RoR: Forum

James:
No need to lick your wounds! You don't watch Oprah... and my greater understanding came from that. I don't think her article went as far with information as we would want to draw our conclusions... but the audience to which she would be writing would understand. Get out of that corner!

Second, thank you for your gracious comment. It's nice to hear.

Third, we all have that one word we misspell when we're typing. I have one, and no one will ever know what it is. ;o)

~NT

Post 21

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 9:11am

Nicole,

I got lazy and have not yet looked up that Internet use copyright issue. You don't seem to need it anymore anyway. //;-)

(Thank God you haven't had the experience of bumping heads with a copyright lawyer - they certainly live up to every one of the lawyer jokes out there!)

I have been holding back on saying something about the warm response you got (I'm not one much for saying "I told you so"), but I would like to commend you on contacting the writer. The issue in her article is very important - especially Objectivism-wise. It is extremely refreshing to see that kind of sentiment toward romantic love - including the prioritizing against children in life, without diminishing their own value - expressed by one who is not an Objectivist.

btw - Did you invite her to take a peek around over here?

Michael

Post 22

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 9:58am

Nicole, this is an article that really struck me, as my husband and I are in the middle of parenting a toddler and are constantly trying to balance parenting and our relationship. I agree with the writer that one�s lover should be a higher value than one�s children. However, she makes the act of balancing the intense and immediate needs of a small child with the needs of two lovers in a marriage. In our society, where child raising is done alone in a nuclear family, it is very hard to be the kind of mother and wife I want to be. But, I do my best. I also think she makes it sound like having sex is the measurement of keeping romance alive. It is certainly very important, but I find that it is hard to find the time and energy to really talk and listen to David talk about the things that we are thinking and feeling and doing, as well. That is as important to me as sex, and we have to try very hard to make time for both.

The thing about this situation that isn�t simple is that values shift and change in different contexts. To illustrate, here is the top of my values list.

work � right now this is baby caretaking, homemaking, and gardening
health � I�m not so good at doing this one all the time, but I am working on it
romance
children
friends
barbershop singing

These are my overarching values, but what I focus on and put the most time into changes depending on the circumstances. On barbershop competition weekends, I spend very little time with David and Livy, and I focus almost completely on singing. When Jason comes up for the weekend in May, David and I will focus more on him and spend less time building our relationship. When Livy was a tiny baby, I put most of my energy into her and let housework, David, health, and friends slide. As she gets older, I spend more and more time on other values. I am not being subjective about my time. I carefully weigh the attention each value requires, keeping their order in mind, and make a decision about how to spend my time to make myself as happy as possible.

David and I knew going into having children that it would change our relationship drastically in the short run. We knew that would not kill our love in the long run, and we decided it was a short term loss that would lead to a long term gain. We do spend less time on each other, but we know that as our children grow up, we�ll have that unfettered alone time more and more, until we are alone all the time. But we will also have grown children with whom we have the kind of relationship we want (at least we hope � there is always the kids� volition in the equation).

But all that aside, I do think the author is right that we have to know the order of our values, and not sacrifice a higher for a lower. And we have to do what it takes to make our relationships thrive even with children. After all, we are living in the present.

To whoever said they didn�t think this was a big problem: it is. I see Mom�s all the time who have totally given themselves up in their relationship with their children. It isn�t just a problem with neglecting their romantic relationships, but with neglecting all their values. That doesn�t make a happy or healthy person. It makes a martyr, and it makes children riddled with guilt.

Kelly

Post 23

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 1:42pm

Nicole: The author of that piece was giving you her *opinion* on copyright, she even qualified it by saying that she didn't know the law. I don't think she had the right to give you her permission, for that you'd need to ask the New York Times since they own the copyright not her.

I am amazed really that -- on an Objectivist site of all places -- few seem at all concerned about the property rights of the NYT, and would find it acceptable to put the burden on them to come find all copyright violators and ask them kindly, one at a time, not to violate their copyright, after they already put the notice up.

As far as the author's argument, sure people do it all the time. And people downloaded from Napster all the time. That (thankfully) didn't stop music companies from suing individual downloaders. I don't see how copying an article is any different in principle from illegally copying music.

Post 24

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 3:25pm

Shayne,

This matter is closed, unless the NYT contacts me further. If they do, I will deal with it. I expressed every want to right the situation. If the author does not feel she was hurt by my actions, and my wrong was an accident due to a lack of knowledge, and I made every effort to correct the situation, it seems done. She may not own the copyright, but she sees with just a little common sense that this is nothing major. She would know if it was something the NYT would worry about, even though she isn't a lawyer. Clearly, they haven't taken action against others, since it does seem to happen all of the time. Perhaps we should let them make the decision about who they hunt down. They have reason enough to know what is really hurting them.

It was an honest mistake, I have learned from it. I am going to move on and do better next time.

Most importantly, this is not your problem; it is mine. I know you may be bothered by it, but do not trouble yourself with it any longer. I am not going to begin a dramatic dialogue about Objectivism with you, even if that is what you want. This is about the law. You did not make the mistake, and you are not my judge. Making a mountain out of a mole hill is distorting reality. Reality is this isn't major, and I am fixing it. I will never do this again. It is false to compare my tiny mistake to Napster. From what I know, they only sued people who had downloaded massive amounts of music, not the people who downloaded one song... and guiltily at that. When the RIAA investigated Napster, they did have to hunt down each violator individually. They gave minor violators a pass. They had concern for the ones that were actually hurting them. That's logical. There are much bigger copyright violators out there that are doing much worse things than I. They worry about people with malicious intent, and not people who make small mistakes.

Unless you become a lawyer for the New York Times, I ask you respectfully to let me deal with this on my own. I am quite capable.

Because I have been forthcoming about all issues so far in this matter and consider it closed until further notice, and because legal issues may come up in the future (although I doubt it) I must say that this forum is no longer a place where I can or will discuss this issue. I know many of you have knowledge on the subject, but I think it is better that I discuss it with someone closer to me. Thank you for your concern.

I will contact site administration to see about taking the article down.

~NT

Post 25

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 3:58pm

Nicole: I have two things to say. First, it's not your place to tell me what I'm permitted to talk about. You don't want to, fine, no one's forcing you to. But it's not your place to tell me it's "closed".

Second, I never judged you or said you should be punished or said this was some severe or evil action, I only judged what I think is a cavalier attitude toward NYT's property rights. If you had just accidentally shoplifted something (like walked out of a store and forgot to pay), I'd expect you to return the item or pay for it. Not make arguments that the store probably won't miss it anyway, that if they really cared they'd come after you, and that you didn't intend to anyway. By my account, the appropriate action here is to remove the content. That was obvious from the beginning, I don't know why it's not obvious now that you've "learned from it."

And I don't think I'm being dramatic, I think you are. All I'm doing is pointing out what I thought would have been obvious, but evidently isn't.

Post 26

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 4:16pm

Nicole: I want to add, since you seem to be worried about it, that I don't think anything will come of this, and there's no reason to worry. In my opinion, just have the content removed, worry about the *principle* involved if you're still confused about it, but forget about the incident. No need for lawyers, contacting NYT, etc.

Post 27

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 5:39pm

Nicole,

Laws exist for reasons. They are not just rules that must be observed no matter what. One of the great things about the USA is that its legal basis is common law (from England) instead of Roman law, like in Brazil. Under common law, intent and let's say "common sense" are usually included in both drawing up the laws and in court rulings, not just blind delegation of an unbending rule to a government office for enforcement.

I wouldn't get upset at all over this. To tell you the truth, you can contact the site administrator to take the content down or not. It just won't make any difference at all to the NYT at this point.

Well maybe it would. My bet would be that they would give permission for it to stay up and would even want it to stay up. This is because the NYT in particular has had tremendous headaches with authors in a collective compilation copyright suit where they want to put articles in their humongous online database, then charge large organizations like LexisNexis for using it without paying the authors anything. Believe me, they WANT their authors happy.

As you so graciously contacted the original copyright owner who assigned the rights to the NYT in the first place, i.e. the authoress (who by the way cannot ever legally assign the totality of her copyright to anyone - just parts of it, say reproduction rights, etc., as she will ALWAYS legally be the authoress), this is obviously the start of generating new fans - or at least new readers for her. I doubt seriously whether the NYT, now that the content has been posted and commented on in public, would want to do anything that might not set too well with their writer. I don't know if she is a staff or freelance writer - but it doesn't really matter.

Technically the NYT was assigned the copyright. They are the ones who supposedly lost income from online subscribers (which I doubt in this case would be from SOLO members). I clearly see them here in the position of a concert promoter learning that someone got into a show without paying for a ticket and let it pass because he is too busy to worry about it.

When we get to the Internet, there is always an issue of venue in enforcing copyrights. Where do you prosecute from? Which law do you use? This is a big headache that is being worked out in the courts right now, so there is no legal basis that is solid enough at the present to comment from.

As to the core technical issue, though, did you, Nicole, infringe a copyright? Yep. You sure did. As we are dealing with the Internet, though, I am still unclear as to which right was infringed, reproduction right or public display right. Obviously there was no plagiary or unearned income from selling copies. Also, you are what is called a one-time only offender. And you acted from ignorance, not from intent to steal.

Let us say that within the legal sphere, you did the equivalent of jaywalking on an empty street at night.

What is the absolute worse thing that could ever happen to you? Nothing. That's right. Absolutely nothing at all. Well, maybe if someone over at the NYT got pissed for some reason, you might get a not-nice letter. I'm sure that you would lose a lot of sleep over that.

The IP provider (and not the site administrator) is the one the NYT will contact if they want to remove the article. As I said, I would be EXTREMELY surprised if that ever happens.

If anyone should disagree with all this, I personally would be happy to discuss the issue with any copyright lawyer or judge in the USA and on earth about it.

This issue has been blown way out of proportion and should not have needed such detail. Objectivism-wise, a mistake was made, admitted, and the authoress contacted. She said fine. It is her work that is being discussed, not the NYT's, even though it holds the copyright to this particular article. And she works for NYT. I see that all the bases have been touched.

Why do I get the feeling that instead of dealing with a real issue here, we are involved in something like a child tattling on a schoolmate for eating an extra cookie?

Michael.

btw - I really do hope you can bring Ayelet Waldman among us. It would be awesome to see non-Objectivist published authors who are intelligent posting here.

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 4/22, 8:42pm)

Post 28

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 6:43pm

Shayne:

You're absolutely correct. Beat the poor lifeless horse as long as possible. I cannot stop you.

What I am saying is, I will not be discussing it with you further, because I do not see any purpose in it. I also do not feel it is productive for you to continue to involve yourself in this problem directly. You pointed out the original error. Thank you. It was rectified and has gone as far as I logically think it should go at this time. But I can do nothing to make you stop, of course.

You say I should not worry and what not, but you seem to be latched to this as if I have broken one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Well, I might have, but I have done my penance.

I will make my decisions and take actions based on a more expert opinion and from the feelings of the author herself.

But by all means... continue to post on this topic. But I do have a problem with people when they assert that I have not done enough to correct a mistake when I have. I am a very moral person, and do not like to have it assumed otherwise.

Michael:

You're absolutely right. Intent is important. So is Ayelet Waldman's opinion. Thank you for your involved response. I too thought this would not need this kind of coverage to clear up.

I shall never again jaywalk on an empty street at night or be uninformed about copyright law.

And if a man in a black suit comes to be from the Library of Congress to take me away, I think I could charm him into having a cup of tea with me instead. This issue is so cut and dry even even a lawyer might understand. I'll just throw on a big smile... and we'll read some Ayelet Waldman while doing so!

If Ms. Waldman does not come by soon and have a chat here, I may write her again. She would remember me, that's for sure! She was incredibly wondeful... after she sent me that email back, I sent another short one thanking her, and then she sent me another thanking me for thanking her! Really wonderful woman!

As we say down here in the South, Michael... thanks for having my back!

And remember all: I have immense respect for writers of all kinds, and never want to take away from them the ability to profit from their work. I feel very responsible for my mistake.

Forgive me for having a bit of a temper... I am not a non-confrontational person at heart. Hot blooded? When you mess with me.... yes. ;o)

~NT

(Edited by Nicole Theberge on 4/22, 7:30pm)

Post 29

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 7:14pm

Nicole: I have two things to say. First, it's not your place to tell me what I'm permitted to talk about. You don't want to, fine, no one's forcing you to. But it's not your place to tell me it's "closed".

Shayne, you're not exactly a "people person" are you?

Post 30

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 8:12pm

Shayne, you're not exactly a "people person" are you?

Sure I am. I can predict when someone is likely to fly off the handle in an irrational fit of rage. I can even stave it off if necessary -- I can play politics as well as you Lance. But in this case, I see no reason to tolerate Nicole's irrationality.

What I want to know is why you hide behind a veneer of civility when you're really just flinging insults at me.

Post 31

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 10:09pm

Shayne:

Again, I have admitted to and rectified the problem, fully and openly in front of all of you. There are plenty of rational, intelligent, and most importantly knowledgeable people that have agreed that I have done the right thing. I have gained the knowledge to make this decision, acted upon it, and know what I have done is correct. It has worked out so far. I am in the process of getting the article edited as well.

I am a real person, Shayne, taking real actions. Some people seem to forget that in internet forums. It's as if they can say anything because we are not face-to-face. I want to save my butt, and don't want to get into any trouble. If you think that I would risk anything by not doing all I can do to rectify this situation, you are very wrong. I am not just alive in this forum, and unfounded insults by you, a stranger who does not know me do puzzle me. You seem to think you can make these judgements without knowing all the facts. And lets face it, you do not. Michael and other experts in this type of law (I have inquired about it here at my school) agree that I should not face any trouble, that my actions have been correct, and that I have set right what I did wrong. I can do nothing else at this time. There is no reason to. I am not inclined to take advice from you, you understand, because you have not presented yourself as an expert. I cannot trust what you say to be correct.

These are not irrational outbursts just because you feel a sting from them, Shayne. You feel that sting because you are wrong.

There is a limit to my tolerance for attitudes like yours. I have been nothing but civil to you, but as I said before, impugning my values does not guarantee that that will last.

I hope that after all of this, you will at last let this issue go.

Post 32

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 11:01pm

Nicole: You never read anything I posted. You reacted emotionally to content that was never even there, just to the fact that there was disapproval of some sort, on some level, a level you never grasped, which you just skimmed past in shock, as if you'd never seen disapproval before. Most of what you attributed to me never entered my head, let alone the words that were in front of you.

Really, you act like a spoiled and touchy little brat, and it's sad that in a forum like this, you can't count on people to tell you the truth before you've gotten so very far off track (I am *not* speaking of the original incident and what you did to correct it; I am talking about how you reacted to my posts 23, 25, and 26). On the other hand, they are very quick to criticize me for being so blunt. Political correctness and "You go girl!" pats on the back trump reality in this forum all too often.

I don't care whether you tolerate me or not. What I'd really like is if you actually read the words I wrote.

Post 33

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 12:36am

Shayne,

I am done responding to your nonsense. Your last post crossed the line. It meant nothing constructive, nor was it anywhere near correct. I am absolutely sure that I am right. You have gotten a reputation in this forum for being viciously rude. This comes from the fact that you despise the spirit of this place. I reason that anything else that I would say to you would not mean squat. This was a beautiful article written with a great purpose in mind. I wish this thread would return to a better time... a time where I had a moment to stop defending myself against excrement and respond to Kelly's thought-provoking post. I fouled up in doing what I did. That has been corrected, and I have checked with quite a few knowledgeable people who have all said that I have done what I need to do. Must I say that again? You would have me flogging myself in Times Square. Anything you said after my admission and subsequent correction was and is considered superfluous and inflammatory. I will not be another target for your attacks.

Everyone else, I apologize for the tone this has taken on. I am ending this now. The reason I got involved with O'ism and this forum was because I saw the value in cultivating my own happiness and loving my own life: and learning the tools to make it so. Resolving my mistakes has become paramount. I assure you I have done it here. And I am continuing to do it by saying, as so many others have said, that I am done with Shayne.

I think katdaddy once said, "Peace out, brother."

~NT

Post 34

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 3:01am

What the f--k?!?!?! <stares in disbelief>

I'm training to be a lawyer in England, not the US, so I won't comment on the copyright aspect (though I gather it's reasonably similar). But this seems pretty common-sense: Nicole made an honest mistake, Nicole herself made sure those potentially losing out as a result were informed, and as matters stand they appear happy with the situation. Why did that aspect of this discussion get past post #18?

Shayne...you were right to flag up the problem, but it's time to drop it.

Correction: It's waaaay past time to drop it!

MH

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 4/23, 3:03am)

Post 35

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 4:39am

Nicole, great posts. I've my own share of experience with copyright law and you've done all you should. You rock!

(Edited by Bob Palin on 4/23, 6:31am)

Post 36

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 7:49am

Matt:

Why did that aspect of this discussion get past post #18

This is incredible. First of all, I thought this discussion didn't even need to get to post 18. Post 7 was sufficient. But once 18 was up, there was a problem. I find it incredible that *you* don't see one in it.

Nicole quotes the author: "People do this all the time. They paste up articles, email them around. Post them. ... I seriously doubt the Times will notice or care ...and if they do, all they'll ask is that you take it down..." Then Nicole concludes: "So, now we can all really enjoy the piece with no guilt whatsoever." (of course, we "all" had no guilt in this matter).

I pointed out what was wrong with this in post 23, which drew the sustained wrath of hers that's turned this thread into a traffic accident. You people keep applauding her behavior, I guess you must like traffic accidents.

Post 37

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 7:53am

Nicole,

I am done responding to your nonsense.

Are we sure this time? Seems like every time you say that you go on and on at me again.

You have gotten a reputation in this forum for being viciously rude.

Well, that at least partly explains your emotionalist method for reading my posts.

Post 38

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 8:06am

Shayne, I actually agree with you!! Can you believe it?! What Nicole did was the equivalent of stealing from the NYT, and I don't think contacting the author or how many people do it, or whether she has made any money off of it makes any difference. I'm not interested in what the law says about this. I am interested in the moral principle: The NYT had this up for sale, and she took it without paying.

But, Nicole, I believe that you didn't know what you were doing, so now that you have requested the article be taken down, all is finished. You made a mistake, and now it will be rectified. I just didn't think Shayne said anything wrong. I'll admit that his style turns me off even when he's right, though. :)

Would anyone like to talk about what I wrote as a response to the article?

Kelly

Post 39

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 8:18am