Couldn't your "not appropriate" example be Copynight <http://www.copynight.org/>, which is actually kind of interesting?
Anyway, I'm not going to enforce any local event policy of any kind, I'm not going to make that judgment call... if someone is posting too much about their Cambridge bar-hopping habits, find someone else to ban them, or DIY. Peace, ~Nelson~ Elizabeth Stark wrote: > To clarify, here's what my policy would be (similar to Crosbie's) > > We're all meeting up at a bar in Cambridge to discuss FC -- NOT > appropriate > > A bunch of us are going to the supreme court hearing for Golan v. > Gonzales (if it happens), and this is an important case about the > public domain and its role in free speech, etc etc. -- appropriate. > > -E > > On 10/26/07, *Nelson Pavlosky* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > Alright, if everyone wants to end this policy, then I'll retract it. > > I originally created the "no local events" policy because Jay was > repeatedly posting local NYC events that were only vaguely related to > free culture, and multiple people (including Elizabeth) were > complaining > about that on this list. I figured it would be better to lay down any > such policy sooner rather than later so that we didn't get spammed by > local events from everywhere in the globe that 95% of the people > on the > list can't attend when people other than Jay start posting local > events. (NYC is relevant to us b/c we all live on the eastern > seaboard > of the US, but what happens as the organization grows geographically?) > I also thought it would be easier to ban local events than to try to > define exactly what events are free culture related, which is a hard > call given our broad mission. > > However, this is also the official "high traffic" FC list, so I > guess if > you don't want to hear about local events, then you'll just have to > unsubscribe now. > > Let's please try to keep stuff related to free culture though, > OK? Some > of Jay's local events that people complained about were only > related to > the technical aspects of Linux or vi, and not really about the > philosophical or political aspects of free culture or free software. > > Peace, > ~Nelson~ > > Kevin Driscoll wrote: > > This email just sparked a big debate in my lab about the use of > > "infinite" in this context. > > > > With the loss of Oink and TV-Links, our distributed libraries of > > culture are clearly not safe. Has anyone heard of an effort to > > archive or mirror YouTube content? > > > > I can imagine a script that downloads the .flv's of every result > for a > > certain search term. > > > > Fred, can you keep the rest of us updated on the trial? > > > > Kevin > > > > > > On 10/25/07, Fred Benenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > >> The google v. viacom trial is having a hearing in NYC > tomorrow... check out > >> my FC @ NYU announcement: > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: Fred Benenson < [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > >> Date: Oct 25, 2007 5:51 PM > >> Subject: Google v. Viacom Tomorrow > >> To: "Free Culture @ NYU's list serv" < > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[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 > >> 4pm, October 26th 2007 > >> Room 21C > >> Judge Louis L. Stanton > >> United States Courthouse > >> 500 Pearl Street > >> 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 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Discuss mailing list > >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >> > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > <http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[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
