On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Fred Benenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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? Fred, I saw your original post, and responded to it. I then thought a bit and decided the event you announced, your comments, and my short comment, should be re-sent to the individual subscribers to the LXNY announcements list. I also often send to various mailing lists selected announcements. Nelson had asked me not to send local event notices to FC-Discuss and I had agreed to this reasonable request. Then, last night, I fumbled editing the config file, really it is an input file, to the LXNY robot. I inadvertently re-sent your notice, comments, etc to FC-Discuss. Note what I re-sent had already appeared on FC-Discuss. It really was a fumble and not a calculated annoyance. Nelson was not wrong to tell me that such behavior was ridiculous, and for a few minutes, ban me. I have now scrubbed [EMAIL PROTECTED] from any input/config file of the LXNY list, so, I hope, all future annoyances from me will be by design. I thank all who spoke for my un-banning, and I thank Nelson for un-banning me, and THE LURKERS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL! Most important I thank all who run this list and contribute to it. > > 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 Ah, I see the Editor of the Times is approaching, saying "This correspondence must now cease^W^W^W..^WYOU FREE CULTURISTS WILL KILL THIS GREAT NEWSPAPER, ah, students, what can you do ... ". oo--JS. > > > 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
