Author
|
Topic: Trolling for Donations for Definitions (Read 2270 times) |
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.44
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
 |
Re:Trolling for Donations for Definitions
« Reply #15 on: 2003-09-25 11:04:56 » |
 |
the CoV is not registered as anything...we dont have an agenda to be a 'religious charity'....where religious and charity are the key words...
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Trolling for Donations for Definitions
« Reply #16 on: 2003-09-25 12:51:36 » |
|
Refer "Help me Help you" particularly Replies 7 [Kalkor] and 9 [Hermit].
Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Trolling for Donations for Definitions
« Reply #17 on: 2003-09-25 14:12:32 » |
|
[Kirk 8] Research is 'usually' done under grantor of an educational or research institution. John Q. P. does not an educational institution make. Once again the onus is the establishment of credible institutional regard. This would normally come from a peer review process by previously established institutions. Precedent setting is a dangerous game in the world of copyrights. Ask Napster.
[Hermit 9.1] Anyone may act as a researcher, i.e. look stuff up on behalf of others, and may even charge a fee for doing so if they can find people to pay. This was what I meant in this context.
[Hermit 9.2] However, I also have a formal research group (State recognized) which I offered to interpose as an "isolating intermediary".
[Hermit 3] I see the Researcher as a bot.
[Kirk8] Once again self declaration does not the exception allow. Assertion by Fiat/Rule by Fiat (RBF) is not how precedents are successfully set. RBF only works in relationships and with children. The legal community will shoot such a proposal down. The precedent of a Virtual Institution is not well entrenched outside of Wallstreet. The virtual colleges have a physical campus foundation upon which to build their argumentative stance. I understand that you are willing to set up the physical resources, but the courts would be hard pressed to see that as a NFP venture without other mechanisms in place, for example: <snip>
[Hermit 9] See [Hermit 9.1]. From a legal perspective, a "researcher" is simply somebody looking things up for others (and in this case would be the licensed user). The tools used are not prescribed and bots are not proscribed (except in some TOS - e.g. Google has conditions for using a bot against their search base).
[Kirk8.1] Lucifer Media and CoV are somewhat synonymous. Asserting the seperation is what I said in my previous post as "divorcing" one from the other.
[Hermit 9] No. The Church of Virus is a customer of Lucifer Media Corporation. As such it pays fees to LMC which also provides services to a number of other clients including other (formally registered) tax-exempt organizations. The CoV has its own URL and its own services. While not as clean a a separation as I would want, it is definitely sufficient to meet the requirements of being able to show that LMC is a service provider and the CoV a customer. Which brings a large, well established body of rules covering "common carriers" and "service providers" into play. The only recourse possible against LMC is if they ask it to remove material they assert is in breach, and LMC refuses.
[Kirk8.2] Insofar as the C&D order, you know as well as I that any "author/publisher" is going to wait till signifigant 'damage' has been incurred prior to issuing said C&D, then jump straight into the damages tort. That IS how the American Bar has trained its customer base.
[Hermit 9] This would apply to the CoV, not LMC, and it is difficult to see how this could be effected. If I write a letter to a closed group, not available to the public at large, then even if I include portions of a copyright work within it as supporting material, there is no breach of the fair use provisions, and thus no proveable damage. It is only if that letter is published to the public that a problem could arise. The terms of service would prevent that.
[Hermit 9] On the other hand, this is one area of weakness. Not having a separate body with limited liability potentially exposes David Lucifer personally in any actions taken against the CoV. Against this, the American Bar trains its members is to look for deep pockets. And the CoV does not appear to have any.
[Kirk 8] To summarize
[Kirk8.4] NFP status - establish credible history prior to seeking resources
[Hermit 9] There are pros and cons. See the aforementioned Help me Help you thread.
[Kirk8.4] Bot as Agent - Hard Sell, that one hasn't even been talked about yet. We would be one of the first
[Hermit 9] Err, there is no precedent here. The bot is a tool of the "licenced looker upper person" (see how much shorter "researcher" is).
[Kirk8.4] Rational Party Paradigm - Good thing Joe McCarthy isn't around to hear that one, or we would get strung up by our testicles.
[Hermit 9] Look forward to talking with you about this. Joe McCarthy was such a sweetheart <extreme sarcasm>. But AssCroft & dubya have their own darling ways which are - in some ways - even more amusing.
[Kirk8.4] "Socialism buy any other name would smell justice unsweet." (With sincerist apologies to the Bard)
[Hermit 9] Ouch. I'm sure the Bard is well and truly singed. This pun would surely run afowl of his sensibilities. I know that it's eggscrutiating awfulness ruffled my feathers. Still, for some reason, it struck me as poultry in motion.
Kind Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
|
Logged
