Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-08-2013, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Verenna

I was on vacation, yes. No real internet access where I was staying. Sorry for my delay. I must say that I'm not convinced that Joel is lying. But even if on the off chance he is lying about when he sent the email, this does not change two important pieces of information:

Wordpress confirmed that a breach of DMCA was occurring on Godfrey's blog
The blog post was taken down by wordpress and Godfrey still had to manually repost it--THIS ACTION resulted in his blog being pulled down.

You've missed a few point. Wordpress did not confirm anything. They automatically responded to Joel's DMCA notice.

Quote:

Joel can perhaps be found guilty of reporting this to Wordpress concerning DMCA laws (and he is well within his legal right to do so).

Except that there was no copyright violation - Joel had a Creative Commons license, and Neil's use was with the limits of fair use.

Quote:

He cannot be held responsible for Godfrey's blog coming down. Everyone defending Godfrey here is conveniently ignoring the fact that Godfrey had to know his post was taken down and he had to know *why* and he still reposted it anyway. His blog coming down is not Joel's fault any more than the invention of the wheel can be blamed for the deaths caused by war chariots.

Neil Godfrey has traced the problem in communications.

Quote:

As a friend of mine, I've known Joel longer than Godfrey and he has always been honest with me. Godfrey has not always been honest and has shown a penchant for interpreting random comments as personal attacks or assaults on his character and this situation is just another example of what we can call an unfortunate consequence of miscommunication--not a deliberate attempt to silence him. Godfrey, I suspect, does know how to summarize and link to a piece while quoting segments of text rather than a whole blog post (as Joel claims he did).

That said, I am bowing out of this conversation. Hope you all had a great weekend and I look forward to other engaging conversations in the future. Perhaps those that don't involve my friends? =)

Clearly there has been some miscommunication, but it doesn't look like Joel has been honest with the rest of the world.

hjalti · 07-08-2013, 02:23 PM

Quote:

As a friend of mine, I've known Joel longer than Godfrey and he has always been honest with me.

Tom, then please ask this honest friend about why the screenshot he took had the same time as when the e-mail to Neil was sent and why the date and time setting was up, and tell us what he says.

Quote:

Everyone defending Godfrey here is conveniently ignoring the fact that Godfrey had to know his post was taken down and he had to know *why* and he still reposted it anyway.

No, he didn't "have" to know why. :banghead:

Grog · 07-08-2013, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Verenna

I was on vacation, yes. No real internet access where I was staying. Sorry for my delay. I must say that I'm not convinced that Joel is lying. But even if on the off chance he is lying about when he sent the email, this does not change two important pieces of information:

Wordpress confirmed that a breach of DMCA was occurring on Godfrey's blog
The blog post was taken down by wordpress and Godfrey still had to manually repost it--THIS ACTION resulted in his blog being pulled down.

Joel can perhaps be found guilty of reporting this to Wordpress concerning DMCA laws (and he is well within his legal right to do so). He cannot be held responsible for Godfrey's blog coming down. Everyone defending Godfrey here is conveniently ignoring the fact that Godfrey had to know his post was taken down and he had to know *why* and he still reposted it anyway. His blog coming down is not Joel's fault any more than the invention of the wheel can be blamed for the deaths caused by war chariots.

As a friend of mine, I've known Joel longer than Godfrey and he has always been honest with me. Godfrey has not always been honest and has shown a penchant for interpreting random comments as personal attacks or assaults on his character and this situation is just another example of what we can call an unfortunate consequence of miscommunication--not a deliberate attempt to silence him. Godfrey, I suspect, does know how to summarize and link to a piece while quoting segments of text rather than a whole blog post (as Joel claims he did).

That said, I am bowing out of this conversation. Hope you all had a great weekend and I look forward to other engaging conversations in the future. Perhaps those that don't involve my friends? =)

It appears that Joel Watts forged a message to Neil Godfrey, retroactively. Godfrey has always maintained that he received no message from Watts, even when confronted with screenshots supplied by Watts that seemed to indicated otherwise. The cyber forensics appear to indicate that Godfrey was honest all along while Watts not only lied, he fabricated evidence to conceal his lies.

I think that would warrant a re-assessment of your view of these two individuals.

Will Wiley · 07-08-2013, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Verenna

As a friend of mine, I've known Joel longer than Godfrey and he has always been honest with me.

But didn't Joel change the material from being under Creative Commons, and then on that basis make a complaint?

Tenorikuma · 07-08-2013, 09:47 PM

Watts's lying about the Creative Commons license and his badly faked email screenshot aside, using the DMCA to take down an embarrassing critique of your own work is just a dick move. It's the kind of legal abuse everyone warned would happen, precisely because the DMCA required Wordpress not to investigate whether a copyright breach had occurred (contrary to what Watts and Verenna appear to claim), but to assume the complaint was valid (it wasn't) and censor the material in question. Even Dr. McGrath, to his credit, recognized what an unethical stunt that was.

Steven Carr · 07-08-2013, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Wiley

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Verenna

As a friend of mine, I've known Joel longer than Godfrey and he has always been honest with me.

But didn't Joel change the material from being under Creative Commons, and then on that basis make a complaint?

No, he complained first, and then removed the Creative Commons license.

Toto · 07-08-2013, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Wiley

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Verenna

As a friend of mine, I've known Joel longer than Godfrey and he has always been honest with me.

But didn't Joel change the material from being under Creative Commons, and then on that basis make a complaint?

He made the complaint, then when it was pointed out that he had a Creative Commons license which would allow quoting with attribution, he changed the copyright notice on all of his blog posts to be more restrictive.

stephan huller · 07-08-2013, 10:05 PM

I don't know what everyone is wasting their time with here. The reality is that without the belief in God or 'someone looking over your shoulder' justice disappears. The only alternative for society is to turn over all enforcement of the law and truthfulness over to machines and computers. But what kind of society would that be?

The signs of this corruption go beyond asking for fairness and objectivity from a 'clique' like this. Just look at the inner circle of the candidate for 'change' http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...080_story.html It's all bullshit and no one cares.

It's all symptomatic of the implosion of ethics in contemporary society. I am well aware that there was injustice in every generation. The difference is that people don't even bother to hide the subjectivity of their opinions any more. 'He's my friend' is the equivalent of saying I don't care about justice. I am not responsible for my brother. Or in short - fuck you - which should be the emblem for society today.

Roger Pearse · 07-09-2013, 06:16 AM

True.

But those familiar with the restoration period, after 1660, will see a very similar society. It happens when those in power care about nothing but themselves, and consider any other approach contemptible or dishonest. Many of them were traitors, taking money from France; all of them were vicious, arrogant, corrupt, dishonest and hypocritical. A society run on this basis doesn't last - because no society can run on that basis, and such people pass on - but while it does, a great deal of misery is inflicted on the rest of us.

It is also the last period in which a great deal of legislation was enacted on what might or might not be said or done, and in which the category of "dissenter" was created, as a means to power, by these same scumbags. Augustine Birrell said that the rogue who drew up the law boasted that it would damn half the country and starve the rest. It is depressing to find policemen questioning clergymen and preachers, not for their actions, but for what they say. It brings back evil memories.

Tom Verenna · 07-09-2013, 12:52 PM

Thanks for the various clarifications. I've made Joel aware of all your criticisms and I've stressed to him the trouble that he'd be in, legally and morally, if it turned out these criticisms you present here are true. It seems that there is only one sure method to prove it: Godfrey, if he actually is right, should consider seeking out DMCA lawyers. if he has sought legal advice, they would be able to tell him who was within their legality to sue or not. According to Joel's timeline on his blog:

(1) He sent an email to Godfrey on 6.26
(2) On 6.27 he received notice that Godfrey's post had been taken down and that Godfrey would have a chance to respond or remove the content...

....

So what happened? What led to Godfrey's blog being removed? If your answer is (a) Godfrey reposted the content (then Godfrey is responsible himself and no one else.)
(b) Godfrey did not repost the content (so why did the blog come down?)

So, again, we can make Joel into a scapegoat here. His timeline seems to indicate that he is in the right. Legally and actually, Joel is right. But if you want to keep challenging this, then Godfrey is within his legal rights to contact DMCA lawyers about this issue and take action. We'll see what happens. Frankly, I don't think Godfrey will want to challenge this because he knows it is ultimately his own fault for reposting removed content. Unless someone can tell me what other reason might have driven his site from the internet?

Thanks,

Tom

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-08-2013, 09:47 PM	#205
Tenorikuma Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Japan Posts: 156	Watts's lying about the Creative Commons license and his badly faked email screenshot aside, using the DMCA to take down an embarrassing critique of your own work is just a dick move. It's the kind of legal abuse everyone warned would happen, precisely because the DMCA required Wordpress not to investigate whether a copyright breach had occurred (contrary to what Watts and Verenna appear to claim), but to assume the complaint was valid (it wasn't) and censor the material in question. Even Dr. McGrath, to his credit, recognized what an unethical stunt that was.

07-08-2013, 10:05 PM	#208
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I don't know what everyone is wasting their time with here. The reality is that without the belief in God or 'someone looking over your shoulder' justice disappears. The only alternative for society is to turn over all enforcement of the law and truthfulness over to machines and computers. But what kind of society would that be? The signs of this corruption go beyond asking for fairness and objectivity from a 'clique' like this. Just look at the inner circle of the candidate for 'change' http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...080_story.html It's all bullshit and no one cares. It's all symptomatic of the implosion of ethics in contemporary society. I am well aware that there was injustice in every generation. The difference is that people don't even bother to hide the subjectivity of their opinions any more. 'He's my friend' is the equivalent of saying I don't care about justice. I am not responsible for my brother. Or in short - fuck you - which should be the emblem for society today.

07-09-2013, 06:16 AM	#209
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	True. But those familiar with the restoration period, after 1660, will see a very similar society. It happens when those in power care about nothing but themselves, and consider any other approach contemptible or dishonest. Many of them were traitors, taking money from France; all of them were vicious, arrogant, corrupt, dishonest and hypocritical. A society run on this basis doesn't last - because no society can run on that basis, and such people pass on - but while it does, a great deal of misery is inflicted on the rest of us. It is also the last period in which a great deal of legislation was enacted on what might or might not be said or done, and in which the category of "dissenter" was created, as a means to power, by these same scumbags. Augustine Birrell said that the rogue who drew up the law boasted that it would damn half the country and starve the rest. It is depressing to find policemen questioning clergymen and preachers, not for their actions, but for what they say. It brings back evil memories.

07-09-2013, 12:52 PM	#210
Tom Verenna Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 75	Thanks for the various clarifications. I've made Joel aware of all your criticisms and I've stressed to him the trouble that he'd be in, legally and morally, if it turned out these criticisms you present here are true. It seems that there is only one sure method to prove it: Godfrey, if he actually is right, should consider seeking out DMCA lawyers. if he has sought legal advice, they would be able to tell him who was within their legality to sue or not. According to Joel's timeline on his blog: (1) He sent an email to Godfrey on 6.26 (2) On 6.27 he received notice that Godfrey's post had been taken down and that Godfrey would have a chance to respond or remove the content... .... So what happened? What led to Godfrey's blog being removed? If your answer is (a) Godfrey reposted the content (then Godfrey is responsible himself and no one else.) (b) Godfrey did not repost the content (so why did the blog come down?) So, again, we can make Joel into a scapegoat here. His timeline seems to indicate that he is in the right. Legally and actually, Joel is right. But if you want to keep challenging this, then Godfrey is within his legal rights to contact DMCA lawyers about this issue and take action. We'll see what happens. Frankly, I don't think Godfrey will want to challenge this because he knows it is ultimately his own fault for reposting removed content. Unless someone can tell me what other reason might have driven his site from the internet? Thanks, Tom

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.