At 12:35 PM 4/14/99 -0700, Ariel Poler wrote:
>A couple of people have suggested that we should not include any list
>information in our directory unless the list owner proactively contacts us
>and tells us to do so.
I will add my voice to that number. My list (GS-L) was listed without
permission *AND* note that I didn't get any email about it being done,
either. I only read about it here (on list-managers) and decided to go check.
>I wanted to highlight that we are not building our
>directory from scratch, but by consolidating information from well known
>public directories.
So if I find your unlisted phone number on the wall of a public
restroom, I may freely copy it onto the walls of any other public
restrooms I can find?
Would perhaps be more acceptable if then I tell you where these restrooms
are so that you can go there and try to figure out how to remove it?
>Several list owners from whom we originally got feedback
>suggested that we should not contact list owners at all, since their lists
>were already in these public directories. However, we found out that many
>owners were not aware of the fact that their lists were in these
>directories, and we felt it was important for them to know it (plus, we
>wanted to make it very easy for list owners to modify or delete their
>information).
Did you tell them where you found them listed? Now, that might at least
be of some use, so that we could complain to those places too.
I myself think that listing without informing at all is worse, but
writing individually for permission *in advance* with *no listing*
to be the default if you didn't get an answer, would have been more
acceptable (and not necessarily spamming).
>Probably a bigger issue with an approach that would only include lists whose
>owners proactively contact us is that we would not be able to offer what we
>believe is a valuable service to the email list community.
Gee, I've read lots of spammers' arguments to the effect that if they didn't
behave anti-net-socially, we wouldn't be able to hear about their "valuable"
service/product/whatever.
But you could have made it known in places like this list, and if it's any
good or of any use, word would have spread.
[snip]
>
>We realize that email lists are quite different from web sites
Then why do you force people to go to a web page for removal? Some list
owners won't even *have* web browsers, never mind ones with Java and
that accept cookies. (I reluctantly accepted your cookies, but why
don't they at least have short expiration dates?)
I'm getting sick and tired of people who think that television is
better than radio, and therefore I should need to use my TV remote
control to turn off my car radio (especially when I didn't turn it
on in the first place).
BTW once through your maze, I wasn't given any way to remove my list
outright, just to "hide" it. I got no confirming mail saying that
it had been done either; I guess I'll go back and check tomorrow.
>(that is why
>we are building a service dedicated to lists). Because of this, and of our
>respect towards list owners
Doing what you did hardly shows respect. You published OUR information
without permission.
>and strong believe in their ownership of their
>lists' information, we decided it was important to contact list owners and
>give them control over their lists' information - even thought our directory
>has been built by consolidating previously existing public directories.
Would you say that distributing copyrighted material without permission
is OK, as long as that you obtained it from someone else who distributed
it without permission? Do you believe that laws against receiving
stolen goods should be taken off the books because those who receive
those goods didn't steal them?
>We realize there is no perfect answer. We are making a very sincere effort
>at balancing all of these issues in a way that best serves the entire email
>list owner community.
In what way does listing owners without prior permission help ANY OTHER
list owners of that "community?" I think it only helps you.
Stan
