robie@umbc2.umbc.edu (Mr. William Robie; POSI (GRAD)) (03/21/91)
In article <8btWXFS00V86M653JH@andrew.cmu.edu>, bb1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Barry Lowell Brumitt) writes...> >Also, I'd like to mention that I retain copyright on the words posted in my >previous message. This notice isn't necessary, as I would retain that right >anyways. I add this because I have heard that these posts sometimes get used >in periodicals without the author's consent. No flames please! >Accident reports are valuable so we can all learn ways of being safer! > >Barry >A-12269 Ummm...ok, don't consider this a flame - just some feedback. It does sound a little pompous to me for an "A" licensed "expert" to exert his copyright on a public posting. Obviously, you have a right to ask that you not be quoted and I am sure those here will respect that, but the last thing we need is for people to start throwing around legal warnings. I write for part of my living (my *own* words and research, thanks!) and still contribute to this and rec.aviation. If I don't want it used, I don't post it...just that simple.
nraoaoc@nmt.edu (Daniel Briggs) (03/22/91)
In article <5482@umbc3.UMBC.EDU> robie@umbc2.umbc.edu writes: >In article <8btWXFS00V86M653JH@andrew.cmu.edu>, bb1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Barry Lowell Brumitt) writes...> >>[a notice about his words being copyrighted] > >Ummm...ok, don't consider this a flame - just some feedback. It does sound >a little pompous to me for an "A" licensed "expert" to exert his copyright >on a public posting. Obviously, you have a right to ask that you not be quoted >and I am sure those here will respect that, but the last thing we need is for >people to start throwing around legal warnings. I write for part of my living >(my *own* words and research, thanks!) and still contribute to this and >rec.aviation. If I don't want it used, I don't post it...just that simple. *sigh*. I hadn't wanted to post this, but I should really clear this up. Maybe it should be said anyway. Barry may not have put it well, but his words were both there for a reason, and inspired by a note I wrote him. I wrote a post a few months ago about a reserve cutaway where the jumper actually cut through her suspension lines with a hook knife. Being a novice jumper myself, I had witnessed a real weird one, and wrote a post about it. You all know the phenomena: eyes to fingers, without benefit of brain. I took some care not to reflect poorly on our drop zone, but basically told it as I saw it at the time. It's easy to think about a news group as 'just us guys', and not consider how far your words might go. Anyway, a couple of weeks later I get a letter in the mail. Somehow the post made it out to _Skydiving_, and they want to do a blurb about it for the next issue. They couldn't find my phone number in the book, and would I call them back to talk about it? About this time, I'm realizing how far it has gone. I'm hardly the spokesman for my drop zone, so I'd better pass the buck. I call the jumper in question, and have her contact _Skydiving_ directly. She also brings the drop zone operator into the act, and I figure that's the end of it. Well, what happened was that the jumper herself wanted to keep a low profile on the incident, and didn't say a whole lot. The drop zone operator also didn't give them a whole lot of information for their story. What happened was that much of the story was a direct quote, from me, from the original article to rec.skydiving! (It's in the January issue, if you want to read it.) Fortunately I had taken some care to get my facts right, and I hadn't written anything particularly embarrassing to my DZ. (Although as it developed, the facts as I knew them then were not *quite* the same as later developed in the investigation.) For the record, the reserve ripcord's elastic keeper was *not* worn, although it's true that some people believed it so at the time. I rather wish they had taken the word of the other two people (directly) involved in this, rather than printing that "there was some question about the condition of the rental rig." I can see them wanting to print all available sides of the story, but in this case they already had the direct information from the person who used it, and she said it wasn't so. If they'd asked me about the quote, or allowed me to review it, by that time I could have told them that the fact was wrong, too. I took some heat locally about 'blabbing to the media before the investigation finished', but everyone understood that it was quite accidental on my part, so it wasn't particularly intense. I'm a little annoyed with _Skydiving_ over this, but haven't made a stink over it. (If someone in the DeLand offices is reading this now, it's the first that they've heard of it.) While I think it was tad rude of them to quote me without asking, I'm not particularly bent out of shape by it. I'll stand by anything I post, even if it does go a little farther than I'd intended. Yelling about implied copyright seems a little silly to me. It may have been a little unwise of me, but I *did* post those statements on a public forum. Besides, I recognize that their zeal was out of a desire to publish the news. I get something out of reading their accident reports, too! They were quite polite in their correspondence with me, and sent me a follow up letter, and a "sample" copy of the issue with the story. (I got to chop up the cover of the spare issue, since I already had my own.) So William, while Barry might have come off a little badly in claiming explicit copyright of his words, there has indeed been a recent example of a very novice jumper getting a post quoted when he would rather have not had it so. Personally, I don't think the answer is copyright notices, and I don't think it's ragging on _Skydiving_. I think it just boils down to, "if you don't want it quoted, don't say it". Bear also in mind that accident reports in particular are very sensitive things, and people can be quite touchy about them. (With some justification, too!) Speaking for myself, I might post about a local accident or incident in the future, as it is both interesting and what this group is all about, but I bloody well am going to talk to my DZ management before I do. Because I jumped the gun, and _Skydiving_ was a little overzealous, a bit of misinformation got promulgated. No harm done, but it was certainly a learning experience for me! -- This is a shared guest account, please send replies to dbriggs@nrao.edu (Internet) (505) 835-2974 Dan Briggs / NRAO / P.O. Box O / Socorro, NM / 87801 (U.S. Snail)
ryoder@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert W Yoder) (03/23/91)
In article <1991Mar22.070901.13060@nmt.edu>, nraoaoc@nmt.edu (Daniel Briggs) writes:
[text deleted]
The fallout from postings can get worse then that. Some time back,
I made a posting asking for information about a certain individual;
Nothing derogatory, just a request for information.
A few days later, I was editing a file, when my account was abruptly iced.
I contacted the system administrator to find out what was going on, and
found a very distraught individual who was being innundated by phone calls
from the local police department wanting information regarding charges
being filed against him, Purdue, and myself, and also calls from the
individual named in the posting, threatening criminal charges, civil suits,
and veiled threats of violence. Before it was all over, the FBI even got
involved in it.
In my case, I was lucky; There was an individual here who already had
an extensive file about this character, and showed it to the authorities,
which resulted in clearing up the hassle in a couple of days.
What I learned from all of this is to assume that anything you put in a
posting is immediately propagated to every living being on the planet.
(Incidently, the individual previously mentioned never even saw the text
of my posting. He just learned second-hand that there was a posting
mentioning him.)
--
Robert Yoder "It's 10 o'clock. Do you know where your child processes are?"
306 Hawkins Graduate House Internet: ryoder@ecn.purdue.edu
West Lafayette, IN 47906 Bitnet: ryoder%ecn.purdue.edu@purccvm
(317)495-6845 N9CON UUCP: {purdue, pur-ee}!ecn.purdue.edu!ryoderbunda@cs.utexas.edu (John Bunda) (03/23/91)
In article <1991Mar22.070901.13060@nmt.edu> dbriggs@nrao.edu
(Daniel Briggs) writes about copyrighting and the problem of being
quoted (e.g. in Skydiving).
Imagine what a reporter or lawyer might do with, for example, the
current thread of postings on the Colorado AFF fatality. If I had
been involved with that incident, I would *not* be happy if the
uninformed speculation and argument about blame started showing up in
the media or in court. A copyright makes no difference - since this
forum is public, a reporter could write "Joe Netter, in an
international computer forum on skydiving, maintains that <insert
paraphrase of Joe's speculative pronouncement on what the problem was
and whose fault it is>." It is left for the reader to decide
whether Joe knows what he's talking about or just some guy blowing
smoke through his keyboard.
I fail to see much of a difference between posting here, and having
your words printed in Skydiving. Anyone can read either, it's just a
difference in distribution. If your posting wouldn't be appropriate
in Skydiving magazine (e.g. as a letter to the editor) why is it any
more appropriate here? If you want to get the word out{on some
incident, why would you object to getting it out to a wider audience
in Skydiving? Would your posting be different if you knew everyone
on your home DZ would read it?
--
John Bunda * bunda@cs.utexas.edu * {uunet,harvard}!cs.utexas.edu!bundamichi@ptcburp.ptcbu.oz.au (Michael Henning) (03/24/91)
bunda@cs.utexas.edu (John Bunda) writes: >In article <1991Mar22.070901.13060@nmt.edu> dbriggs@nrao.edu >(Daniel Briggs) writes about copyrighting and the problem of being >quoted (e.g. in Skydiving). >I fail to see much of a difference between posting here, and having >your words printed in Skydiving. Anyone can read either, it's just a >difference in distribution. If your posting wouldn't be appropriate >in Skydiving magazine (e.g. as a letter to the editor) why is it any >more appropriate here? If you want to get the word out{on some >incident, why would you object to getting it out to a wider audience >in Skydiving? Would your posting be different if you knew everyone >on your home DZ would read it? I've been following this group for more than two years now, and I've been able to pick up quite a few interesting bits and pieces, particularly about safety issues. On the odd occasion, I have been passing articles on to the editor (Dave McEvoy) of "Rambling On", the Australian skydiving magazine. Dave has published selected bits, particularly on topics concerning Australian drop zones. The discussion about the dangers of hitting the tail when exiting from a Twin Bonanza comes to mind (we have a Twin Bonanza at our DZ). The point is, there is a lot of discussion going on here that is worth passing on to jumpers who do not have access to the net. And when it comes to safety issues, I believe that it would be almost irresponsible not to pass the information on. If someone posts an article here that basically says "we made the following mistake the other day, and someone nearly died because of it, don't make the same mistake", then I certainly want to make sure that as many jumpers as possible get to know about it. I am not at all sure about the legal situation, but it seems to me that attaching a copyright to an opinion expressed in a public forum is somehow pointless. After all, if you are afraid that someone might quote you, prosecute you, or drag you into a legal battle, then maybe you shouldn't express an opinion here in the first place. If your article is published in "Skydive" (or "Rambling On", for that matter), and a reader of that magazine sues you as a result of this, then the same thing may happen if a reader of this newsgroup decides to do the same. Where is the difference ? Michi. -- -m------- Michael Henning +61 75 950255 ---mmm----- Pyramid Technology +61 75 522475 FAX -----mmmmm--- Research Park, Bond University michi@ptcburp.ptcbu.oz.au -------mmmmmmm- Gold Coast, Q 4229, AUSTRALIA uunet!munnari!ptcburp.oz!michi
king@glacier.Stanford.EDU (Robin King) (03/24/91)
In article <18674@cs.utexas.edu> bunda@cs.utexas.edu (John Bunda) writes: >.... >I fail to see much of a difference between posting here, and having >your words printed in Skydiving. Well, I wouldn't want to be quoted out of this forum without permission. It's one thing to have a bonafide interview with a reporter-- you know then that you're "making a statement"-- and quite another to have one eavesdropping on your conversations. There's a certain implied readership here; one doesn't expect to broadcast to an infinite audience. Part of the value of this format is that people communicate in a less formal way that's closer to talking. It's looser. For instance, it's common here to make a sarcastic joke and insert a :^). Net-readers know that you're joking (usually) But imagine the horror if some journalist puts it in hard print without giving you the option to explain Mr. Smiley! You can be seriously misrepresented. Any reporter worth her salt would be extremely careful about quoting from here. It's a great source of leads but to be responsible they should research their stories and conduct bonafide interviews. We're not the AP after all. I, for one, don't want the fear of being quoted hanging over my head every time I post (not that I'm so quotable :^) Robin Ob skydiving: THREE weekends of rain and clouds! I'm going crazy!