FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-29-2013, 07:26 AM   #121
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 393
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Irreducible Complexity has screenshots showing that Joel Watts changed his Creative Commons license to one that he wrote himself
© Joel L. Watts and Unsettled Christianity, 2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Unsettled Christianity with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. For more information, see here.

This is like second century Christianity on the web.

1. Christian preacher makes extraordinary claims
2. Non-Christian responds by lampooning both the claims and the preacher
3. Christian preacher damns non-Christian for daring to criticize him, rewrites what he originally wrote, lies by saying it was written that way originally, attempts to have criticism censored and burned

How little things have changed since the Celsus-Origen debate.
James The Least is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 07:40 AM   #122
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

I still say this goes back to the attempts of the Biblioblogging community to dehumanize certain bloggers to 'not worthy' status. They facilitated this abuse. If Joel thought of Neil as a peer (which is true by any objective standard) none of this would have gotten carried away to this level. There is just something strange in human beings where ideas and 'higher ideals' (= protecting Jesus from mythicists) take over and displaces a basic sense of decency which believe is in each one of us.

I know on some level Joel is a decent person. After all, he went to a school which reinforced altruistic ideals into his brain. I bet you that if Neil was on the street robbed and shot Joel would help him. On that level his altruistic impulses 'work.' But its in the realm of ideas and the depersonalized world of the internet and 'words on a page' that he no longer sees the person in Neil. Very unusual phenomenon.

I remember when I 'met him' on the internet. He used to go around calling himself 'Polycarp.' I think I said something like 'Hi Polycarp, meet Marcion!' I guess this whole 'Polycarp' moniker was so juvenile that even he stopped using it especially now that he is trying to take himself to be a 'serious scholar.' But I think that goes to the core of Joel's self-identity. He thinks himself to be a modern version of Polycarp. Remember the movie 'Jesus of Montreal' (probably not because most of you aren't Canadian). It was about a young man who thought he was Jesus. Jesus at least is a sympathetic character. Who on earth would dream of being Polycarp in the modern world? A bully, which is why I always bring up his weight.

He must be a very complicated - even twisted - individual. There is all this hate inside of him but he pretends to himself that he is 'full of love.' Maybe he really is loving to those he loves. But there is all this irrational aggression which he needs to direct at people he deems insult and demean his Lord. It's absurd but it is quite fascinating at the same time. Maybe that is why I was drawn to him. He's quite a character - almost deserving of a movie script.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 07:40 AM   #123
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: middle east
Posts: 310
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey View Post
I did not receive any notice from Joel or Wordpress despite their claims and apparent evidence to the contrary. I have submitted my legal counter-claim inviting my gmail account be scrutinized to verify this.
Where’s Edward Snowden when we need him?

Your blog rawks.

Thank you very much for blogging.

Keep it up!

- Bingo
Bingo the Clown-O is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 07:59 AM   #124
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: middle east
Posts: 310
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Irreducible Complexity has screenshots showing that Joel Watts changed his Creative Commons license to one that he wrote himself
© Joel L. Watts and Unsettled Christianity, 2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Unsettled Christianity with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. For more information, see here.
Well then there ya go. That’s all that is needed. If it can be shown that Watts published his stuff under a Creative Commons license then the rest is all legalese and academic.

Maybe Neil should set aside pursuing Watts – and instead focus directly on pursing Wordpress – for violating their own terms.

Forget about the emails. What difference would the emails have made EVEN IF NEIL DID GET THEM?

Watts isn’t allowed to unilaterally change the terms of content that he already published - if the new terms are more restrictive. (and they are)
Bingo the Clown-O is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 08:03 AM   #125
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Iceland
Posts: 761
Default

Yup, I hope Neil pointed out to WP that the great scholar posted it under a cc. That should settle it.
hjalti is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 08:54 AM   #126
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 730
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hjalti View Post

Originally posted by Joel Watts:
Quote:
Really, Steve? Umm… Did you not check the bottom of the page where it says ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

What do you think ALL means, Steve? all except for what a mythicist blowhard who can’t read emails.

He can give credit, Rod, and he did — what he did was to take the entire post , word for word. When I asked them to not, he refused. When WP asked to not, he refused.

Either he is a failure at the ‘net, or he intentionally thought himself above the law/process.

I realize it is difficult for uberbuffoons to understand how the process works — although it wouldn’t matter, because what Neil says is what the truth is. (Almost like a cult). Yet, the simple fact of the matter is this.

When you submit a (re)quest(ion) to WP, they review it. They reviewed my site and Neils and found him to be at least questionable in his use of the material. He could have responded, but instead, he ignored them and went about his business.

Seems the problems one has (because being completely ignorant to how the process works) is with WP and their DMCA review team.
That cc-stuff doesn't actually mean you can copy his stuff.
This begs the question of course. If he truly believed that his "all rights reserved" trumped the CC, then why the panicked and furtive removal of CC from every page on his blog? There would be no need of any action unless he was being less than truthful in the above post.

His use of the word "refused" is worrisome too. If Neil did not receive any emails as he claims then, at worst, there was only a lack of response on his part. That's a very different animal to refusal.
aspronot is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 09:03 AM   #127
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 738
Default Questions for Tom

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Verenna View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post

Well we can already see the spin turning here. The action was totally unrelated to the criticism. The future of scholarship on display here. First, Joel was totally innocent. Now he is 'technically guilty' but his heart is innocent. No one wants Joel's personal information. Probably lives in a mobile home anyway.
That is completely unfair of you Stephan. Ad hom does not make Joel innocent or guilty...likewise it does not corroborate Godfrey's story that he never received a notice--clearly he did and he freely posted it (here in fact).
Whether or not Godfrey received a notice, we can be fairly certain that Automattic's protocol was not followed. For one thing, Watts never posted on Neil's site requesting that the post be amended or taken down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Automattic
Contact the blogger directly. Go to the blog post in question and leave a comment with your complaint to see if the matter can be resolved directly between you and the blogger.
Automattic DMCA Policy

It does not appear that Watts followed that protocol.

I would like to know from Tom Verenna, as Watts' main defender here, if he approves of Watts' change of his CC license to regular Copyright after filing his DMCA claim?

Here are some more questions:

--What part of his short post does Watts thinks needs protection? His compilation of websites? His use of the word "egg-cept?" What exactly did Neil "steal" from Joel that was worth anything?

--Don't you think that if Joel did not intend for Neil's blog to be taken down, he would have pursued other avenues to get his grievance met? Like, for instance, contacting Neil or following the Automattic policy on filing DMCAs?

--Doesn't the change of licence after the fact suggest dishonesty and attempt to retroactively cover some tracks?

--In light of his reply to Neil on his own blog (describing Vridar as "worthless"), doesn't it seem to be a vindictive act?

--Are you not at all bothered by Watts' exploitation of legitimate intellectual property right protections in order to pursue a vendetta against Neil who had criticized him? Basically, using the law in an illegitimate and dishonest way to silence his critic?
Grog is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 09:13 AM   #128
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 738
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hjalti View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post

I don't agree. Coming from the political world, I have seen this sort of tactic used to silence good people doing good things that help good people. I think it is absolutely loathsome behavior designed to silence opposing views. And it is, more often than not, successful.

I am not encouraging Neil to take some sort of legal action which would be costly and unpredictable, but I do think that Joel should out of good faith at least offer to pay for Neil's expenses in getting his site back up as well as ask for an apology. I think the community here should back that. What Joel has done damages the public discourse (look at how many people assumed Neil had infringed Joel's rights!).
In light of this comment from Joel (which I will copy in full! ) where he's responding to Steven Carr pointing out the CC-license, I must say that I agree with you:

Quote:
Really, Steve? Umm… Did you not check the bottom of the page where it says ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

What do you think ALL means, Steve? all except for what a mythicist blowhard who can’t read emails.

He can give credit, Rod, and he did — what he did was to take the entire post , word for word. When I asked them to not, he refused. When WP asked to not, he refused.

Either he is a failure at the ‘net, or he intentionally thought himself above the law/process.

I realize it is difficult for uberbuffoons to understand how the process works — although it wouldn’t matter, because what Neil says is what the truth is. (Almost like a cult). Yet, the simple fact of the matter is this.

When you submit a (re)quest(ion) to WP, they review it. They reviewed my site and Neils and found him to be at least questionable in his use of the material. He could have responded, but instead, he ignored them and went about his business.

Seems the problems one has (because being completely ignorant to how the process works) is with WP and their DMCA review team.
That cc-stuff doesn't actually mean you can copy his stuff.
No, it doesn't but it is a much looser protection. If this had been, for example, a work of fiction, or digital art, and Neil took it and copied it without attribution that would be a legitimate claim (however, transformative copying would be protected and I would argue that Neil's use was transformative because it was framed by critique). However, Neil took it and criticized it. The attribution was clear in Neil's post as was the purpose, a critique of the substance of the post. Copying it in its entirety is questionable and he probably should be careful about it, but considering that the number of actual words that were original (very short post), that it was on a blog under a CC license, that Watts tried to hide the CC license retroactively, that there was no market share affected, that it was non-commercial use...all these things work in Neil's favor. Also, Watts didn't make an attempt to contact Neil publicly through his blog as Automattic's policy suggests. There's a lot going against Watt here.
Grog is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 10:00 AM   #129
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Finland
Posts: 314
Default

What strikes me here is whether Joel Watts is aware that his god commanded people not to witness falsely, as it is quite obvious he is doing. OTOH, maybe that Christ-fellow abrogated that particular commandment, it's not like it's one of the ten big ones - I bet it's just a Jewish Ritual Commandment.
Zwaarddijk is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 10:00 AM   #130
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
Default It's All In The Timing

JW:
Ironically Jesus actually returned but was so disgusted by Joel Watt's behaviour that he went back to Heaven for a cheek implant. DH, does this mean I now have to take aa off Ignore?


Joseph

ErrancyWiki
JoeWallack is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:58 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.