Re: Tuning archives

Hi Aaron and Rick,

I've got all the posts ever sent to the tuning list
in digests or other form. I've been kind of unofficially
archiving it since joining. I used earlier digests from
Manuel and Monz to complete the collection..

I also wrote a program to make an html archive of it.
There though I did ask people's permission to include
their posts. Some posters to the main tuning list
feel very strongly that they don't want their posts
archived. So it has to be opt in.

Yahoogroups can put them up on their website
because they get permission from us all to do so
when we join. People who write programs to
download an archive of other people's posts
without their permission are on somewhat
dubious ground I think. At least out of
respect I for one wouldn't do that.
But searching the yahoogroups archive
is okay I think because the posts
remain in their original location
and aren't copied. The posts are all
the copyright of the original posters.

I know that Google archived usenet
or something, and that it caches some
yahoogroups posts in its search
engine. But presumably they have
gone into it with top notch lawyers
and know it is okay to do it for
some reason or other. Whether it
is leagally okay or not I think
one should ask permission.
I know of several posters to
the tuning list who told me privately
that they felt strongly that they
didn't want their posts in the archive.

I gather that mainly the point of view is
that they posted them as ephemeral posts
and not as finished publications.
They would be interested perhaps in
contributing considered finished material
to a properly conducted tuning faq or
some such - but not in contributing raw
chatty unconsidered posts to an archive.

It is a minority view, only a few think like that,
but those who do sometimes feel
very strongly about it.

Technically it is a bit tricky because once
you get permission you still have
to recognise the poster in the archives
and e-mail address often change.
So one can get gaps in the archives
even from posters who have given their
permission sometimes.

Anyway - on this point - I still
have my archiving program and all
the digests. Also now I also have
the space on-line too (it needed over
100 Mb when converted to html with all
the indexes by subject, date, and author)

I also have permission from many of
the main posters to the list to include their posts.
So I can do an archive and upload
it quite quickly. I haven't done
that mainly because there were
bugs in the old Mills section of the
archive that needed to be fixed first.

But if there is a strong wish for it
now then I can do it right away
with the bugs. They probably won't
get fixed any time soon unfortunately
because of other commitmemnts and they were
relatively tricky ones to fix. But not so very major.
Maybe some of the old Mills posts
will get concatenated or duplicated
or something, maybe even wrongly
attributed in the index so you
click on an entry and end up with
a post from someone different from
who you expect. I'm not sure,
though it was long ago now and
can't remember the details.
It only affected the Mills archives
and not the more recent yahoogroups
postings and was something to do with the
difference in the format of the digests
and coping with small variations
in the format, but I can't
remember the details now.

The yahoogroups ones are easy because each
message ends with:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

and you just need to search for that to split them
up.

The posts might even be searchable - could all be
put into one folder in text format - but would
have gaps because of the opt in nature
so one would need to choose between a possibly
faster search of text files in a folder
on a server that maybe could even host the script
too - and the completeness of the yahoogroups archives.

Robert

Robert,

I will make any comments on this on MMM, since that is (at least
recently) where some of this has come up. You are being quite
considerate, and for that I thank you in arrears and in advance.

You may count me as one of the people that feels quite strongly about
how and where these words should live.

Cheers,
Jon

Hi Carl,

Yes, I think I've got everything.

This is the old mills archive beta - looks strange
because it seems to be missing the
images now though it used to have them
when I uploaded it:
http://members.tripod.com/~tuning_archive/Mills/html/index.html

At the time I did that beta, few people had given their
permission, so it will seem a bit fragmented,
but Manuel chased up quite a few of
the contributers to the early list and got their
permission so it would be rather more complete
if I do it again now. Anyway gives an idea.
I see you have posts listed there so you
must have been one of the ones who gave
your permission early on but I think nearly
everyone has forgotten about it now.

You can find the betas of other fragments of the
more recent tuning archives too at
/tuning2/
though all are missing the images now for some reason
- it is all rather old now.

Robert

Hi Robert,

> At the time I did that beta, few people had given
> their permission, so it will seem a bit fragmented,
> but Manuel chased up quite a few of the contributers
> to the early list and got their permission so it
> would be rather more complete if I do it again now.

In the States at least, it has been ruled many times
that when it comes to creating public archives,
copyright takes the back seat. I admire your
thoughtfulness in creating your archives, but opt-out
is the correct way to do this, not opt-in.

-Carl

C,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> In the States at least, it has been ruled many times
> that when it comes to creating public archives,
> copyright takes the back seat. I admire your
> thoughtfulness in creating your archives, but opt-out
> is the correct way to do this, not opt-in.

In your opinion. There are no hard and fast rules, and we *aren't* in
the States, so it is probably both a prudent and considerate thing to
think about those who are outside our borders.

Opt-in. I don't like people making choices for me without my knowledge.

Cheers,
Jon

> > In the States at least, it has been ruled many times
> > that when it comes to creating public archives,
> > copyright takes the back seat. I admire your
> > thoughtfulness in creating your archives, but opt-out
> > is the correct way to do this, not opt-in.
>
> In your opinion.

Please read:

http://maddox.xmission.net/c.cgi?u=boiling_blood

> There are no hard and fast rules, and we *aren't* in
> the States, so it is probably both a prudent and
> considerate thing to think about those who are outside
> our borders.

Please read:

> > In the States at least,

> Opt-in. I don't like people making choices for me
> without my knowledge.

Then you shouldn't post to a public forum.

-Carl

C,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> Please read:
>
> http://maddox.xmission.net/c.cgi?u=boiling_blood

I will.

> > > In the States at least,

Yeah, I saw that. What about non-US posters? SOL?

> > Opt-in. I don't like people making choices for me
> > without my knowledge.
>
> Then you shouldn't post to a public forum.

That statement doesn't link to mine.

Cheers,
Jon

C,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > In your opinion.
>
> Please read:
>
> http://maddox.xmission.net/c.cgi?u=boiling_blood

OK, thanks for that waste of my time.

C,
--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > but opt-out is the correct way to do this, not opt-in.

I am aware of the issue of posting in a public forum. I don't
necessarily believe, however, that there are already hard-and-fast
rules as to how to handle things like life-span of communication,
third-party usage, etc. When you say "is the correct way to do this",
is that a solid, legally-based statement?

Jon

> > > > but opt-out is the correct way to do this, not opt-in.
>
> I am aware of the issue of posting in a public forum. I don't
> necessarily believe, however, that there are already
> hard-and-fast rules as to how to handle things like life-span
> of communication, third-party usage, etc. When you say "is
> the correct way to do this", is that a solid, legally-based
> statement?

The worst that can happen is a cease-and-desist notice.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> The worst that can happen is a cease-and-desist notice.

That didn't answer my question, but never mind.

Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...>
wrote:

> I also wrote a program to make an html archive of it.
> There though I did ask people's permission to include
> their posts. Some posters to the main tuning list
> feel very strongly that they don't want their posts
> archived. So it has to be opt in.

Opt in is useless, because other people can't use your archives, and
potentially dangerous, because with more physical copies available we
could be assured of not losing them. As usual there are people who
insist on getting in the way of progress.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> You may count me as one of the people that feels quite strongly about
> how and where these words should live.

Me too. I loathe this intellectual property crap.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> Opt-in. I don't like people making choices for me without my knowledge.

You chose to post something. *Your* choice. Now you think you should
dictate other people's free choices.

I not only don't agree with your position, I don't have any respect
for it.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> Opt in is useless

"Opt in" in the sense of who gives permission to use their posts, not
who can access said archives.

> because with more physical copies available we
> could be assured of not losing them.

If one felt the material was of value, they would have spent some of
their precious time documenting stuff. Oh, no, too busy...

> As usual there are people who
> insist on getting in the way of progress.

Progress. My skin is getting all tingly.

Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> > Opt-in. I don't like people making choices for me without my
knowledge.
>
> You chose to post something. *Your* choice. Now you think you should
> dictate other people's free choices.

Fuck that. There are other implications in the posting besides "use
this in perpetuity for whatever purpose you like, including the
possibility that you'll edit it to make it fit some other agenda, etc.".

> I not only don't agree with your position, I don't have any respect
> for it.

Big fucking deal.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> Progress. My skin is getting all tingly.

You've made it clear you don't have much respect for tuning theory,
which makes this predicable, I suppose. What happens when you discover
an unpublished work by a composer you admire, and you can't get
permission to print it because he's been dead for the last 300 years?
Or do dead people have no moral rights?

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> You've made it clear you don't have much respect for tuning theory

That is bullshit. I just don't think you are the only person who gets
to decide what "progress" is.

As for the second comment, I'm not talking scenarios, I'm talking the
here and now. If you think your work is estimable, print it up. Get
published. Document it so people can understand it.

After all, it is *your* work, and I'm not going to tell you what you
can do with it. And I don't want someone like you telling me what I
can do with mine.

Though I bet you would like to tell me what I can do.

And, after your comment to Robert about how he's too nice a guy to go
ahead with something, that you and Carl would be fine to do it, you
want to talk about "moral rights"? Unbelievable.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> > You've made it clear you don't have much respect for tuning theory
>
> That is bullshit. I just don't think you are the only person who gets
> to decide what "progress" is.

Please. Everyone knows you are constantly pissing and moaning about
tuning theory, and suggesting it prevents music somehow.

> And, after your comment to Robert about how he's too nice a guy to go
> ahead with something, that you and Carl would be fine to do it, you
> want to talk about "moral rights"? Unbelievable.

What is moral is not the same as what is nice; it has to do with what
is right.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> Please. Everyone knows you are constantly pissing and moaning about
> tuning theory, and suggesting it prevents music somehow.

Not at all, that is simply your spin. I don't say it "prevents" music,
but some people who get into it for lack of anything else tend to lose
sight of music entirely. Whatever.

> What is moral is not the same as what is nice

Duh.

> it has to do with what is right.

And, I guess, that is whatever Gene wants. You go, girl.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> And, I guess, that is whatever Gene wants. You go, girl.

I want information available; in particular, I'd at least like my own
postings more readily searchable; the way Yahoo is now I have trouble
doing something which you suggest I ought to, namely going through the
archives and extracting things for web purposes. If you have some
other purpose or plan in mind than constant negativity, showing it by
making a positive contribution to some such project would be nice.

Jon and Gene,

since you guys insist on making your bitch fights public,
i propose that we create the "Gene Ward Smith vs Jon Szanto list".

8^>

-monz

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...>
wrote:
> > You've made it clear you don't have much respect for tuning theory
>
> That is bullshit. I just don't think you are the only
> person who gets to decide what "progress" is.
>
> As for the second comment, I'm not talking scenarios,
> I'm talking the here and now. If you think your work is
> estimable, print it up. Get published. Document it so
> people can understand it.
>
> After all, it is *your* work, and I'm not going to tell you
> what you can do with it. And I don't want someone like you
> telling me what I can do with mine.
>
> Though I bet you would like to tell me what I can do.
>
> And, after your comment to Robert about how he's too nice
> a guy to go ahead with something, that you and Carl would
> be fine to do it, you want to talk about "moral rights"?
> Unbelievable.