|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
204.144.130.66
In Reply to: Re: It's OK... posted by Steve Eddy on June 22, 2005 at 09:01:32:
If you've done much browsing on the internet, you would probably know that linking to someone else's web site is pretty much fair game. On the other hand, copying something from someone else's web site and putting it on your own is generally frowned upon.(In fact, I seem to recall a flap in this very forum about this very issue only a week or two ago....)
I would expect that when a normal person found out they had inadvertantly misappropriated someone else's work to rectify the situation. You know, replace the misappropriated material with a link, or something like that.
On the other hand, I would expect you to argue about this, just like you argue about everything else under the sun. In this, you have exceeded my expectations.
Follow Ups:
If you've done much browsing on the internet, you would probably know that linking to someone else's web site is pretty much fair game. On the other hand, copying something from someone else's web site and putting it on your own is generally frowned upon.
Yes, when someone has some claim of copyright to the material.
(In fact, I seem to recall a flap in this very forum about this very issue only a week or two ago....)
If we're thinking about the same flap here, that was a case wherein someone copied copyrighted material (in this case from Stereophile's e-newsletter) and made it available to the public.
And ironically, that's also what Bill Perkins has done.
Also, the file isn't on my website. It's on the server that hosts my website. There's no link on my website to that file. Only a direct link to the file in my post.
I would expect that when a normal person found out they had inadvertantly misappropriated someone else's work to rectify the situation.
I don't see that it was "misappropriated." Bill Perkins has no copyright whatsoever to that article.
You falsely accused me of taking the file from Bill's website and posting it here without giving him credit for it.
As I explained, I didn't take the file from his website so I had no idea he was responsible for having created it and therefore could not have given him credit for it at the time I posted it.
He's now been given credit for it. So what's the problem?
se
You say you didn't know that the paper was prepared by Bill Perkins. OK, fair enough. You found the paper on Ken Gilbert's website, and although there are many places where he credits Bill Perkins (including a page dedicated to Bill's white papers), Ken apparently forgot to credit Bill for this one.So the presumably you thought that Ken Gilbert prepared the paper. Then when someone asks about tubes, you download the paper from Ken Gilbert's site to your computer. Then you FTP the paper to your own website. Then you publicly refer people there.
Maybe there is some innocent explanation, but it's not obvious to me. It seems to me that either you wanted people to think your website is a great resource for technical articles or that you meticulously transcribed the original article. Why didn't you just post a link to Ken's website (since you thought he was the one who prepared the paper)?
By the way, how long do you think it would take you transcribe the original article (with complex equations and greek symbols) and reproduce all the circuit diagrams (as Bill obviously did)? Seems to me that Bill put *many* hours of work into this project...
You say you didn't know that the paper was prepared by Bill Perkins.
That's what I said.
OK, fair enough. You found the paper on Ken Gilbert's website, and although there are many places where he credits Bill Perkins (including a page dedicated to Bill's white papers), Ken apparently forgot to credit Bill for this one.
Apparently.
So the presumably you thought that Ken Gilbert prepared the paper.
No. I didn't have any idea who prepared the paper.
Then when someone asks about tubes, you download the paper from Ken Gilbert's site to your computer.
Not quite.
I downloaded the paper from Ken Gilbert's site (via a Google search) over a year ago when I was doing some research of my own regarding the internal feedback of trodes.
It's been on my hard drive ever since.
Then you FTP the paper to your own website. Then you publicly refer people there.
I didn't refer anyone to my website. The link in my post links directly to the pdf file.
And yes, I did FTP it to my web server the other day because I couldn't remember where I'd originally got the file.
After you made your big stink about it and accused me of "misappropriating" it from Bill Perkins' website and intentionally neglected to give him credit, I did a search to find where I'd made mention of it on AA before and that turned up a post from me on Prop Heads.
Until then, I didn't remember where exactly I got it originally.
Maybe there is some innocent explanation, but it's not obvious to me.
Gee, no surprise there.
It seems to me that either you wanted people to think your website is a great resource for technical articles or that you meticulously transcribed the original article
Huh?
How would it have made anyone think that my website is a great resource for techincal articles when anyone who actually went to my website wouldn't find any link to that or any other technical article there at all?
And why would I give a shit about whether or not anyone thought that I had meticulously transcribed the article myself? What, I think some headhunder looking for an ace transcriber might stumble upon it and offer me a lucrative job?
Put down the crack pipe, Charles.
I uploaded the file to my web server and linked to it in my post for the simple and mundane reason that I didn't remember where I'd got it from originally, that I've had it on my hard drive for over a year and already knew where it was and it didn't take me more than about 30 seconds to do it.
Why didn't you just post a link to Ken's website (since you thought he was the one who prepared the paper)?
Again, I had no idea who had actually prepared the paper.
By the way, how long do you think it would take you transcribe the original article (with complex equations and greek symbols) and reproduce all the circuit diagrams (as Bill obviously did)?
Maybe a couple hours. Three tops.
It's only three pages. There are no "complex equations" just some simple algebraic expressions. Greek symbols? That's just a mouse click to select the font. And the circuit diagrams are exceedingly simple.
Seems to me that Bill put *many* hours of work into this project...
Great. It's appreciated. And he's been given credit. What, you want me to offer mow his lawn or wash his car for him or something? What?
Now, what of your false accusations against me? You seem to be doing a pretty good job of dancing around that.
se
It appears that you intended no slight of Bill Perkins or PEARL. I appreciate you filling in the details.
It appears that you intended no slight of Bill Perkins or PEARL. I appreciate you filling in the details.
Sure.
Now I'd appreciate an apology for the false accusations.
se
Let's see now...I asked "Did you get permission to take this paper from Bill Perkins' website?" It turns out that you didn't take it from Perkins' website, but from Ken Gilbert's website instead. And you want an apology? For what?
Everyone here knows that you are the one who should be apologizing for your continuing stream of rude, profane posts full of personal insults.
I asked "Did you get permission to take this paper from Bill Perkins' website?" It turns out that you didn't take it from Perkins' website, but from Ken Gilbert's website instead.
Yes. You falsely accused me of having taken it from Perkins' website.
"I doubt he is happy that someone is appropriating his work without credit... "
se
... are you saying that I made a "false accusation" when I said "I doubt he [Bill Perkins] is happy that someone is appropriating his work without credit"?Doesn't seem like a "false accusation" to me. Seems like I stated my opinion. Do you think he *is* happy about it?
How about we call him up and ask him?
... are you saying that I made a "false accusation" when I said "I doubt he [Bill Perkins] is happy that someone is appropriating his work without credit"?
No. I added that just to underscore the false accusation itself. That being your having falsely accused me of taking the file from Bill Perkins' website .
Did you get permission to take this paper from Bill Perkins' website?
Whether I asked permission or not, the accusation is that I took it from Bill Perkins' website.
I doubt he is happy that someone is appropriating his work without credit...
Appropriating it from where? From the first quote, from Bill Perkins' website.
So, whether I asked permission or not, or whether Bill Perkins is happy or not, you accused me of taking it from his website . Which I did not. Making the accusation a false one.
Is that too difficult for you to grasp? Or am I expecing too much?
se
Bill Perkins carefully prepared a reprint of a 50 year old paper by Stockman. It ended up on your website. I asked you if you had permission to do so. You explained (to my satisfaction, at least) that this was done innocently.Now to me (and also to most people, I would imagine), that would be the end of the story. But for some reason you seem to think you deserve an apology from me. I don't and you're not getting one. Is that too difficult for you to grasp?
Never ceases to amaze me how people will argue till they are blue in face, rather than apologise. Mr. Charles Hansen you owe the man an apology for accusing him wrongly of taking the paper from Mr. Perkins, which clearly he did not. The paper is in public domain, and Mr. Gilbert may have acquired the paper without the assistance of Mr. Perkins. I have included a link to another site where the article in question is published.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Thanks for the input. If it were anybody else besides Steve Eddy, I might have a different response. However if you've followed his postings for long, you would know that he doesn't deserve an apology from me for asking the question that I asked him. See the link below for more information on this.Regarding the article itself, the link you provided was to a different version. Without question, the version that Gilbert posted on his website (and Eddy subsequently uploaded to his server) was the version that Perkins prepared. You can either compare it with the version at the PEARL website:
http://www.pearl-hifi.com/06_Lit_Archive/07_Misc_Downloads/1150_Inherent_Triode_Fdback.pdf
or simply look at the footnote below the references, where Bill Perkins' initials appear.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: