"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> so it now is clear that the aviation content (and possible copyright
> issues) are directly linked to Jay's *business*.

And you're posting that here because, why?

Assuming Jay's engaging in spam and copyright violation (and that's far from
a foregone conclusion), how is that an on-topic post here?

Pete

Martin's posts are RARELY, if ever, on topic.


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
> ...
> > [...]
> > so it now is clear that the aviation content (and possible copyright
> > issues) are directly linked to Jay's *business*.
>
> And you're posting that here because, why?
>
> Assuming Jay's engaging in spam and copyright violation (and that's far
from
> a foregone conclusion), how is that an on-topic post here?
>
> Pete
>
>
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
>
> Martin's posts are RARELY, if ever, on topic.

And Martin himself is seldom, if ever, "on track".

>
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > [...]
>> > so it now is clear that the aviation content (and possible copyright
>> > issues) are directly linked to Jay's *business*.
>>
>> And you're posting that here because, why?
>>
>> Assuming Jay's engaging in spam and copyright violation (and that's far
> from
>> a foregone conclusion), how is that an on-topic post here?
>>
>> Pete
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com

>> so it now is clear that the aviation content (and possible copyright
>> issues) are directly linked to Jay's *business*.

That's an interesting presumption. How is this video page linked to my
business, other than the fact that it's a page (out of a hundred other
pages) on our hotel's website? (And this is merely for convenience' sake,
as I don't have another place to put them.)

We neither charge for nor sell any of the videos, we give proper
accreditation (when known), and I will remove any video upon request. We
also provide links to NTSB reports, eye-witness reports, and any other
pertinent details regarding the video.

No one has ever requested that any video be removed. In fact, in every case
when people have seen their videos on the site, they have enthusiastically
sent me MORE of their videos. They know that this is a page that is there
for the good of all pilots, and they understand -- as apparently you
don't -- the sacrifice it has taken to put that page together.

In fact, if you factor in my time, I have spent many thousands of dollars on
that stupid page, simply because it's interesting to me, and Jav has kindly
donated the bandwidth so that all pilots and aviation enthusiasts may enjoy
and (hopefully) learn something. NO ONE is making money on the deal, I
assure you.

> Assuming Jay's engaging in spam and copyright violation (and that's far
> from a foregone conclusion), how is that an on-topic post here?

I know you're not saying this, but I'm curious: How can *I* be engaged in
spam? It is Martin who brought up the topic.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

("Matt Barrow" wrote)
>> "Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> Martin's posts are RARELY, if ever, on topic.

> And Martin himself is seldom, if ever, "on track".


Well, Marty's ours and we're keeping him. "How you doing Marty?" :-)

Another "shout out" goes to Marco Leon. I never get to see your posts
anymore unless someone quotes you, or I whip over into Google Groups and
find you there. It's that Supernews? Superfeed? problem. I'm missing someone
else, too - can't remember who at the moment.

Marty's a little like a terrier on a pant cuff with this issue. That said, I
do think his post is (100%) on topic for this group - doesn't mean he's
(100%) right ...or (100%) wrong.

I am sure (100%) that I appreciate all the work Jay and Jav have done
compiling that page.


Montblacklab

Montblack > wrote:

> Another "shout out" goes to Marco Leon. I never get to see your posts
> anymore unless someone quotes you, or I whip over into Google Groups and
> find you there. It's that Supernews? Superfeed? problem. I'm missing someone
> else, too - can't remember who at the moment.

In looking at Marco's posts' headers, it appears he posts through a
Newsfeeds.com reseller and your news provider is purposely blocking
Newsfeeds-originating posts.

Giganews (my new Usenet provider, having switched from Newsfeeds a few
months ago) is not, as of yet, blocking Newsfeeds.com posts.

--
Peter

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
> ...
>> [...]
>> so it now is clear that the aviation content (and possible copyright
>> issues) are directly linked to Jay's *business*.
>
> And you're posting that here because, why?

Because simply posing the question directly to Jay via email would have
not allowed him to troll the group.

> se the quote 'brought to you by' or something to that effect.

By the way -- I have managed to impose upon Tony Clay, a retired RAF
officer, to be my "Technical Adviser" for the video page. As excerpted from
the page:
*****************************************
Technical Advisor: Over the years, controversies have erupted over
certain videos. Spotters from all over the world are usually quick to
detect any errors, but -- occasionally -- there is a dispute over precisely
which aircraft is being displayed, or what is actually taking place
on-screen.

To help with this problem, I have persuaded retired Royal Air Force
Warrant Officer Tony Clay to act as "Technical Advisor" for the web page.
As an RAF pilot, Tony has flown -- or flown in -- a number of aircraft,
including Chipmunks, Bulldogs, Tutors, C-130s, BAE Andovers, Boeing
Chinooks, Wesland Wessex, and Sea King helicopters. He also worked on a
number of RAF fighter types, including Spitfires and Tornadoes, and visited
British and American air bases around the world while in service.

As the youngest Warrant Officer in the RAF, he taught air recon,
intelligence gathering, and the history of flight. He has recently
parlayed his voluminous knowledge of aviation history into work on TV
projects such as the critically acclaimed "Band of Brothers" on HBO
television.
If you have questions about a specific video, click here to contact
Tony directly via email.


Welcome, Tony -- and thanks for your help!

*****************************************
Tony is a marvelous expert in all things aviation, and his cordial presence
has successfully diverted some of the email away from inbox!

(You wouldn't believe the number of really, REALLY knowledgeable people are
out there looking at these aviation videos. I get emails from retired
admirals and generals every day, pointing out tiny little details that most
of us would never have any way of knowing. See the video about the F-100
Super Sabre crash, for instance, to read some great input.)

Strangely enough, while we were posting back and forth, I have received two
new contributions to the page. Jav, better fire up another hard drive!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Strangely enough, while we were posting back and forth, I have received two
> new contributions to the page. Jav, better fire up another hard drive!

The new drive is spinning its bits as I type this, I've had it under
test for the last couple of days. It's been fine, so I'll plug it into
the server over the weekend, and move the entire site to the new system.

Jay, thanks again for the drive contribution.

-jav

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> In looking at Marco's posts' headers, it appears he posts through a
> Newsfeeds.com reseller and your news provider is purposely blocking
> Newsfeeds-originating posts.
>
> Giganews (my new Usenet provider, having switched from Newsfeeds a few
> months ago) is not, as of yet, blocking Newsfeeds.com posts.

How do you like Giganews? I'd like to switch to one that doesn't keep adding
that annoying tag line at the bottom.

Marco



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> he (Jay) always pointed out that this content is not related to his
> business.

I think you're having trouble with the words "related", "directly linked",
and "foregone conclusion".

> you mean like questions regarding itunes or folder-views?

I'm not the one harping on cross-talk.

Pete

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:wTUUf.880705$xm3.507504@attbi_s21...
> I know you're not saying this, but I'm curious: How can *I* be engaged in
> spam? It is Martin who brought up the topic.

My impression of his post is that somehow, email is going around advertising
your hotel by using the aviation video page as a lure.

I have no evidence that that is actually happening; I'm simply interpreting
Martin's post. Of course, he provided no real evidence about the origin of
the email, so any such claim on his part (intended or not) would be empty.

Pete

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> Well, Marty's ours and we're keeping him. "How you doing Marty?" :-)
>
> Another "shout out" goes to Marco Leon. I never get to see your posts
> anymore unless someone quotes you, or I whip over into Google Groups and
> find you there. It's that Supernews? Superfeed? problem. I'm missing
> someone else, too - can't remember who at the moment.

Supernews. They are blocking Marco's news service.

I have been pursuing this through my own ISP, and have gotten basically the
same brick wall Peter got, just from the other side. My ISP has attempted
to get a comment from Supernews about the issue, and Supernews keeps
stonewalling them. The abuse department doesn't return email or phone
calls, and the technical department hides behind "we can't comment due to
privacy concerns" crap.

Personally, I think it's a load of crap, and I'm disgusted with my own ISP
for putting up with the load of crap rather than switching news providers.
But I also suspect that there's some validity to whatever reason it is that
Newsfeeds is being blocked, based on some of what I've read about them on
the news service review web sites.

I'm disappointed that there are some people whose posts I can't see, but not
so much that I'm motivated to jostle my existing Internet service. I don't
see hordes of other people dropping Supernews, so I guess for now I'll
console myself with "no one else is doing it". :)

Pete

Executive summary: Jay, I think you're doing good stuff with the
aviation videos (and commentary on them), and I don't think you're
relentlessly promoting your business, but I'm a little surprised you
don't see how some things could be taken that way by some people.

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> >> so it now is clear that the aviation content (and possible copyright
> >> issues) are directly linked to Jay's *business*.
>
> That's an interesting presumption. How is this video page linked to my
> business, other than the fact that it's a page (out of a hundred other
> pages) on our hotel's website? (And this is merely for convenience' sake,
> as I don't have another place to put them.)

I believe you. And it makes perfectly good sense. And you think of
the hotel as being "yours" rather than you as belonging to the hotel
business, I imagine.

Still, finding the videos on the hotel website leads to linking them.

There seems to be a widespread impression that "businesses" are
souless corporate monsters. The fact that it's true too often may
contribute to the general impression.

> We neither charge for nor sell any of the videos, we give proper
> accreditation (when known), and I will remove any video upon request. We
> also provide links to NTSB reports, eye-witness reports, and any other
> pertinent details regarding the video.
>
> No one has ever requested that any video be removed. In fact, in every case
> when people have seen their videos on the site, they have enthusiastically
> sent me MORE of their videos. They know that this is a page that is there
> for the good of all pilots, and they understand -- as apparently you
> don't -- the sacrifice it has taken to put that page together.

This is one of those issues where copyright law conflicts with the
public good. You're taking the slightly risky approach of making
useful/interesting stuff available that often wouldn't otherwise be
available, without always locating the copyright owners and getting
written permission first. Since very often it's hard or impossible to
find the copyright holders of stuff wandering the net, you're probably
making available some useful/interesting stuff that wouldn't be
available if you took the legally conservative approach. It's only
*slightly* risky because the vast majority of the time anybody with
rights who objected would try asking politely first, before resorting
to big (expensive) sticks like legal action. And your experience so
far has been that nobody with rights to material on your site has made
known that they were unhappy, and quite a few have shown that they
were pleased, so that's good.

> In fact, if you factor in my time, I have spent many thousands of
> dollars on that stupid page, simply because it's interesting to me,
> and Jav has kindly donated the bandwidth so that all pilots and
> aviation enthusiasts may enjoy and (hopefully) learn something. NO
> ONE is making money on the deal, I assure you.

Still, people inclined to see the worst in anything relating to a
business can point to the fact that that page is content on the hotel
website, and will presumable draw traffic to the site and hence
assists in promoting your business.

Oh, and the company selling Jav the bandwidth is probably making money
on the deal :-).


> > Assuming Jay's engaging in spam and copyright violation (and that's far
> > from a foregone conclusion), how is that an on-topic post here?
>
> I know you're not saying this, but I'm curious: How can *I* be engaged in
> spam? It is Martin who brought up the topic.

Martin was commenting on email he received (see message
>). The bits he quoted had the appearance
and style of spam. What he didn't show was where the email came from.
It's *also* of the format of email I'd send to a list of friends
telling them about something neat I'd found; in fact I learned this
morning that email I sent yesterday had landed in a friend's spam
folder, presumably because it had very much the format of spam. In
fact I was telling her that some 170 Ansel Adams pictures, outtakes
from a 1950s Fortuna magazine article, could be found on the Los
Angeles public library web site. But (see my remark earlier about
assuming the worst about business) he may well have assumed that the
original email started out with something you sent out. (Cue stupid
quote about "assume").
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

> "Montblack" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Well, Marty's ours and we're keeping him. "How you doing Marty?" :-)
>>
>> Another "shout out" goes to Marco Leon. I never get to see your posts
>> anymore unless someone quotes you, or I whip over into Google Groups
>> and find you there. It's that Supernews? Superfeed? problem. I'm
>> missing someone else, too - can't remember who at the moment.
>
> Supernews. They are blocking Marco's news service.
>
> I have been pursuing this through my own ISP, and have gotten basically
> the same brick wall Peter got, just from the other side. My ISP has
> attempted to get a comment from Supernews about the issue, and Supernews
> keeps stonewalling them. The abuse department doesn't return email or
> phone calls, and the technical department hides behind "we can't comment
> due to privacy concerns" crap.
>
> Personally, I think it's a load of crap, and I'm disgusted with my own
> ISP for putting up with the load of crap rather than switching news
> providers. But I also suspect that there's some validity to whatever
> reason it is that Newsfeeds is being blocked, based on some of what I've
> read about them on the news service review web sites.
>
> I'm disappointed that there are some people whose posts I can't see, but
> not so much that I'm motivated to jostle my existing Internet service.
> I don't see hordes of other people dropping Supernews, so I guess for
> now I'll console myself with "no one else is doing it". :)
>
> Pete

I was the one that originally brought this issue up in this group.
Apologies for it being so off topic, but it obviously affects more
than just me.

I've continued to press the issue in Supernews' support groups when
I can, like recently when someone else ran into the problem. Of course,
Supernews stays quiet, and other readers of the support group continue
to take pot shots at me. I was even called "altruistic", as if that was
a bad thing!

I had found some information about Newsfeeds that really paints them
in a bad light. Apparently they were a major source of spam at one
time. I do not know if this is still the case.

However, Supernews' attitude, that is, ignoring any questions on the
topic, is not justified. They have gladly helped me on other issues,
even through "improper" channels, and even discussed with me other
filters. The only reply I ever got about Newsfeeds was that it was not
their policy to discuss their filters. See the hypocrisy?

Anway, apologies again for this being so off topic. But I just feel
it's not good for those who actually pay for their NSP to have to put
up with crap like that.

Yes, I'm being altruistic. :)

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Marco Leon <mmleonyahoo.com> wrote:

> How do you like Giganews? I'd like to switch to one that doesn't keep adding
> that annoying tag line at the bottom.

Marco, I was a Newsfeeds.com customer for six-plus years and I have a list
a mile long of the problems I had with them.

So far, I have been *very* happy with Giganews. One hundred percent
reliability since I have been with them (Newsfeeds would have had at least
one problem in the last three months), speed is excellent, and their
retention is the best in the business.

The only issue is that the monthly cost is almost double what NF was
charging, depending on the tier you choose. But, to me, it is worth it.

--
Peter

> My impression of his post is that somehow, email is going around advertising
> your hotel by using the aviation video page as a lure.

Dang -- THAT is a pretty loose definition of "Spam".

That's like saying that AvWeb is a spammer because a friend recommends
it to me. After all, AvWeb has advertisers, and stands to gain from my
dropping by their site.

By the way, here's one of the funniest videos anyone has sent us yet,
just received a few hours ago:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q39F22ADC

Just when you think the Brits are crazy
(see http://makeashorterlink.com/?A2AF12ADC ),
the French go and prove that they can be just as nutty -- and 18 years
earlier than the Brits!

:-)

(I'm not sure why I find the launching of perfectly good automobiles
off an aircraft carrier funny, but I do, God help me...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article om>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> By the way, here's one of the funniest videos anyone has sent us yet,
> just received a few hours ago:
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q39F22ADC

I just emailed that to The Little French Girl.
She will appreciate it.

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Anway, apologies again for this being so off topic. But I just feel
> it's not good for those who actually pay for their NSP to have to put
> up with crap like that.

Well, if I were paying Supernews directly, you can bet I'd switch in a
heartbeat. Their service is included in a broader contract for my broadband
service, which I'm otherwise satisfied with. I can only pressure them so
much, until I have to put up or shut up.

I have a suspicion that if Supernews *did* comment on their block of
Newsfeeds, I'd find myself thinking it was reasonable. My main complaint is
not the block, so much as it is their unwillingness to talk about it. So
far, not enough to make me drop my whole Internet package.

> Yes, I'm being altruistic. :)

Damn you!

:)

Pete

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> My impression of his post is that somehow, email is going around
>> advertising
>> your hotel by using the aviation video page as a lure.
>
> Dang -- THAT is a pretty loose definition of "Spam".
>
> That's like saying that AvWeb is a spammer because a friend recommends
> it to me. After all, AvWeb has advertisers, and stands to gain from my
> dropping by their site.

Depends on the email. The implication I saw in Martin's post (not like he's
bothered to be clear about what his point really is or anything) is that the
email he received was sent by you for the sole purpose of advertising.

That's a little different from a word-of-mouth recommendation for AvWeb.

Of course, since he didn't bother to provide any details about the email
he's talking about, there's no real evidence it was sent for the sole
purpose of advertising. In fact, the lack of details suggests he's just
grinding his axe again, and has no valid complaint.

It may well be true that you are in technical violation of copyright law in
some of the cases (I suspect at least some the author made a statement
somewhere along the line granted distribution rights, so even if you are
violating copyright law, I doubt it's 100% of the videos :) ). However, as
you've pointed out you would take down any video someone complained about.
None of the videos represent a potential loss of income (in contrast to the
music file sharing Martin's comparing you with), and I doubt anyone would be
able to come up with a valid claim of economic damages.

On top of that, very few of the videos on your web site are unavailable
broadly on the Internet. What makes your page unique is that the videos are
collected in one place, and include commentary original to you and your site
(which itself would be protected under copyright law if some *other* web
site "borrowed" for their own use :) ). The mere presence of the videos is
not unusual, and simply mirrors their similar presence numerous other places
on the Internet (which doesn't necessarily make it legal, but it does
suggest it's not a big deal).

It seems to me that, a long time ago, Martin did occasionally post about
something related to flying. You and I and others are all guilty of
off-topic diversions, but we always come back to flying. Martin's been out
in left field for a while now. I don't know why he's holding such a grudge
against your video page. But as long as he keeps at it, I'll be happy to
reply pointing out how silly he's being. :)

Pete

>>>>> "PD" == Peter Duniho > writes:
PD> And you're posting that here because, why?

PD> how is that an
PD> on-topic post here?

Haven't you noticed? r.a.piloting has been the effective r.a.misc for
years.

>Well, Marty's ours and we're keeping him.

LOL. Love it. You're a good man Monty! I say we keep both Martin
and Jay. :-)

The Monk

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
>> [...]
>> Anway, apologies again for this being so off topic. But I just feel
>> it's not good for those who actually pay for their NSP to have to put
>> up with crap like that.
>
> Well, if I were paying Supernews directly, you can bet I'd switch in a
> heartbeat. Their service is included in a broader contract for my
> broadband service, which I'm otherwise satisfied with. I can only
> pressure them so much, until I have to put up or shut up.

Yes, I'm in the same boat. I get SN through my ISP for "free".


> I have a suspicion that if Supernews *did* comment on their block of
> Newsfeeds, I'd find myself thinking it was reasonable. My main
> complaint is not the block, so much as it is their unwillingness to talk
> about it. So far, not enough to make me drop my whole Internet package.

My suspicion is that if they admited to blocking Newsfeeds,
it would give them bad press and cause them to loose some
customers. Most companies don't give a fluck about loosing a
few customers...there's always more suckers to replace them.
But perhaps they feel they might loose too many.

Or perhaps they'd get a bad rap amongst other NSP's.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> My suspicion is that if they admited to blocking Newsfeeds,
> it would give them bad press and cause them to loose some
> customers.

They may have some irrational thought process like that, but there's no
logical reason for them to withhold the information.

Assuming they have a valid reason to block Newsfeeds, I can't imagine any
customer leaving them over the issue. And they shouldn't be worried about
libel, since as long as they have a truthful reason for blocking Newsfeeds,
saying something bad about Newsfeeds isn't actionable.

And of course, there's the point that whether they admit it or not, it is
blatantly obvious that they ARE blocking Newsfeeds, and are doing so
intentionally. That much is evident simply by their behavior.

I certainly have run into my share of irrational people in customer support
roles. It's nothing new for me to be running into it with this issue.

Illogical people are the bane of my existence. :(

Pete

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:26:19 -0800, Peter Duniho wrote:

>My impression of his post is that somehow, email is going around advertising
>your hotel by using the aviation video page as a lure.

ACK.

>I have no evidence that that is actually happening;

I only received the mail as a forward from a froward ... you know. The type
of mails that go 5x around the globe.

>I'm simply interpreting
>Martin's post. Of course, he provided no real evidence about the origin of
>the email, so any such claim on his part (intended or not) would be empty.

you have to take my word that I received the mail with the quoted text.

>Pete

#m
--
[...] Then I drove home with one eye glued to the rearview mirror.
Didn¹t see anything suspicious but if I turn up missing one day,
just forward my mail to General Delivery, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
<http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7624.shtml>

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 17:12:30 -0800, Peter Duniho wrote:

>Of course, since he didn't bother to provide any details about the email
>he's talking about, there's no real evidence it was sent for the sole
>purpose of advertising.

I quoted the whole email including subject. Only the headers are missing.
And since the mail came from our system the headers are not of much help.

#m
--
[...] Then I drove home with one eye glued to the rearview mirror.
Didn¹t see anything suspicious but if I turn up missing one day,
just forward my mail to General Delivery, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
<http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7624.shtml>

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 17:12:30 -0800, Peter Duniho wrote:

>None of the videos represent a potential loss of income (in contrast to the
>music file sharing Martin's comparing you with), and I doubt anyone would be
>able to come up with a valid claim of economic damages.

Hah! If I download music there is no economic damage. I won't by the CD. So
prove the loss for the music industry.

#m
--
[...] Then I drove home with one eye glued to the rearview mirror.
Didn¹t see anything suspicious but if I turn up missing one day,
just forward my mail to General Delivery, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
<http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7624.shtml>

> I only received the mail as a forward from a froward ... you know. The type
> of mails that go 5x around the globe.
>
> >I'm simply interpreting
> >Martin's post. Of course, he provided no real evidence about the origin of
> >the email, so any such claim on his part (intended or not) would be empty.
>
> you have to take my word that I received the mail with the quoted text.

Well, it wasn't an email from me, I'll tell you that much.

Quite frankly, the video page has gotten WAY out of hand. I now spend
about 30 minutes per day -- which is 29 minutes more than I've got so
spare -- maintaining that page, with new submissions coming in every
day. I don't promote the page, and never have -- but pilots are a
tight-knit group. Once they take a liking to something, they post it
EVERYWHERE.

And some of the "spotters" (as the regulars call themselves) are just
fanatical! In a video description I posted that an aircraft was
taking off from the USS Ticonderoga when, in fact, it was off the USS
Oriskany. JESSSUSSS H. YOU-KNOW-WHO -- you'd have thought that I had
killed the fire chief, or something. I got email from all over the
world about that one.

Take a look at the video entitled "AC-130 over Mosul -- NOT". That
video has generated intense interest, with half the folks saying "that
ain't a Spectre in action", the other half saying "it's helicopter
gunships" -- and the OTHER other half saying it's a mixture of both. My
technical advisor has said it's not, so I changed the title -- and
****ed off half of the US military...

Actually, what got the thing rolling was when our webpage was posted as
a "Cool Site" in some British magazine. From that point on, the videos
have just come in like crazy.

But it's fun. If only it took less time.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> Hah! If I download music there is no economic damage. I won't by the CD.

There is, however, a CD for sale to buy.

> So prove the loss for the music industry.

I don't need to. The law presumes it.

Pete

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> I quoted the whole email including subject. Only the headers are missing.
> And since the mail came from our system the headers are not of much help.

You are claiming that your own email system sent out a piece of spam
advertising Jay's hotel through the use of the aviation videos page?

It seems to me you should be looking at your own email system then, rather
than haranguing Jay (and the rest of this newsgroup).

Pete

Speaking of Video's. And, in another thread, the potential for flutter -
here's some REAL flutter:

http://www.dg-download.de/Videos/dg-300-flatterversuch.mpg

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.

> Speaking of Video's. And, in another thread, the potential for flutter -
> here's some REAL flutter:
>
> http://www.dg-download.de/Videos/dg-300-flatterversuch.mpg

Dang! I can't believe the wings didn't snap off.

How did he stop it? I would think pulling back (to load up the wings)
would be your only hope?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>>http://www.dg-download.de/Videos/dg-300-flatterversuch.mpg
>
>
> Dang! I can't believe the wings didn't snap off.
>
> How did he stop it? I would think pulling back (to load up the wings)
> would be your only hope?

IT appears that it was a test flight, and the pilot was transmitting his
observations in German. I couldn't understand most of it, but it seemed
he started out saying "fifty" ("fumfzig") and ended with "thirty"
("dreizig"), with commentary in the middle. I therefore speculate that
the test was to show an airspeed regime in which there was a flutter
problem.

Glider wings are pretty strong. I've never flown one, but I understand
that they hit some pretty strong gusts and pull some tight turns in an
effort to remain in the air on the force of rising or blowing air alone.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 10:37:57 -0800, Peter Duniho wrote:

>> I quoted the whole email including subject. Only the headers are missing.
>> And since the mail came from our system the headers are not of much help.
>
>You are claiming that your own email system sent out a piece of spam
>advertising Jay's hotel through the use of the aviation videos page?

a pilot friend who is also sort of my customer forwarded me the mail.

>It seems to me you should be looking at your own email system then, rather
>than haranguing Jay (and the rest of this newsgroup).

clean in front of your door first, please. &%/&§$"§"%&%&%$$!!!!

>Pete

#m
--
[...] Then I drove home with one eye glued to the rearview mirror.
Didn¹t see anything suspicious but if I turn up missing one day,
just forward my mail to General Delivery, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
<http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7624.shtml>

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 10:36:22 -0800, Peter Duniho wrote:

>> Hah! If I download music there is no economic damage. I won't by the CD.
>
>There is, however, a CD for sale to buy.


and what now? _I_ _won't_ _buy_ _the_ _CD_. Neither if I would have
downloaded the music nor if I hadn't. (But the chances are higher if I've
heard the CD before; and if it is not copy-protected.)

>> So prove the loss for the music industry.
>
>I don't need to. The law presumes it.

wow. and this is not true for videos?

>Pete

#m
--
[...] Then I drove home with one eye glued to the rearview mirror.
Didn¹t see anything suspicious but if I turn up missing one day,
just forward my mail to General Delivery, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
<http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7624.shtml>

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> a pilot friend who is also sort of my customer forwarded me the mail.

Then why did you say "the mail came from our system"?

Either you know where the email came from or you don't. If you do, then
post the details. If you don't, then you have no reason to accuse Jay of
being involved at all.

Pete

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> and what now? _I_ _won't_ _buy_ _the_ _CD_.

The fact remains that there is a legal option for you to obtain the CD. If
you feel the price for the CD is too high, your morally correct choice is to
simply not own it.

That's what I do with things that cost more than I want to, or can, spend.

>>I don't need to. The law presumes it.
>
> wow. and this is not true for videos?

Video copyright is exactly the same as music copyright. However, not all
copyrighted material is available at any price, nor are all copyright owners
as finicky about people making use of their copyrighted material as the RIAA
and MPAA are.

Jay's use of non-commercially-available low-quality web videos is very
different from your own illegal music file sharing, at least from a moral
stance if not legal.

Pete

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> >>http://www.dg-download.de/Videos/dg-300-flatterversuch.mpg
> >
> >
> > Dang! I can't believe the wings didn't snap off.
> >
> > How did he stop it? I would think pulling back (to load up the wings)
> > would be your only hope?
>
> IT appears that it was a test flight, and the pilot was transmitting his
> observations in German. I couldn't understand most of it, but it seemed
> he started out saying "fifty" ("fumfzig") and ended with "thirty"
> ("dreizig"), with commentary in the middle. I therefore speculate that
> the test was to show an airspeed regime in which there was a flutter
> problem.

I thought I heard the word "hunert" (hundred) before funfzig and dreisig.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 17:57:05 -0800, Peter Duniho wrote:

>> a pilot friend who is also sort of my customer forwarded me the mail.
>
>Then why did you say "the mail came from our system"?

are you that ignorant or are you only plaing the clown here?

the mail came from our system. read: our mailserver. and before that it was
forwarded from elsewhere. you know: a mailserver can handle more than one
domain. and there are people out there who sell such services for a living.

>Either you know where the email came from or you don't. If you do, then
>post the details. If you don't, then you have no reason to accuse Jay of
>being involved at all.

well, I blame the whole "misunderstanding" on different viewpoints here and
over there. We see things a whole bunch different than you do, apparently.

>Pete

#m
--
[...] Then I drove home with one eye glued to the rearview mirror.
Didn¹t see anything suspicious but if I turn up missing one day,
just forward my mail to General Delivery, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
<http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7624.shtml>

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:00:46 -0800, Peter Duniho wrote:

>Video copyright is exactly the same as music copyright.

..... how good to hear.

> However, not all
>copyrighted material is available at any price,

and this gives you exactly which rights?

> nor are all copyright owners
>as finicky about people making use of their copyrighted material as the RIAA
>and MPAA are.

then they are free to give proper permission.
you have no permission? well .... you now can play our your moral (see
below).

>Jay's use of non-commercially-available low-quality web videos is very
>different from your own illegal music file sharing,

I never said that I (illegaly) downloaded music. I only said "if I WOULD".

> at least from a moral
>stance if not legal.

f*ck the moral. My moral is different than yours and different than the one
of 5 billion other people.

>Pete

#m
--
[...] Then I drove home with one eye glued to the rearview mirror.
Didn¹t see anything suspicious but if I turn up missing one day,
just forward my mail to General Delivery, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
<http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7624.shtml>

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>> My impression of his post is that somehow, email is going around
>>> advertising
>>> your hotel by using the aviation video page as a lure.
>>
>> Dang -- THAT is a pretty loose definition of "Spam".
>>
>> That's like saying that AvWeb is a spammer because a friend recommends
>> it to me. After all, AvWeb has advertisers, and stands to gain from my
>> dropping by their site.
>
> Depends on the email. The implication I saw in Martin's post (not like
> he's bothered to be clear about what his point really is or anything) is
> that the email he received was sent by you for the sole purpose of
> advertising.

Technically, this is what is known as a "stupid assumption."

A couple of years ago, I, too, received a forward from close friend of mine
who had received it from someone else and so on. It was a funny video of a
plane scaring the hell out of a man on the ground. The video was stored on
Jay's site.

It was pretty clear from Martin's post that a similar thing happened to him.

--
Jim Fisher

Do you have the impression this thread is an example of not following
the sage advice that suggests "When you find yourself in a hole, stop
digging"?

"Tony" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Do you have the impression this thread is an example of not following
> the sage advice that suggests "When you find yourself in a hole, stop
> digging"?
>

Advice -- the wise don't need it, and the fool won't heed it.

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> are you that ignorant or are you only plaing the clown here?

Neither. You are failing to communicate properly.

> the mail came from our system. read: our mailserver. and before that it
> was
> forwarded from elsewhere. [...]

"Came from" implies point of origin. Just because it went *through* your
mail system, that does NOT mean it "came from" your mail system.

> well, I blame the whole "misunderstanding" on different viewpoints here
> and
> over there. We see things a whole bunch different than you do, apparently.

"Here" and "over there" To what are you referring now? Who is "we"? What
do "they" have to do with your accusation of Jay as a spammer?

Pete

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> f*ck the moral. My moral is different than yours and different than the
> one
> of 5 billion other people.

Ahh...and there is the crux. You feel that your version of morality is the
only relevant one, and if that doesn't preclude a false accusation against
another person, then "f*ck" that (your word, not mine).

Well, thank you for clearing up how we got here. I can't say I was
expecting much different, but it's nice for you to finally be clear and
admit your unwarranted attack on Jay.

Pete

("Peter Duniho" wrote)
>> well, I blame the whole "misunderstanding" on different viewpoints here
>> and over there. We see things a whole bunch different than you do,
>> apparently.

> "Here" and "over there" To what are you referring now? Who is "we"?
> What do "they" have to do with your accusation of Jay as a spammer?


That's it. I'm calling in ...the Vikings!
http://www.mailmsg.com/SPAM_python.htm


Wife: Have you got anything without spam?
Waitress: Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam
in it.

Wife: I don't want ANY spam!
Man: Why can't she have egg bacon spam and sausage?

Wife: THAT'S got spam in it!
Man: Hasn't got as much spam in it as spam egg sausage and spam, has it?

Vikings: Spam spam spam spam... (Crescendo through next few lines...)


Montblack
"I'll have your spam. I love it. I'm having spam spam spam spam spam spam
spam beaked beans spam spam spam and spam!"

> That's it. I'm calling in ...the Vikings!
> http://www.mailmsg.com/SPAM_python.htm

Whew! For a minute there I though Daunte Culpepper was going to be
booking a party at the hotel! :-)

> Vikings: Spam spam spam spam... (Crescendo through next few lines...)

"LOOOOOOVELY SPAAAAAA-AAAAAM, wonderful Spam!"

"Spam, spam, spam, spam -- spam, spam, spam spam --..."

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > That's it. I'm calling in ...the Vikings!
> > http://www.mailmsg.com/SPAM_python.htm
>
> Whew! For a minute there I though Daunte Culpepper was going to be
> booking a party at the hotel! :-)
>
> > Vikings: Spam spam spam spam... (Crescendo through next few lines...)
>
> "LOOOOOOVELY SPAAAAAA-AAAAAM, wonderful Spam!"
>
> "Spam, spam, spam, spam -- spam, spam, spam spam --..."


hey. knock it off.

:-)

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

For unattributed works, there are generally two things that you could do
with it:

1. Do not put it on your website until you have permission of the
copyright holder or find where the copyright holder has released it to
the public domain.
2. Put it on your website, with the offer to remove it at the request of
the copyright holder. Usually has a line that says "Author (or
whatever)" unknown.

Obviously, most people choose #2. As long as they abide by their
promise to remove works at the request of the copyright holder, there
shouldn't be any problem.

If an unattributed work is available freely from multiple places on the
internet, a copyright holder is going to have a hard time getting any
substantial damages.

Because we are talking about unattributed works (aviation videos that
are not available for purchase), downloading and file sharing of music
from known artists and publishers is not the same.

Downloading music without paying for it is illegal, since the work is 1)
copyrighted, 2) available for legal purchase and 3) from a known artist.

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:00:46 -0800, Peter Duniho wrote:
>
>> Video copyright is exactly the same as music copyright.
>
> .... how good to hear.
>
>> However, not all
>> copyrighted material is available at any price,
>
> and this gives you exactly which rights?
>
>> nor are all copyright owners
>> as finicky about people making use of their copyrighted material as the RIAA
>> and MPAA are.
>
> then they are free to give proper permission.
> you have no permission? well .... you now can play our your moral (see
> below).
>
>> Jay's use of non-commercially-available low-quality web videos is very
>> different from your own illegal music file sharing,
>
> I never said that I (illegaly) downloaded music. I only said "if I WOULD".
>
>> at least from a moral
>> stance if not legal.
>
> f*ck the moral. My moral is different than yours and different than the one
> of 5 billion other people.
>
>> Pete
>
> #m

"Neb" > wrote in message
...
> For unattributed works, there are generally two things that you could do
> with it:
>
> 1. Do not put it on your website until you have permission of the
> copyright holder or find where the copyright holder has released it to the
> public domain.
> 2. Put it on your website, with the offer to remove it at the request of
> the copyright holder. Usually has a line that says "Author (or whatever)"
> unknown.
>
> Obviously, most people choose #2. As long as they abide by their promise
> to remove works at the request of the copyright holder, there shouldn't be
> any problem.
>

Don't count on it.

<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.soaring/browse_frm/thread/cefacb1942bbeca2/eecf1785033147ca?q=copyright&rnum=6#eecf1785033147ca>

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.