It is more lenient than rules at some websites but more discouraging of unapproved reproduction than the guidelines at other websites.
Several on this site have been accused of being that B guy, in most cases wrongly, but N is not the B I know.
If this Perl had the edit function that is provided on many other boards that B guy would probably not even be a spectre in the archives here. Instant creative access to a permanant public archive that is wired into millions of homes is the result of a very new technology. As a new technology it invites a kind of embrace that can feel invasive in retrospect.
In Penny Lane there is a barber showing photographs
of every head he's had the pleasure to know.Behind the shelter in the middle of a roundabout
The pretty nurse is selling poppies from a tray
And tho' she feels as if she's in a play
She is anyway.- J,P,G,R
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 24, 2001, at 12:56:35
In reply to Re: expert on cyberlaw, posted by Dr. Bob on August 2, 2001, at 10:47:39
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#copyright
>
> How about that?I simplified that section, mostly by not getting into the details of fair use (whether access is free, etc.), and instead leaving that to a *link*:
> Acceptable options include summarizing or paraphrasing, simply posting a link, as suggested above, *fair use* of a portion, or, of course, obtaining permission. If material you hold the copyright to has been reproduced here and you object, please contact me, and we'll work something out.
>
> Posting a site password that's intended for only your use is prohibited. If I become aware of such a post, I'll delete some or all of it.Any comments?
Bob
Posted by kid47 on September 27, 2001, at 16:30:05
In reply to Re: expert on internet copyright issues » Justice, posted by Shar on July 21, 2001, at 23:48:40
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.