Editor in Chief Bill | 17 Feb 2021 2:33 p.m. PST |
Does this mean you don't want John's friend to voice his displeasure or opinions? Clearly annoyance is expressed, but bullying? "John's friend" who has had two sock puppet accounts locked today? Getting really tired of this guy's obsession. |
14Bore | 17 Feb 2021 2:59 p.m. PST |
This seems fine with me. On Tango I know it's 99.99% chance it's not his, would be nice to post it's origin but not essential as I'll figure it out eventually. Some might be more inclined to go to link if known |
Darrell B D Day | 17 Feb 2021 3:59 p.m. PST |
LOL. The one thing you will never find me doing is virtue signaling. Except guess what? You did…! DBDD |
21eRegt | 17 Feb 2021 4:26 p.m. PST |
As a regular blogger, at least till the pandemic shut down our gaming, when I was "Tangoed" a few times I was tickled to death. Just tickled that anyone judged my blog to be worth sharing. My experience, freely given, worth at least what you paid for it. |
coopman | 17 Feb 2021 4:27 p.m. PST |
Hey…how bout that Super Bowl? |
Dn Jackson | 17 Feb 2021 4:52 p.m. PST |
Not virtue signaling DBDD, though I can understand how it might be interpreted that way. :-). I've had some…interesting PMs over the years and I'm simply explaining why I take the positions I take. To me virtual signaling is, "Look at me! I support [insert popular position of the day here]. I'm a good person!" Which brings me back to my initial request. Please, if you can, get a supporting membership to help the twitter attack on TMP backfire. |
BrockLanders | 17 Feb 2021 6:38 p.m. PST |
I purchased a one year membership yesterday. When I first got on this site however many years ago it took me about 10 minutes to figure out that this Tango fellow was reposting things he found interesting, not claiming them to be his own. I'd be happy if he (or anyone for that matter) reposted something I did. |
Zephyr1 | 17 Feb 2021 10:01 p.m. PST |
If I'm not mistaken, many websites have the capability in their user's software/menu to block copy'n pasting of their content (I've run into a few.) So if the site owner is really serious about protecting their IP from being 'poached', it may be an option they may not be aware of… |
Wolfhag | 18 Feb 2021 8:29 a.m. PST |
I never thought Tango was taking credit for anything. However, Bill's house Bill's rules. Like it or leave it. I've adapted. Some of his posts are somewhat annoying and click-bait but I've learned to ignore most of what my wife says so I have no problem ignoring something from Tango or anyone else on the internet. Practice makes perfect. Wolfhag |
SBminisguy | 18 Feb 2021 9:48 a.m. PST |
I never thought Tango was taking credit for anything. However, Bill's house Bill's rules. Like it or leave it. I've adapted. Yep it's completely obvious it's a repost, and it always includes the source link. I would imagine Tango is: 1. Someone with a LOT of time on their hands to search and repost. 2. Someone using a bot that skims different news categories, and then posts the interesting stuff. 3. Tango is a AI with a long term plan that is unfathomable to mere mortals like ourselves…or is bored and likes reposting stuff… |
Irish Marine | 18 Feb 2021 2:53 p.m. PST |
WOW! The on this site never ceases to amaze me. So, some dude or dudes has his because they had their blog shared on TMP, which maybe if they were lucky three people looked at on the web per year. Come on!! |
von Schwartz ver 2 | 18 Feb 2021 4:34 p.m. PST |
I'm not very internet savy, but don't bloggers post things so people will read them? If that is true, then what is the problem if Tango01, or anyone else for that matter, posts them here and then gives a link back to the source? I would never read any of the bloggers stuff at their blog, but I do read some of Tango01's posts. I'm also a bit of a provocateur, I even pull John's chain occasionally just for giggles. |
Bellerophon1993 | 18 Feb 2021 8:48 p.m. PST |
I like the irony of someone who identifies themselves as a cop saying they object to any kind of curbing if free speech. If that's true, I salute you for being a lot more tolerant than many officers who saw fit to oppose any criticism of their actions in the past year or so, or the systemic problems therein. I think Holocaust denial absolutely should be banned – if you allow Nazis to hang out at your bar, even if they cause no trouble, eventually their presence drives out the people they want to be afraid, and you've got a Nazi bar. Look at the Baen books forums, which became such an echo chamber that their moderators got in on planning violence against city dwellers and praising the coup attempt on Jan 6. |
Doctor X | 19 Feb 2021 4:52 p.m. PST |
‘Oh, and I will not bother to reply to anyone who disagrees with me.'Oh if that were only true. Game, set, match to Mr. Gerritsen. Next time you respond though make SURE to use CAPITALS to show how SERIOUS, RIGHTEOUS, and INTENSE you feel about your response. WRONG. One of us is a guy whose blog was ripped off numerous times. One blog post was ripped off 3x. Same page, same etc. THREE TIMES!!! It was a War of 1812 blog page. Sounds like an anonymous source… |
John the OFM | 20 Feb 2021 12:48 a.m. PST |
"Anonymous source"? No. Bill knows who he is. He's a top notch AWI blogger, a retired National Park Service expert. But he has no right to object to his hard work being treated so cavalierly, I guess. But I've given up on that. He is on the way to posting 50 (50!) threads tonight, ! Even Bill has , as has Editor Katie. They approve, so who am I to argue? |
etotheipi | 20 Feb 2021 7:33 a.m. PST |
Ripped off is much more accurate. What exactly is the IP economic harm created? |
von Schwartz ver 2 | 20 Feb 2021 8:11 a.m. PST |
I don't get it, bloggers want their stuff to be read right? So, its being distributed to a larger audience, who normally would probably NOT be exposed to it, so more people have easy access and can read it. As long as credit is given to the original source, which apparently it is. Am I missing something, is money exchanging hands here? I don't see what the problem is. Are the bloggers getting paid by individual visits/hits for posting their research? Like the Irish Marine posted: So, some dude or dudes has his Bleeped text because they had their blog shared on TMP, which maybe if they were lucky three people looked at on the web per year. Come on!! Really!!! |
John the OFM | 20 Feb 2021 8:18 a.m. PST |
Are you telling my friend who is annoyed by the antics of how you require him to think? Wow. That's a bit ….. is there anyone else you wish to press your demands on? |
IUsedToBeSomeone | 20 Feb 2021 10:01 a.m. PST |
You know, I find it worrying that I am agreeing with John the OFM more and more nowadays…. :-) Mike
|
von Schwartz ver 2 | 20 Feb 2021 11:28 a.m. PST |
It's OK Mike, just stick your fingers in a pencil sharpener every time you think you might agree with OFM, and you'll forget all about it in no time at all. |
Silurian | 20 Feb 2021 11:46 a.m. PST |
We're a community united by our love of toy soldiers. Of course we have differences in other respects, often highlighted (perhaps encouraged…) by provocative threads here, but when it comes to aspects of our hobby perhaps we should be respectful of each others viewpoints and desires. Some people, myself included, don't give a fig about how many people view their blogs. For me it's about the fun of it, shared with just a few others. Now if someone wants to share anything, that's fine I really don't care one way or another. But, if I request to keep it within my small circle I would expect/hope fellow hobbyists to respect that. Surely that sounds fair. So, to put a direct question to von Schwartz, Irish marine, etc: Even though a fellow gamer has requested that he keeps his blog between himself and his friends, you're happy to say, no I don't care about your wishes? Kind of brings this thread full circle don't you think? |
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 20 Feb 2021 1:59 p.m. PST |
Different strokes for different folks. I'm with John on this one. Tango should obtain permission beforehand from the bloggers whose content he's sharing on TMP. |
etotheipi | 20 Feb 2021 4:00 p.m. PST |
So, if someone voluntarily gives their content to someone else and tells them that they may copy, store, and reproduce it in whole or in part any time and in any way they want, including giving to others under the same conditions, they are owed some request for permission to do what they have already agreed to allow people to do? |
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 20 Feb 2021 6:34 p.m. PST |
Legally, no. But as a gesture of common courtesy in deference to other people's wishes and feelings, why not? |
KSmyth | 20 Feb 2021 10:46 p.m. PST |
I guess I don't get it . . . is Tango not Dr. Raoul etc, etc. I intend no disrespect but in academia it is customary to recognize the work of others one is using. I don't understand why this is so difficult. Doctor of . . . is this an unfamiliar practice? |
Editor in Chief Bill | 20 Feb 2021 11:31 p.m. PST |
I intend no disrespect but in academia it is customary to recognize the work of others one is using. It's not the same as quoting someone in your dissertation. It's akin to saying, "Hey, look at this!" Nobody thinks Tango is claiming someone else's work as his own. |
von Schwartz ver 2 | 21 Feb 2021 7:17 a.m. PST |
Response to Silurian: I can respect that, but did the bloggers in question request that reader(s) NOT share the information outside of their little inner circle? If you post it on a public blog or any other public space and its NOT copywrited information, it will be viewed and used. IF you don't want it copied and used, then post it in a private arena. It like posting information about some club business on the local club board, then including at the bottom of the page, "Please do not share this information with anyone outside of the club". Kinda silly don't ya think? |
etotheipi | 21 Feb 2021 7:46 a.m. PST |
But as a gesture of common courtesy in deference to other people's wishes and feelings, why not? I completely agree with the principle of citation when not legally required as a courtesy. I don't agree with somehow mandating my concept of courtesy on others, nor denigrating their behaviour when their concept of courtesy does not align with mine. I have no problem with people saying "I would do it like this.", which borders on a holier-than-thou personal attack. But I would assume noble intent in the statement rather than superimpose my own interpretation of motive. Along these lines, AFAIHS, Tango01 always provides a citation … a link back to the source site. I never really understood what was being added when the editors were following up his posts with a copy of said link. To me, that smacked of (I am assuming intent here, so take then next statement for what it is worth, and assumption and interpretation and an actual attribution of intent) "We think you (all, or most of you) on the WWW are too dumb to know what a link is and how it works, so we're helping you." I don't believe anyone actually thinks that. I'm just saying, to me, it comes across a little like that. YMWV. |
Tgerritsen | 21 Feb 2021 8:02 a.m. PST |
Didn't The Drudge Report basically build a media empire based on doing exactly what Tango does (I.e. linking to other people's work that people must go to in order to read the details?) |
etotheipi | 21 Feb 2021 8:03 a.m. PST |
If you post it on a public blog or any other public space and its NOT copywrited information, Not true, at least in the jurisdictions that most of us claim to be in, which are members of the Berne Convention. Posting in a blog meets the grossly overwhelming majority of standards for being in "fixed form". Still a majority, but less so, does it meet the standard for proof of first date of fixed form. When you put things in the public domain, such as with a Creative Commons declaration, you are releasing some of your rights to control copying, distribution, and economic value. Interestingly, I don't know of any release of what are called your "moral rights" under such circumstances. Posting information to the Internet (often done through an intermediary, your ISP), is placing them in a state where you allow unrestricted copying and distribution in whole or in part. That's not just how the Internet works. It's why the Internet works. Also somewhat relevant to this discussion, in most cases (probably almost all cases), the owner of the content does not own the Universal Resource Identifier (URI), basically the "link to" the content itself. Generally, you license non-exclusive use of it. If you actually "owned" or "rented" it, that would create legal problems that would destroy the whole ISP concept. |
Gwydion | 21 Feb 2021 3:53 p.m. PST |
Posting information to the Internet (often done through an intermediary, your ISP), is placing them in a state where you allow unrestricted copying and distribution in whole or in part. Well it enables people to do it, but they shouldn't. Not in English law at any rate. Posting on a blog counts as publication but that enshrines copyright rather than negating it. People may link to it, read it, comment upon it, but they should not copy in whole and re publish, electronically or in hard copy. Publication on a blog does not give a creative commons licence or negate copyright. They may copy a small section for comment or critical evaluation but not the entirety or significant portion of the original piece. |
Bunkermeister | 21 Feb 2021 9:11 p.m. PST |
I post every day on my blog, typically 5 photos and some text. Tango has posted the photos and a link a number of times. Thank you Tango for that! There are 20,000+ photos on my blog, most of which I took myself of my own collection. If someone posts a half dozen of them on another website with the link where they came from I don't consider that copyright infringement, I consider it free advertising. I don't care if the post the name of the blog or not, nice if they do, don't care if they don't. Mike Bunkermeister Creek Bunker Talk blog |
etotheipi | 22 Feb 2021 4:13 a.m. PST |
Well it enables people to do it, It is the agreement you made with your ISP. You enabled them to do it. Posting on a blog counts as publication but that enshrines copyright rather than negating it. In the UK, it doesn't "enshrine" it, it establishes it in "fixed form", which grants you copyright, as I said. I never said using a blog negates copyright. I even boldfaced the word "some" when I pointed out that you are voluntarily ceding some of your rights for the way the information is handled. but they should not copy in whole and re publish, electronically or in hard copy. Where does UK law say that? Publication on a blog does not give a creative commons license or negate copyright. Again, never said it did that. What it does is place your work in the public domain by voluntarily giving rights for your data to be shared without restriction. They may copy a small section for comment or critical evaluation but not the entirety or significant portion of the original piece. So, think about that. You're saying when you post a blog, your ISP can't send a copy of all the content to another server or computer. So how do your readers get the info? You have given your information to someone and told them they can distribute it to anyone with no restriction, and you place no restriction on how the data is handled, copied, stored, and retransmitted. You also authorize transmission to places where your laws, and the Berne Convention, do not apply. What you do on your computer is your business. What you voluntarily release from your control is no longer your business. |
Yesthatphil | 22 Feb 2021 5:11 a.m. PST |
Coming late to the party after a few days not reading TMP due to other work loads. On the Tango thing, I must confess I have found the added comment posted to give credit rather tedious. I author several blogs and a number of posts have been reposted onto TMP – generally with a positive effect. I post material to publicise stuff and to share pictures, info and ideas. Somebody sharing here, or 'reblogging' elsewhere (which happpens to mine quite frequently) is actually just helping with the disemination (which is the whole point of publishing). Generally, Tango has posted an link, rather than specifically credited my blog in text. The link is, I think, the better credit, as it tends to boost traffic. I might have the odd wonder … why he picked this one, not (e.g.) that one, to post (and sometimes it has started a thread with an audience that the blog post wasn't aimed at) but, realistically, when I have material I want to reserve for particular audiences (say in a talk or a magazine article) I keep it in reserve rather than publishing it in an open format on blogger or wordpress. So it does seem to me a bit of a storm in a teacup. A number of my blogging friends and associates have likewise been Tango'ed. We usually tip each other off, as it is useful to know, in case a discussion emerges (and the author can then address any matters arising). But most people can live with it. People are being very dogmatic about IP and copyright … actually, the traditional and accepted principles were established long before the internet and digital media (and lawyers and legislators are still arguing over how IP applies and can be applied in new media). There are lots of assertions. Many have not been robustly tested. Phil |
etotheipi | 22 Feb 2021 9:12 a.m. PST |
People are being very dogmatic about IP and copyright … actually, the traditional and accepted principles were established long before the internet and digital media (and lawyers and legislators are still arguing over how IP applies and can be applied in new media). There are lots of assertions. Many have not been robustly tested. People have been, and still are in the light of modern times, debating the concept of murder. That doesn't mean the whole thing is up in the air. There are lots of accepted principles and interpretations around IP laws. I just wish people would read them before opining. IP law is not about technology, and shouldn't be. No law should be. IP law is about human behaviour, which is what law is supposed to regulate. IP laws have done a good job not to get sucked in to trying to regulate things, an area where many other laws routinely fail. The challenge with IP in modern IT systems is essentially the same as the challenge with most other things in IT systems. People come to rely and even depend on IT capabilities, without understanding the underlying technology. As a result they do not understand what behaviours they are conducting. |
von Schwartz ver 2 | 22 Feb 2021 11:58 a.m. PST |
@Yesthatphil Somebody sharing here, or 're-blogging' elsewhere (which happens to mine quite frequently) is actually just helping with the dissemination (which is the whole point of publishing). My point exactly, you blog and put it out there to be read, someone reads it, likes it and says to his friends, hey, this is good, read this, and on and on. Your original audience of say 20 people is now 200 people!! Isn't that the whole point? Thank you Phil |
Legion 4 | 22 Feb 2021 5:55 p.m. PST |
I like the irony of someone who identifies themselves as a cop saying they object to any kind of curbing if free speech. If that's true, I salute you for being a lot more tolerant than many officers who saw fit to oppose any criticism of their actions in the past year or so, or the systemic problems therein. So … wait … what ? I know a number LEOs. You can't paint them all with a broad bush for the actions of only a very few who were not tolerant, etc. Like you can't say all the soldiers in Vietnam were like those at My Lia. As we know the vast majority were not … I think the old saying is, "One bad apple does not spoil the basket." … Yes? |
Bellerophon1993 | 23 Feb 2021 5:35 p.m. PST |
Luckily I said "many officers" and not "all," if you read my post closely. That said, the continued existence of "bad cops" through covering for them and the "thin blue line" makes it a lot harder to have sympathy when good cops don't stand up and clean their houses up. |
Legion 4 | 23 Feb 2021 5:58 p.m. PST |
Luckily I said "many officers" and not "all," if you read my post closely. Well on that we can agree … |
dapeters | 24 Feb 2021 9:45 a.m. PST |
"One bad apple does not spoil the basket." … Kind of like a protester is not a rioter.. |
von Schwartz ver 2 | 24 Feb 2021 1:39 p.m. PST |
I thought the quote was more like…"It only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch." Don't about the rioter bit though. Kinda like burning, looting, pillaging, and beating up people being a peaceful protest. |
Bellerophon1993 | 24 Feb 2021 2:34 p.m. PST |
According to TIME, a study found that 93% of BLM protests were peaceful. link
|
Au pas de Charge | 24 Feb 2021 2:36 p.m. PST |
I dont believe in "bad cops". The police as a branch of government dont have individual rights but rather have specialized and elevated powers. That's because the "police" are a construct and those who form their ranks do what they are programmed to do. If the training is bad, it's society's fault and it needs to be adjusted. |
Volleyfire | 24 Feb 2021 2:45 p.m. PST |
Is that 93% of each BLM protest was peaceful, or 93% of all BLM protests? Just to be clear. |
von Schwartz ver 2 | 24 Feb 2021 6:00 p.m. PST |
According to TIME, a study found that 93% of BLM protests were peaceful. Hey, if you will buy that, I have some really beautiful ocean front property in Arizona, I think you might be interested. |
Bellerophon1993 | 24 Feb 2021 9:28 p.m. PST |
This is why no one bothers engaging. No amount of data or evidence will ever match your anecdotal experience and FEELINGS, so it's pointless to engage. All I can say is that the young people I teach luckily feel differently, and I thank God every day that society is slowly, surely, bending towards justice and equality. |
etotheipi | 25 Feb 2021 6:36 a.m. PST |
Well, it's pointless to engage when you pull numbers out of a report and don't report the context. Is is the number you cited BLM protests or BLM and COVID-19 protests? Does the report cover all BLM (who claim a six year history) protests or a subset of them over a couple months? Does it cover only protests organized by BLM or also any when the main issue of the demonstration concerns the police killing of a specific Black person or police brutality against Black people in general? |
von Schwartz ver 2 | 25 Feb 2021 11:02 a.m. PST |
Well when the reporter in standing in front of a looted, burning building and people are dashing about carrying TVs and armloads of looted items, and the reporter says, "The protests here were mostly peaceful." Ask the owners of the businesses on Lake Street in Minneapolis about those "mostly peaceful protests". Oh, and BTW, many of those business owners were black and they all had a large proportion of black employees who were left unemployed, don't their lives matter too? |
Legion 4 | 25 Feb 2021 11:06 a.m. PST |
No doubt most protesters whether BLM or even those on at the Capital on 6 Jan. The overwhelming majority are peaceful protestors. Exercising their right to protest as our Founding Fathers intended. Now there seems to always be some in black clothing with backpacks at many protests this summer that are anarchists which only want to sow fear and destroy. Domestic terrorists is what they really are. And should be handled as such … All I can say is that the young people I teach luckily feel differently, and I thank God every day that society is slowly, surely, bending towards justice and equality. Please get off the soapbox again. So are you saying that none of us over 50 never wanted any of that ? So often in my "old age" it seems many younger members of society believe they have found the way to "fix things"/wrongs from the past, etc. But sometimes they realize the key to the Universe that they think they have. Is not needed because the door was never locked. But they have to take the journey, a "Grail Quest" so to speak before they really see/know what is going on … But their white horse and shiny armor have to get dirty and damaged before they can see more clearly. But as always some only "see what they want to see" … I suggest looking up what e.g. Will Rogers said about politics, etc., years ago. FYI he died in 1935. His quotes are spot on today as they were back then. And of course look up George Orwell's quotes … He was right about so many things he said, IMO. But it was not going to happen in 1984 but 2020. Also don't forget to check out his novel "Animal Farm" … "All Animals are equal … some are just more equal than others." … |
Bellerophon1993 | 25 Feb 2021 4:39 p.m. PST |
Comparing people protesting black people literally being murdered is not of a kind with January 6, which was literally people trying to overturn an election. Also, what does it matter if some property was destroyed? Does that suddenly mean the thing they were protesting doesn't exist? White moderates have been wringing their hands about people not protesting the way they want since MLK |