Copyright Theft (was Re: # and believe me, Perl is still alive... still alive!...)

[Paul Makepeace]

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Jonathan Stowe
<jns at integration-house.com>wrote:

> 2008/12/10 Paul Makepeace <paulm at paulm.com>:
> > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Aaron Trevena <aaron.trevena at gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> 2008/12/10 Paul Orrock <paulo at digitalcraftsmen.net>:
> >> > Secondly I find myself surprised that in a discussion that is all
> about
> >> > leniency and being welcoming and not biting peoples heads off that you
> >> make
> >> > such a blanket assumption that the original poster was doing this
> >> > deliberately in full knowledge that it was copyright theft.
> >>
> >> He didn't make a blanket assumption, he put it down to being naive or
> >> something else
> >> (and TBH you'd have to be to not realise it was obviously copyright
> >> infringement).
> >
> >
> > The opening line was "I'll put your attempt to get us to participate in
> > copyright theft.." suggesting pre-meditation and malicious intent (which
> > actually logically contradicts the perceived motivation expressed
> > immediately afterwards but never mind that...), neither of which strikes
> me
> > as particularly likely, and thus I think Paul's read is pretty fair.
> >
>
> So, we all think that a site with no O'Reilly branding and that is
> CARRYING ADVERTS FOR PORN SITES could legitimately be mistaken for a
> pukka site?  Yes I WAS implying that I believed he knew that it wasn't
> a pukka site, but that being familiar with the established culture of
> the community should have prevented him making the mistake of posting
> the link here. But I was prepared to put that down to extenuating
> circumstances.
>
>
>
> > Let's just be nice, mm'kay?
>
> "Nice" doesn't cut it: politeness - that is to say adhering to a set
> of basic community norms and, if one doesn't understand those norms,
> not making up a standard for yourself that is at conflict with them
> and then getting the arse when called on it is the key.  Most of the
> crap that we get in this list is completely down to people not being
> polite.


Ah come on, I looked at that site, and saw a couple of Russian ads with no
images. Anyone with an adblocker could easily have seen no ads. Who hasn't
done a quick search, skimmed the content for verification, and then pasted
the link into an email?

The point is there's a whole lot of blustery indignation in the original
phrasing that just didn't really add to the message, possibly even
detracted.

**

On another maybe more interesting topic: so seriously, this site's been
around for ages, why haven't O'R done something about it? Or have they, but
just unsuccessfully? It's not like UA doesn't have copyright laws and
police.

(There's a subtle subtext to this question which is: if this site is at #3
SERP, ie. has been around so long it's accumulated inbound links, then maybe
O'R don't care, so why should anyone else?)

P


>
> And I said no arguing
>