Two things occured to me which make Ginmar's actions a lot more understandible to me

[xiphias]

#1. Ginmar doesn't REALIZE she filed a DCMA complaint. She just contaced LJ Abuse. She doesn't REALIZE that doing that IS filing a DCMA complaint. So she was totally taken aback by the fact that there was this thing filed. She doesn't KNOW she did it, so she thinks Lis did. #2. Ginmar doesn't have a copyright complaint. She has a PRIVACY complaint. Copyright != privacy. Copyright is almost exactly the OPPOSITE of privacy. Something that's private isn't copyrighted. So, when she claimed that Lis violated copyright, Lis proceeded on the assumption that the work was copyrightable -- NOT private. The actions that one takes in a privacy situation are almost totally OPPOSITE the ones one takes in a copyright situation. So no wonder Ginmar is upset: she doesn't understand what's going on. Lis and Ginmar are working from totally different rules sets, because, well, frankly, people misuse the word "copyright" so badly that when someone acutally uses it properly, it blindsides them. Since Lis has spent so much time with intellectual property (she's got a Master's degree in library science), it didn't even occur to her that someone could be using the term "copyright" to mean "privacy". I mean, Lis's degree is, fundamentally, probably 25% in things that have to do with "copyright" and 25% in things that have to do with "privacy", and she's very aware of how different they are.

Comments

[patgreene.livejournal.com]

Yep, exactly . And, as far as I can tell from reading TOS, LJ isn't going to step into a privacy issue, except where it involves the release of personal information. They certainly aren't going to step in where the allegedly private post was originally public and generated much debate. So the only way LJ Abuse (who probably saw this as a possible copyright issue as well) is going to step in is if it is a DMCA complaint, which is how they treated it. (Which is also why she didn't see anything wrong with reprinting your post as long as she did not identify who you were.)

And as I have said elsewhere, as far as privacy goes, she has not a leg to stand on. You make an ass of yourself in public, you can't prevent people from commenting on it. Actions have consequences.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

You make an ass of yourself in public, you can't prevent people from commenting on it. Actions have consequences.

Isn't it lucky for Xiphias that his flaming of Ginmar's original post - utterly uncalled for and completely inappropriate - is now safely behind an f-lock and can't be linked to? He accused Ginmar of doing things she hadn't done.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I have no idea what it is that you are referring to here. I don't recall any such post. I just friended you so you can go and look for it, because I don't know what you're talking about here. Would you mind pointing me to it? I'm baffled.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Would you mind pointing me to it? I'm baffled.

I can quote it - you posted it in response to Ginmar's original post, which I'm now on the filter for (I wasn't before):

2004-12-02 07:13 (link)
My wife's body cannot produce androgens. We've been married for five years and have never had sex.

What the fuck do you think we're supposed to do? You're saying the problem is all in her head, or that I'm inconsiderate, or something like that. No. The problem is that her body does not produce testosterone. And medical science has so totally ignored the problem until now that she has to use a product that is designed for men, and try to use one-tenth of a dose of the men's testosterone product because medical science has IGNORED the fact that women can have low, or non-existent, testosterone, and all the medical problems that that causes, and now that someone is FINALLY paying attention to that, you're saying it's a BAD THING?

What? You WANT us to continue to suffer? Is that what you're saying? What the fuck is the PROBLEM with someone finally paying attention and working to cure my wife? How is that possibly a bad thing?

You accuse Ginmar of attacking you personally - when her post was entirely impersonal. That's completely inappropriate.

You lie about what she's saying, making false claims such as "What? You WANT us to continue to suffer?" when Ginmar never said anything of the kind.

It's a flame. Further, it's a lie. You behaved like a troll. Have you ever apologised to Ginmar for this?

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

You lie about what she's saying, making false claims such as "What? You WANT us to continue to suffer?" when Ginmar never said anything of the kind.

That's it? That's what you consider a lie?

Clearly, you don't speak Jewish.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

That's it? That's what you consider a lie?

You claimed Ginmar said something she never said. What is that but a lie?

Did you ever apologise for flaming her?

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Do you seriously not see the difference between "You want us to continue to suffer," and "What? You WANT us to continue to suffer? Is that what you're saying?"

who threw the first stone

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

that is what you actually wrote in reply to that post, as the first thing you said? (i never saw the entire comment brouhaha, only the original post.)

man, xiphias. sheeeit. i think it's completely legit to put a human face on suffering, i agree that post of ginmar's -- like all such sweeping generalizations -- needed a solid helping of human face. but now i see why ginmar felt insulted right off the bat. and i think she had reason (though i also think that people who dish it out like she does should tune down their own sensitivity a little).

ignore the yonmei troll, but really, think about this post. what did you expect from that? that ginmar would suddenly feel your pain?

you could have worded that a lot less contentiously, and i would recommend the next time you want to bring FSD to people's attention, you do. i don't speak jewish either, and i think it's foolish to expect anyone else to.

i think she is justified to feel attacked by you. and now i see why she was complaining that you didn't even ask how she meant her post. you didn't. you stated You're saying the problem is all in her head, or that I'm inconsiderate, or something like that. i see where you got that from, because i read her rant very similarly. but she did not say so explicitly, some of us inferred it from the way she talked about scientists being sexist, and women preferring men to do some housework in order to feel sexually interested.

*sigh*.

her rant was over the top. your reply was way over the top. i think you fucked up.

Re: who threw the first stone

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I don't think that was my first post in the thread, no, but I don't honestly remember for sure. I think that was after a number of exchanges, but I don't know.

Re: who threw the first stone

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

It's over the top, but I read it as coming from somebody who is really upset. I don't speak Jewish, but I do speak Irish, which is full of Hyperbole and Dramatics and Great Sweeping Hand Gestures.

(Oh yeah, and food=love. I sometimes think we're one of the lost tribes.)

Re: who threw the first stone

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

Was xiphias's quoted post a comment in ginmar's journal, or a post in his own journal? As a comment, yeah, it was over the top. As a post in his own journal, meh.

[greyladybast.livejournal.com]

Any post that attempts to bully someone via use of the f-word is a flame. The disrespect shown by the foul language alone puts it firmly into troll/flame territory. I won't even touch on the blatant attempt to guilt Gin into turning a general rant into something all about your wife.

And I so wanted to respect you people, too.

Bast

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I have to admit, I'm baffled by the idea that an adult human being could be frightened of the word "fuck".

[rivka.livejournal.com]

Particularly a soldier, you know?

the f-word?

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

oh, this is choice. you must have serious problems respecting ginmar and reading her journal then, since it pretty much abounds with "foul language".

mind, i am not complaining about it; i think a heartily expressed "asshole" and "fuck" is a great stress reliever at times.

[jeric-synergy.livejournal.com]

You make an ass of yourself in public, you can't prevent people from commenting on it.

True, but the operative word is COMMENTING:
1) Newspaper/print columnists make asses of themselves daily. That doesn't mean you can quote their entire column. An LJ posting seems pretty much like a newspaper column to me.

2) Isn't ginmar's LJ explicitly copyrighted? Just like a newspaper column?

This couple sure knows how to cut their own noses off.

[madameverdi.livejournal.com]

Given Cheshyre's professional qualifications (she is not a lawyer, but librarians have to know copyright law very thoroughly as well) and given my understanding of the issues from reading the law, I'd put my money on her being right much more than on ginmar.

This couple sure knows how to cut their own noses off.
A lot less than ginmar does. Free exchange of information which was public -- which is what this is about, whether or not ginmar or you see that -- is something worth fighting for. And having read ginmar's journal (more than the post in question), I'll stick with Cheshyre and Xiphias.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Ginmar doesn't have a copyright complaint. She has a PRIVACY complaint.

Actually, she has both.

Cheshyre republished a piece of writing without getting Ginmar's permission. "Fair use" is based on guidelines, not straightforward yes/no definitions, but a basic definition from the Stanford (http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html) site is: "Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials forpurposes of commentary and criticism". (emphasis mine)

Now, it's true, Cheshyre can argue for a "fair use" case. Anyone can argue. But she's not likely to get anywhere with her requirement to use the whole of Ginmar's post on this topic.

Privacy, on the other hand, is very definite, and Cheshyre is very definitely in the wrong. Cheshyre took the contents of an f-locked post and published it on her livejournal, without bothering to obtain Ginmar's permission. That was rude and showed lack of respect for privacy. Cheshyre should take that post down.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Actually, me too. I can't believe Cheshyre wants to prolong the dispute like this.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

Admittedly I'm on the outside of it all but I'm finding it all quite silly. I saw the post and resultant flamewar befoer it was taken behind a lock; it was open for quite some while first.

I think I'm glad I've not been paying attention.

[hangedwoman.livejournal.com]

OK, to me privacy = personal information, and what ginmar is complaining about doesn't concern that, it concerns the reprinting of her post without her permission, which makes it a copyright issue. Particularly since (if I understand this correctly, and I may not) ginmar chose to f-lock that entry, which to my mind says even more that she doesn't want it reprinted. Honestly, I think Lis's motives for reprinting the post were actually more positive than not, but reprinting a f-locked post without permission isn't OK. From what I know of the situation, I'd say nobody involved here is beyond reproach, but everybody has some legitimate complaints.

Now overall, I'd prefer not to get involved with this beyond voicing my opinion here. I have been a reader of you LJ for a while now, and I have a pretty good opinion of you as a person. I have never read Lis's LJ on more than an occasional basis. I have never read ginmar's LJ on more than an occasional basis, but I do read her Iraq 'community' LJ and plan to continue to do so, because I like reading her observations on Iraq. I'm actually somewhat displeased she's chosen to comment on this issue in that LJ, but eh, whatever.

[psu-jedi.livejournal.com]

Hon, if I were your shoes, I would've deleted every fucking post these wankers are making. But I guess that just makes me a troll/flamer because 1) I've used the word "fuck" and 2) I've attempted to make light of something in your journal.

Ahhh...gotta love people.

[(Anonymous)]

This is all fascinating....

[mitchellf.livejournal.com]

All I can say is: "Wow."

Reading the counter-posts (flames) by Yonmei reminded me of Crossfire--you know, the show CNN just cancelled after firing Tucker Carlson (the bow-tie wearing guy). And then all I could think of was John Stewart's from The Daily Show comments about Crossfire, when he was on the show: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bljonstewartcrossfire.htm

I'd post about this on my LJ, but I don't feel like being flamed by Yonmei. ;-)

As you know, I always hope for peace, but, in this case, I just hope that everyone comes out as unscathed as possible. Good luck to you and Cheshyre.