Well I'm glad there are some people out there who are interested in the event I posted. I wouldn't have done it if I didn't figure there were people who were explicitly interested in hearing about the trial on this list. That is, I consciously made a decision to forward it because I thought that people on the national list might want to hear about the actions of a local chapter, such as NYU.
And as Crosbie points out, the matter at hand is certainly not a local one. Anyway, I think banning anyone from this list for posting something that could be interpreted as local is pretty ridiculous and should not be policy. If someone is consistently spamming the list with announcements (local or not) and no personal contributions, or if someone is simply trolling and making it difficult for other people to join in a discussion, I think those should be grounds for consideration of banning, but the "if content == local" rule seems medieval. But the fact that neither Jay nor Nelson saw my original post about the hearing strikes me as a little odd -- what's the point of posting, or proposing all these rules if you don't bother reading the posts anyway? So, Apologies for having too "local" of a flavor for my post, but it sounds like the announcement came across some people's inboxes as useful, so I'll refrain from banning myself from the discuss list for now. Best, Fred On 10/26/07, Conor Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am so glad to see this sentiment expressed. Who am I and all, but I > found Nelson's comments (and actions, if a ban was indeed placed for the > half hour between his declaration and retraction of the ban) extremely > inappropriate. > > I personally read Fred's account of the hearing raptly, and I think that > Jay's comment in that thread was also very intelligent. I remember thinking, > "Huh, that was well said." And I opened a reply to that post in order to say > so, but I wanted to keep reading through my unread FC-discusses, so as not > to be redundant. > > So let's not with the banning, ok? It's a little antithetical to our > permissive culture, don't you think? I understand that we have things to get > done and what not, but the Viacom v. Google trial is not at all a "local > event." That's national and international, man. > > Conor > > Elizabeth Stark wrote: > > I don't think we should ban anyone from this list unless absolutely > necessary. Further, sometimes there is interesting info and commentary > surrounding local events (or even recordings of it, etc.) > > So yes, I agree that this is not the place to promote local events, but I > do think that commentary surrounding something that might be going on may be > relevant at times. > > (Also, as an aside, I am now going to the hearing tomorrow because Fred > posted this to the list...) > > On 10/26/07, Nelson Pavlosky < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hm.... Good point Tim! I guess the difference is that Jay promised not > > to post local things, and Fred didn't make that promise. But that is > > kind of arbitrary, and to be honest I didn't notice Fred's post. > > > > Alright, I'll unban Jay this time... you're free to post again, Jay! > > Just don't do it again. > > > > Generally, posting local events to this list is grounds for a banning > > (that includes you Fred!), especially when NYC has its own local mailing > > list. Unless it's a conference or something that you would expect > > people to travel many miles for, e.g. Wikimania or something that e.g. > > has funding for travel, please don't post your local events here. Let's > > keep the traffic relevant to everyone on here. > > > > Peace, > > ~Nelson~ > > > > Timothy Cowlishaw wrote: > > > Erm.. Nelson, didn't Fred also send this event to the list yesterday > > > at 2253 (BST) - with the subject line "[FC-discuss] Fwd: Google v. > > > Viacom Tomorrow". Am curious to know why one instance is apparently > > > grounds for a banning, and not the other.... > > > > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > > On 26 Oct 2007, at 08:33, Nelson Pavlosky wrote: > > > > > > > > >> Sorry Jay, but you did promise to stop posting notices of local > > events > > >> to this global discussion list, and I don't think that this is of > > >> interest to people outside New York City. You're banned from > > >> posting again. > > >> > > >> If anyone is interested in continuing to see Jay's NYC local posts, > > >> please join <http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nyc> and > > >> talk about NYC things there! > > >> > > >> Peace, > > >> ~Nelson~ > > >> > > >> > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> > > >>> I resend a notice from Fred Benenson, head of NYU Free Culture > > >>> Club. The notice of this important action at law is appended. > > >>> > > >>> Personal Note: > > >>> > > >>> Listening to and seeing such a case argued before a judge is > > >>> seldom boring. If you go you will likely be astonished at more > > >>> than one thing. > > >>> > > >>> Appearing at court to listen, and to learn, is important. It is > > >>> also important that we show up so that the other side knows that > > >>> we will not lose this engagement by default. Speak to reporters. > > >>> Reporters are usually intelligent and usually want to learn, but > > >>> often they are remarkably ignorant. A careful clarity of > > >>> expression, and a gentle stroking of the flanks, will sometimes > > >>> loosen a bit the grip of The Official Story on the mind of the > > >>> reporter. > > >>> > > >>> Jay Sulzberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>> Corresponding Secretary LXNY > > >>> LXNY is New York's Free Computing Organization. > > >>> http://www.lxny.org > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> <blockquote > > >>> what="notice of time and date of court action"> > > >>> > > >>> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:53:59 -0400 > > >>> From: "Fred Benenson" < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>> To: "Free Culture @ NYU's list serv" < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>> Subject: [free-culture] Google v. Viacom Tomorrow > > >>> Reply-To: "Fred Benenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>> > > >>> Free Culture @ NYU, > > >>> > > >>> So one of the benefits of living in a self-proclaimed democracy > > >>> is that at least some of the court trials are mostly open to the > > >>> public. That means that when Viacom sues Google for ONE BILLION > > >>> DOLLARS over YouTube's "infinite amount of infringement" we're > > >>> allowed to sit in on all the court room antics. > > >>> > > >>> I attended the first (and last, as far as I can tell) hearing and > > >>> it was a scheduling hearing. Despite a stern warning from my > > >>> lawyer friends that the hearing would be immensely boring, I > > >>> really enjoyed it. The two sides ended up getting into their > > >>> arguments in a very inappropriate and entertaining way. > > >>> > > >>> Now, I have no idea whether tomorrow will have the same kind of > > >>> fireworks, but I am certainly intending on being there. There > > >>> were mostly reporters and lawyers (especially one lawyer who kept > > >>> on sneering when Google would say stuff like "How are we supposed > > >>> to take responsibility for an 'infinite amount of > > >>> infringement?'") last time and I felt a little out of place with > > >>> a t-shirt, so you might consider wearing something nice if you > > >>> don't want to feel awkward. > > >>> > > >>> Anyway, here's the information: > > >>> > > >>> Google v. Viacom <http://news.justia.com/cases/337988/ > > > >>> 4pm, Friday October 26th 2007 > > >>> Room 21C > > >>> Judge Louis L. Stanton > > >>> United States Courthouse > > >>> 500 Pearl Street< http://www.justia.com/us-states/new-york/courts/ > > >>> southern/district_court/main-office.html> > > >>> New York, NY 10007-1312*Phone:* 212-805-0136 > > >>> > > >>> If anyone wants to meet up, I'll be outside (or maybe in the > > >>> lobby if its > > >>> really going to rain) around 3:30. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Best, > > >>> > > >>> Fred Benenson > > >>> President, Free Culture @ NYU > > >>> > > >>> </blockquote> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> Discuss mailing list > > >>> [email protected] > > >>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Discuss mailing list > > >> [email protected] > > >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Discuss mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED]://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
