Cthulhu Explains it All
cthulhu has left a new comment on "Steve Had a Little List":
My MP3 collection contains some copyrighted music I have purchased and some non-copyrighted music. Over the years I have forgotten which MP3s have copyright and which have not and it would now be time consuming for me to separate the two.Eli accepts all contributions. Comments?
Out of the blue an acquaintance sends me an email asking for me to send him my MP3 collection.
I know this acquaintance runs a website where he is apt to publish the MP3s I send him. If I supply him I could get into trouble. I am not a lawyer, I just don't want this hassle.
So I send a reply back to him saying legal agreements prevent me from sending him the MP3s.
After a while he sends me another message, informing me that he talked to my Sister who admits to have been given MP3s by me in the past. Therefore how can I claim legal agreements prevent such a release? He repeats his request I send him my MP3s.
I reply that the legal agreements only allow me to send MP3s to my family. This isn't technically true I think, but giving it to someone I trust to not publish the music publically on a website is a far cry from handing them over to someone I suspect will do so.
Hearing that I only send MP3s to family members, he comically contacts my second cousin once removed and gets him to contact me and ask for the MP3s.
Knowing that this cousin is just going to forward the MP3s to my acquaintance, I refuse and go back to my original stance that legal agreements preclude the release.
He now demands I send him the legal smallprint encoded in the metadata of each MP3 to prove such legal agreements exist.
I just cannot be bothered with this. It's pathetic. If he really wanted the MP3s so much why doesn't he go and buy them himself?
I send him some smallprint anyway. He replies that some of the smallprint doesn't even say it's copyrighted. I am not entirely surprised, I didn't waste time checking all of it for the sake of someone who is simply wasting my time.
He demands I at least send him the non-copyrighted MP3s.
Do I want to sift through my collection reading small print to decide which is copyrighted and which is not? Not for this asshole.
I shoot him an email simply stating the release would harm my relations with the law.
He gets uptight at this and bad-mouths me on his website, telling his regulars how my "story has changed". Sure it has, but understandably. Nevertheless he riles up enough of his website regulars and gets dozens of them to spam my inbox with requests for MP3s.
What a bastard.
Posts
77 comments:
Thanks "cthulhu", you just hit the nail on the head. I wonder if CA now finally understand what is going on.
To take your analogy further, they would not stop there. They would then hack into your computer and steal the music files from your computer, and while at it, blast you private documentation and correspondence for all the world to see. Just to really make you regret not sharing.
The CRU emails were allegedly hacked, mostly b/c of the FOI issues. Now we find CA and their acolytes were at the centre of the FOI debacle.
> The CRU emails were allegedly hacked
The CRU emails were hacked. Anyone, sue me if you disagree and have standing. Don't forget to sign with your own name...
Cthulhu is dead-on. I know, having worked with gravity data, which is if anything even more sensitive than weather observations.
If you need data from a neighbouring country, there is a colleague you know, a phone number to ring; and then, a tape reel or card deck (yes, I'm that old) changes owner. And the request "please do not redistribute". I never once saw a legal paper. Never once did data "leak". Mosher never was there, never did that.
It's called a gentlemen's agreement for a reason.
Argh! Sorry Martin. I, MapleLeaf, wrote that post @1:50. What possessed me to say "allegedly"?! The evidence thus far firmly points to the data and emails being stolen. Stolen, it seems, by someone who has an axe to grind with FOI and data sharing at CRU and the met office and, well pretty much anyone who has data......
MapleLeaf
The analogy makes no sense at all. This is research data that a published paper is based off of. Since there is no way to reproduce the experiment in question, the only way is to go back and check up on the data. This is not akin to "illegal" sharing of MP3s.
The character in question also has no moral qualms about sharing MP3s except for the fact that it might attract some unwanted attention.
I suppose you could extend this silly logic to allow papers to keep their procedures and methods secret and just publish the results. Then it would prevent all those annoying scientists from "illegally" reproducing scientific results just like those damn teenagers "illegally" reproduce music to listen to, right?
Check your head for some common sense, please.
Anonymouse: the CRU have published numerous papers detailing their methods. the vast majority of the data they use is available elsewhere.
maybe McI should have started with that? after all, if the CRU are as wrong as he's making out, there shouldn't be any need for the proprietary stuff, right?
"The analogy makes no sense at all. This is research data that a published paper is based off of. Since there is no way to reproduce the experiment in question, the only way is to go back and check up on the data."
Which, of course, is incorrect, because all you have do do is buy the data from the owner, not asking CRU to give you protected data.
The analogy is dead-on.
In line with your current interest in detailing the harrassment of the scientific community this paper from Desmog might be of interest:
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/plagiarism.conspiracies.felonies.v1.0.pdf
Little Mouse
My employer, Mr U.K. Government, pays me to do a rather cushy job. Mr Government has provided me with a number of MP3s with music from Mr Government's friends around the world. Mr Government pays me to see if there is a common theme in the music, maybe find a breakthrough new world song. I've always been very keen on the temperature rising or hot stuff theme, the jiggy sort of music, in fact I'm passionately convinced this should be the new world song.
My problem is I find no such common theme in the MP3 music. However, Mr Government has provided me with a little recording machine in which I can take bits of words and music from each MP3 and I find I can come up with what I think is a beautifully crafted song. I call it the Milli Vanilli Hot Stuff. Mr Government is unsure, but I have my tone deaf friends from CRUD(Crafted Rigorous Uber Dirges) email him as to how good it is. We have a big conference of equally tone deaf people.They tell me what a great guy I am. Can we do it too, they ask. Sure I say. I figure Mt Government will continue to pay me for life.
An acquaintance hears this song and tells me it is terrible. He wants to know who wrote this song, who performs it, no songster would ever sing that song. What can be the code for writing rubbish like that. He tells others through his website that Mr Government and his mates from CRUD are releasing drivel. How can I release the master tape which is just a series of cherrypicked words and music. Mr Government would not be happy.
My acquaintance finds a lot of support. My Milli Vanilli is in tatters.
What a bastard.
JohnS
I've noticed a...an almost pathological requirement for seeminly most adherents of a small-minority ideology - they cannot process anything that is not in their narrow frame. So they must re-state and mischaracterize reality to make it fit their twisted worldview. Like that JohnS fu--.
What I don't understand is why these miserable sociopaths get any play at all. What is it about our societies that treat their rantings as worthy of attention?? What is it that prevents us from widespread shunning and ignorage?
Best,
D
I'm sorry Dano, I didn't think you were so attached to Milli Vanilli. It does explain a lot about you however.
Yes rabett, I'm going now, before Dano has another ..... dot space attack!
JohnS
Dano says:
What I don't understand is why these miserable sociopaths get any play at all. What is it about our societies that treat their rantings as worthy of attention?? What is it that prevents us from widespread shunning and ignorage?
Ah, but that would be the "freedom to speak without censorship and/or limitation". However, the limits of free speech should perhaps be tested more often.
Then there is that inalienable personal right to be stupid and to be taken in by stupidity, and to enjoy and to spread that stupidity to the detriment of others, whether those others are stupid or not.
Cymraeg llygoden
Didn't one of the M&M&M's admit after 4 years of demanding that he always had the Yamal data. Why should I believe that Steve didn't have the data he requests?
John McManus
The FOI law is a pain. But a smart academic bunny would have had a grad student start preparing for the inevitable.
A really smart bunny would have had a form letter reviewed by the legal department to simplify things.
I missed the part about you making policy decisions on your MP3s.
Yeah, this is pretty much how I see the story too.
But what I don't agree with is that the guy was doing this just to bother you. That is where the analogy breaks down.
He believes you have an obligation to share your MP3s which you are shirking, He doesn't want your MP3's, he wants your acknowledgement of that obligation.
Since you in fact were in the public employ, one could make a case that you should have taken this seriously enough in the first place to pull together a consistent story. Anyone understanding who you actually are and what you actually do could reasonably understand that you couldn't be bothered, and why not. But the other guy is in a position to spin a tale.
This is why your reaction was a tactical mistake. To be sure, who could have imagined the scale of this grotesque false scandal? You'd be considered a lunatic.
I think the story explains how the mistake was an innocent one. But it was still a mistake.
Assuming that google language tools work, our chinese mouse said
"People who have never experienced failure, for ourselves or others, have only a smattering of knowledge.
OT but I would just like to take the time to Thank Eli for allowing all of my comments on the "Mann" thread.
Perhaps you can nudge Tamino and Lambert to be a little more "open-minded"..
Oh I am the one that raised a little ruckus with my personality reading of Prof Mann.
And I have selected a name!!!
SPA
This is precious ... and highly edited. Please see Lucia's post on this for the unabridged version("Links to this post" at the bottom).
This is a great example of cherry picking at it's finest. Take a complete set of words (data) and by omission spin them into something you want.
Don't take my word on it - check it out yourself.
I went to Lucia's and the "full version" is a better analogy of what happened.
Lucia's as dishonest as M&M&M, so no, I won't be visiting her blog. A reputation for honesty is like virginity, once you lose it, it's gone.
"I missed the part about you making policy decisions on your MP3s."
I don't recall intellectual property law stating "if government is using your intellectual property for policy decision making purposes, it can ignore your intellectual property rights".
Perhaps you can give us a pointer as to which law states this?
hmmmm . . . FOI is a Law of the Land. I wonder what that means. Tens of thousands of employees deal with it every day, it says here. Screw it. I'm not going to do that crap. I'm taking my ball and bat and going home to mommy. So, lock me up.
OK, something odd is going on here. Lucia claims to have the alleged "original" copy of cthulhu's post. It is quite different from what is posted here.
I Googled a couple of sentences in her version of the post and only got one hit-- Lucia's blog. Hmmm.
So I Googled some sentence from cthulhu's post here and only get hits for Eli's blog.
So where and how did Lucia get the "original"? Or did she just add in a bunch of text, manipulate and then claim it to be the original. She is not sharing how or where she sourced it, and I'm not just going to take her word for it, not given how she uses stats to lie.
Eli, and perhaps more importantly cthulhu, any ideas what is going on here?
MapleLeaf
dhogaza
You are bang on the money - once you lose a reputation for honesty, it's gone. That's why, regardless of how much real science Mann, Jones, Briffa or the IPCC might or might not have done, fewer and fewer people will believe them. It's a tough world.
The story is not complete without a backstory: the acquaintance already browsed some of Chtulu's MP3 files from his torrent directory. The acquaintance even proclaimed that Chtulu's little brother acted has a mole.
Let's also not forget that this has nothing to do with music.
Free the music, free the composition, free the sharing,
PS. This backstory was inspired by http://bit.ly/bP5Kvq
Off topic: I was digging in the snow for some roots, and found yet another paper finding no correlation between GCR and clouds (nevermind global temperatures). Calogovic et al, GRL, hot off the presses.
So the point is that climate scientists have maintained data as casually as a person maintains their personal MP3 collection? That was not wise, people rarely document each MP3 but someone paid to collect climate data would be expected to do better. Also the person with the MP3 collection is under no legal obligation to supply the music whereas someone responding to a FOIA for publicly funded climate data is legally obligated.
JimR
> someone responding to a FOIA for
> publicly funded climate data is
> legally obligated.
Premature punctuation.
It's sad, it's often embarrassing, but it's both avoidable and curable.
Treatments include grammar and language training and bibliotherapy. For many men, a combination of these treatments can work wonders.
You, too, can write like this:
"... is legally obligated to consider the request and respond appropriately."
Wonder what such a person is "legally obligated" to do?
You can look it up.
The UK Information Commissioner's Office last week ruled on the rest of that sentence. The point remains that publicly funded climate data shouldn't be treated as casually as an MP3 collection. - JimR
... It's called a gentlemen's agreement for a reason.
Let's see -
Freedictionary defines gentleman as
A well-mannered and considerate man with high standards of proper behavior.
Whoops - the CRU team is disqualified (that proper behavior will get you every time)
Which is why you do not base global public policy on a gentlemen's agreement
Umm, Jim, has nobody explained the words simile and metaphor?
"The point remains that publicly funded climate data shouldn't be treated as casually as an MP3 collection."
This might be why 95% of it is stored at GHCN ... and of course the other 5% is available from the source agency.
Hmm ...
Back in the days of tape, I treated copies I made of my albums to play in my car more casually than the albums themselves.
It's not unreasonable that copies of data are treated more casually than the data itself, either.
Or are you one of those who don't understand that CRU only has *copies* of data?
And only a small amount was lost, back in the 1980s, during an office move. Back then, that probably means a box of 9-track tapes was lost in the shuffle, by the movers.
Of course, I'm sure you are really upset that they've purposefully deleted data ... THAT THEY DON"T USE.
Oh, the sin!
"The UK Information Commissioner's Office last week ruled on the rest of that sentence."
Can you show us where they've so ruled?
I don't mean a newspaper article claiming they've so ruled, but the ruling itself.
Thanks, JimR.
I better qualify this, keeping in mind the reading audience ...
"Of course, I'm sure you are really upset that they've purposefully deleted *copies of* data ... THAT THEY DON'T USE."
There.
..."Of course, I'm sure you are really upset that they've purposefully deleted *copies of* data ... THAT THEY DON'T USE."
I reread JimR's comments and I can't find any where he mentions deleted data
So therefore this is a strawman.
There.
MarkeyMouse says:
1 Jones didn't want to release ANY data to possible critics.
2 CRU paid for the Yamal data that Jones claimed they had no right to disseminate.
3 OMB guidelines renders unusable for Government purposes, any information that is based on data or calculations that can't be reproduced. If you disseminate info based on Jones work, you are breaking US Law. Hope those of you that do get sued to pieces.
> OMB guidelines
You could look this stuff up instead of making up claims about it. Why not try being skeptical?
You know how to find those OMB guidelines, right? You read them, before making up the lie?
"... in those situations involving "influential scientific, financial, or statistical information" (a phrase defined in these guidelines). The guidelines recognize, however, that information quality comes at a cost. Accordingly, the agencies should weigh the costs (for example, including costs attributable to agency processing effort, respondent burden, maintenance of needed privacy, and assurances of suitable confidentiality)..."
"I reread JimR's comments and I can't find any where he mentions deleted data
So therefore this is a strawman."
No, it's a hypothetical ... if he doesn't think it's a problem, unlike the rest of the copy-and-paste world he lives in, I'm sure he's capable of saying so himself.
In which case he can tell us why he thinks the loss of some physical media holding copies of data during an office move 25 years ago is worth complaining about.
Maple Leaf
- Lucia is attempting irony, I believe. Personally, I think the original analogy was strained, and her version twisted beyond usefulness....
"A reputation for honesty is like virginity, once you lose it, it's gone."
Not a good omen for Doctors Jones and Mann as (so far), the only documented dishonesty has been on their parts.
PhysGeek
MarkeyMouse says: OK Hanky. Which one of the OMB's caveats could rightfully be applied to all Jones' data? Please keep in mind the UK FOI includes similar Caveats, but ruled that nevertheless Jones had broken the law by refusing the FOI request.
Actually, Lucia seems to be lying-- she claims on her blog to have obtained and posted the original document, and thereby also creates the impression that Eli, not she, is the one who has distorted.
Dhogaza is right about her propensity to distort and manipulate, and she is doing so here again. No accountability or consequences of course. Oh the joy of being a reckless and feckless 'skeptic'.
As for dishonesty, PhysGeek and friends. Yes Jones may not have dealt with this situation very well. was he dishonest? How about we let Sir Muir Russell decide. Anyhow, we get it that Jones et also emails are damaging, and won;t defend criminal behaviour, if any. Now how about you apply some of that healthy 'skepticism' on your masters? have they behaved ethically? Have they been honest? Yeah, right, I'm not going to hold my breath.
The IPCC and some scientists get held to account and suffer consequences, sometimes with justification, for their actions and/or mistakes.
And there lies the rub and the huge double standard and hypocrisy of the 'skeptics'. They distort, lie, manipulate, threaten, attack, harass and more DAILY; and guess what? No consequences, no accountability, no inquiries, no panels, no negative media coverage etc.. Then they have the audacity and delusion to try and claim the high moral ground. This is like guerilla ware fare, with 'skeptics' using 'guerilla' tactics. Some names come to mind who have engaged in guerilla tactics on one or more occasions:
Watts
McIntyre
McKitrick
Michaels
Morano
Christy
Lindzen
Monckton
JeffId
Mosher
Lucia
Singer
de Freitas
(feel free to add names to the 'guerilla' list).
and we are not even at the politicians or GOP puppet journalists yet....
As has been stated elsewhere here at Rabett Run "Free the CA emails, free the truth". Maybe that should be "free the skeptics' emails, free the truth", b/c there is no way in hell that they are going to volunteer the truth otherwise.
I've just been to the information commissioners website, and can't find any information at all about CRU. Perhaps the worldwide climate conspiracy has kept them from commenting?
Did Jones break the law, or did UEA/CRU? Was Jones not following instructions from UEA/CRU as what to do with the bogus FOIs? Ultimately, the UEA/CRU is, IMO, responsible for any transgressions, not the scientist/s.
And to follow up, when we say "break the law", is that the same as criminal activity? Or "just" breaking the FOI laws. Not to split hairs, but we should try and be accurate. IMO, the two are quite different.
MapleLeaf, Lucia is lying. She added additions and then claimed it was the "original" and that I had cherrypicked. It's Luciagate!
As you have discovered, I couldn't have cherrypicked from Lucia's version unless I time traveled and I don't recall doing that this time.
Perhaps the charge of cherrypicking was a bid to cover up the fact her additions break the analogy badly?
Scientists at CRU are not paid to amass a public library of national station temperature records. Yet Lucia's extended analogy relies on that falsity being true.
She can always attempt her damage limitation exercise again. Must try harder though.
The freedom of information act in the UK was not brought in until 2000. HadCRUT was started long before that. So the premise that they were being paid to construct a database of station data that was accessible to the public, like a public library, is false. There are no equivalent to library card holders here.
Thanks Cthulhu (assuming that you are indeed him/her), one never knows...
OK, so it is official, Lucia has lied, again. And what will the price be? More hits by those in denial on her blog.
Have you been to her "blog' to tell her that she is lying and misrepresenting what you wrote?
If you do, maybe cross post here so there is a record, b/c she probably won't allow your post. Or will, and then say it was just a joke, so calm down.
MapleLeaf
Guthrie, this article from a local paper has a bit more context on the (apparent non-)ruling. As you can see, it's more in the way of press release, based to all appearances on a review of the public emails and so missing important context. The irony of the statement not being posted on the ICO site speaks for itself.
A quick perusal of the ICO site finds that actual rulings don't come in the form of press releases. As might be expected, they're rather careful analyses of facts in the context of the relevant law. Note also that in the article the UEA folks state that they sought and received ICO advice for their responses, which by itself implies that there's something very wrong with this picture.
BTW, as best I can tell assistant commissioner Graham James (who issued the release) is a fairly recent hire with a background as what might be called an FOI enthusiast. Was he perhaps speaking out of turn? Anyway, it's a little ironic that in the press of luscious charges to be repeated no media outlet has bothered checking into the circumstances of the James press release to determine whether it carries any weight whatsoever.
Someone should look into this more, but I don't feel I'd be the best person for the job since I don't live in the UK. Are you up for it?
Steve - I've got enough time to spare, after my stats essay is due on Friday. Given the total lack of official comment, an investigation will be underway, but it also seems clear that the ICO person spoke out of turn.
As usual, what will remain in the public domain are the lies and hyperbolae, not the actual truth, once it has all settled down.
But at this stage i can't quite see what we can do, short of gatecrashing the RUssell inquiry.
I get the impression Jones et al were too embattled to stand up and complain loudly across the country about the attacks they were facing.
Bad imitation is the sincerest form of fat headedness.
Eli "Bad imitation is the sincerest form of fat headedness."
Are you per chance referring to Lucia the Liar?
MapleLeaf
Analogies are a waste of effort. At least as far as convincing a denier of anything. Let me give you an analogy: let's say you had a model, a climate model for instance, how large of a percentage of the denier community would reject the model because it is not a 100% faithful representation of the real world because not every variable was included. How many because too many variables are included?
How many look at it, reject the idea it is trying to convey, and cobble together a model of their own to present a coherent argument supporting their point of view?
---
Hvordan
"Let me give you an analogy: let's say you had a model, a climate model for instance, how large of a percentage of the denier community would reject the model because it is not a 100% faithful representation of the real world because not every variable was included. How many because too many variables are included?"
Or how many because it isn't actually made of gasses, oceans, land, photons, etc?
I'm not kidding, this is a major creationist argument against models that explore evolution.
It's easier then this.
I am a prosecutor. My job is to collect and collate evidence in the case Gaia v Humanity.
A member of Humanity, accused of crimes against Gaia demands to see the evidence.
I refuse, but insist humanity is still guilty and be punished.
No, Cthulhu's piece was very effective because anyone can understand it. That's why Lucia is pushing back so hard. It's worth spreading.
Lucia is, let us say economical with the truth, on occasion and makes a lot of mistakes, but take this for what it is, an admission that the denialists have been put on the defensive. Push hard.
But dhogaza, it is "God's will that the CO2 warm the planet" and by increasing CO2 we are apparently enforcing his will. Seriously, that is more of less the "discussion" that I had with one of the acolytes over at WTFUWT a while ago.
Is this when we find that Watts is a creationist? Has anyone asked him?
MapleLeaf
Guthrie, there's rather a lot that can be done, including:
1) Call up the reporter and see if she has anything new or any intent to follow up. Ask her if there's any relevant info you can collect for her.
2) Call up the ICO and ask for a clarification of their position. Ask them if such press releases are SOP for them. Ask them for the analysis that backs up the conclusions in the press release. Ask them who authorized the press release. If it seems fruitful, FOI them for their internal discussions of the matter and their discussions with UEA.
3) Call up UEA and find out who their FOI folks were talking to at ICO and exactly what was said.
And then see where all of that leads. I suspect some very useful stuff can be dug up with very little effort on your part.
Chris, let me see. Have you ever worked with observational data, confidential or otherwise? Have you ever been involved in any kind of science?
Didn't think so. I have.
Remind me again, why I should trust the character judgement of an anonymous internet slimeball over that of Ben Santer?
With apologies to the White Stripes:
"Well, the crickets get it
And the ants get it
I bet you the pigs get it
Yeah, even the plants get it
Come on now, and get with it
Yeah, I want you to get with it
Oh!
Yeah, I just want you to get with it
'cause everyone that's under your shoe
And every bird and bug in the jungle, too
And everything in the ocean blue
They just happen to know exactly what to do
So why don't you?
Yeah, why don't you?
The flies get it
And the frogs get it
And all them big jungle cats get it
And I bet your little dog gets it
Yeah, I want you to get with it
Yeah, come on, and get with it
Whoo!
Yeah, I want you to get with it
'Cause everyone that's under your shoe
And every bird and bee in the jungle, too
And everything in the ocean blue
They just happen to know exactly what to do
So why don't you? why don't you?
And all the chickens get it
And them singing canaries get it
Whoo!
Even strawberries get it
I want you to get with it
Yeah, I want you to get with it
Yeah!
I want you to get with it
'Cause everyone that's under your shoe
And every bird and bee in the jungle, too
And everything in the ocean blue
They just happen to know exactly what to do
So why don't you?"
Yes those crickets (little thermometers that they are) do get it, and so do the frogs and entire ecosystems. It being AGW of course. They all get it, just not you Lucia and co.
MapleLeaf
I totally agree with this post. Prof Jones and Mann are excellent scientists. If they say its warming, it is. We should not be so disrespectful as to demand to verify their results. If they say we need to spend trillions to save the planet, we do. WTF is with these idiots who like Doubting Thomas do not see the truth when it is before their eyes?
Disgusting, I call it. We need to round them up and re-educate them, if they can be re-educated. Some of them are just being led astray by the ring leaders of this disgusting denialist conspiracy.
The ringleaders are another matter. They know the truth and deny it. We must have no mercy on them.
What did you say, you filthy denialist? Did I hear you mutter something about the Constitution? Die, unbeliever, die!
Anonymous 2:22am- sarcasm is a bit obvious. It might help if you are a bit less shrill and don't put so many straw men in it.
"My MP3 collection contains some copyrighted music I have purchased and some non-copyrighted music"
Does it really illuminate the discussion to have an anecdote based on the premise that Phil Jones owns data the he puchased.
I believe all them deniers should be hounded until they finally shut up with their filthy lies. Jones and Mann are most honorable scientists who are now wrongly been accused by these denier scumbags without any prove. It's time we shoulfd form a posse to bring these vermin to justice. God bless y'all.
[Getting caught in the spam filter at Lucia's since 10:00 pm yesterday: Thank you for your comment! It has been added to the moderation queue and will be published here if approved by the webmaster. Too much the-one-who-shall-not-be-named invokations, no doubt.]
Somehow, the version of Cthuluh’s analogy on this [Lucia's] site (http://bit.ly/aFgJ1B) not only adds sentences in blue, but also rewrites some sentences from the first version, reproduced here : http://bit.ly/aupOr0 ; for instance, the ending is strikingly different.
Compare the last paragraph of the version on Rabett’s blog :
> He gets uptight at this and bad-mouths me on his website, telling his regulars how my “story has changed”. Sure it has, but understandably. Nevertheless he riles up enough of his website regulars and gets dozens of them to spam my inbox with requests for MP3s.
> What a bastard.
(I hope nobody will mind us assuming that the last sentence is only an alinea. The notion of paragraph is tricky.)
Here is the last paragraph given by Lucia:
> He gets uptight at this and bad-mouths me on his website, telling his regulars how my “story has changed”. Sure it has, but understandably. You know what’s even worse than this guy being a bastard? Eventually, all this stuff came to the attention of the local newspaper and oversight committees. Turns out people who are not that bastards regular blog readers think I didn’t deal with requests properly. OMG! A whole bunch of them how think I’m a bastard! How depressing.
This last paragraph is said not to have been edited, as nothing there is in blue and Lucia foretells us that The portions that had been edited out of cthulhus version are highlighted in blue.. This might be against the rules of proper philology: editing has been made without mention, worse editing has been made when it was made clear no editing was made. That could compromise Culture, but since no tax-payer money is involved (is it?) let’s not make any fuss.
What is striking is that this editing of the last paragraph modifies the overall moral. The moral does not seem mainly moral anymore, but deontological. This seems to be an important shift of attention in the two versions of the story. Readers shall judge by themselves the version they prefer. Chtulhu himself says the version given original here is the product of a lie (see http://bit.ly/cyKzsI), but who knows if Cthulhu has any privilege upon his own imagination?
(It also strikes as portraying an irrational character, as opposed to bring it to an understanding, which that would be more in the spirit of Cthulhu, but let’s leave that aside for the moment, as we should not invoke the spirit of Cthulhu for such a triffle.)
In any case, both versions forgets an important backstory (evoked at http://bit.ly/bP5Kvq): the acquaintance, or that guy with a library card, previously, not so long ago browsed some of Chtulu’s MP3 files from his torrent directory, or bogarted some books from the library. The acquaintance, or the guy with the library card, even proclaimed that Cthuluh’s little brother, or some book rat, acted has a mole.
Let’s not forget that this has nothing to do with musicology or bibliotheconomy.
Does it really illuminate the discussion to have an anecdote based on the premise that Phil Jones owns data the he puchased.
Well, you don't own the MP3s you "purchased" either -- what you own is an end user licence agreement allowing you to play them, and little else. Ask the copyright lobby.
New philological developments about the source of the story has resurfaced:
http://bit.ly/d1fYyX
Important exegetical problems are still being inquired. No doubt they too will be investigated soon.
Free scores and texts; free composition; free sharing,
PS: Researchers should beware to spell Cthulhu's name correctly if they want to prevent their findings getting trapped into spam limbo.
If we argue science then the deniers have no leg to stand on.
If we argue about analogies/ethics/poltics etc then it becomes murky as to whether you or Lucia or whoever has the cleverest/funniest/most accurate analogy which can be very much more subjective.
For the record I think your sense of humor is superior to Lucia's, but that may be confirmation bias rearing its head...
Michael, the point is to do both. Part of it is there are people who can evaluate the science and those who cannot, or simply have no interest in doing so.
For the later two groups the question is whom do they trust. The entire thrust of the denialists is make people distrust science (see Chris Mooney). Thus we have to simultaneous show that the science is correct AND that the people attacking the science are foolish. If we attack head on trying to tear them down, we get a cacaphony which helps their side.
You can read Eli's POV on this here
Fortunately the denialists victim bully mentality forecloses any attempt by them to try humor, as Lucia showed.
cthulhu, may I translate your story into Japanese and post in my blog?
Eli, may I link here from my article then, or do you prefer another URL?
Actually I am not sure when I finish. If anyone else is going to make Japanese translation, I may withdraw my plan.
I want to make my title of the article a literal translation of "A fable of c*u", where "*" can mach both "thulh" and "r" following the convention of Unix shells.
By the way, this is a real story of myself. I have a several CDR-full of MP3 files. They are made by myself, by taking sounds from LP records and casette tapes. Certainly most of them are copyrighted. I did not include any information other than sound in the MP3 files. I wrote some key information of each record or tape in a text file, so that copyright information can be traced if (and only if) the same record or tape is registered in public libraries. I share those files with my family, but certainly I cannot give them to other aquaintances.
Dr. Masuda,
A direct link to this post would be the best, and as far as I know, no one else has translated it or proposes to do so. It was very nice of you to ask. Cthulhu will have to speak for himself tho.
Ok Steve, I've started the ball rolling with an electronic submission to the information commission asking where and how they stated that UEA had done wrong, secondly if Mr Smith authorised the release of such a statement, and thirdly what information was behind the release.
Ok Steve, I've started the ball rolling with an electronic submission to the information commission asking where and how they stated that UEA had done wrong, secondly if Mr Smith authorised the release of such a statement, and thirdly what information was behind the release.
Eli:
Thanks for this post! Recommended reading by bunnies everywhere. Humorous, simple, thoughtful, relational, a delightful commentary on our current denialist vs. science situation. It's no wonder the humor is lost on the "skeptic" community, who have neither science, nor a sense of humor (it would seem) at their ready.
This only leaves denialists their primary tools of disinformation, distortion, lying, smearing (read: character assassination) and tropes to use. Which they readily do, with impunity. Even to the point of reproducing distorted versions of Cthulhu's insight. Bad foxes! Feeding trolls is naughty!
It would seem that Cthulhu has missed his true calling in life. Thy razor wit cuts deep, oh wielder of pen most dread!
Amused by it all,
Daniel the Yooper
That's an impressive MP3 collection there... I mean assuming that, in order to make the analogy worthwhile, several trillion (with a T) dollars/Euro/etc. will be re-directed based on their content. Pretty hard-hitting songs, what?
I find it bizarre that serious people spend time defending subversion of FOIA intents. If somebody can't be arsed to keep track of their data, well... apparently tax payers DON'T get what they pay for.
Flamingo news says.
This is the contract that anybody buying data to the Spanish meteorological agency must sign (English version is on the same page).
http://www.aemet.es/es/servicios/publicos/sscc
Anybody with more than two neurons and half a synapsis can understand that in case CRU had any Spanish data bought to the Spanish AEMET, CRU simply couldn't release that data to third parties. But if CA people and people around them wanted data, they could just buy it from the Spanish AEMET, paying the corresponding amount of money. I don't find it is terribly difficult to grasp this. Any lawyer here ready to explain this?
As Daniel Drew put it, he who sells what isn't his'n, must pay the price or go to prison.
Just to hammer it home, the aemet conditions are:
--------------
The user commits himself to:
1. Not to yield to third parties any of the users rights derived from this license, unless previous written authorization by the AEMET.
2. Not to make declarations related with the information received that could damage AEMET public image.
3. To accept that all intellectual property rights, both moral and economic, on the information received from the AEMET do belong to the General State Administration.
4. In case of any diffusion or supply of Value Added Services (VAS) elaborated on the basis of the meteorological and climatological in-formation given by the AEMET, explicit mention of the AEMET as owner of the above mentioned information should be stated, includ-ing the following text: " Information elaborated using data (in addition to others) given by the Agencia Estatal de MeteorologÃa. Minis-terio de Medio Ambiente, y Medio Rural y Marino”.
5. Not to transmit partially or totally to third parties the information received from the AEMET, unless previous written authorization by the AEMET. This transmission authorization to third parties will not be necessary whenever a declaration on this regard has been made while filling the application form. AEMET property of the information has to be mention whenever it is disseminated, including the following text: “Information elaborated by the Agencia Estatal de MeteorologÃa. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, y Medio Rural y Marino”.
6. Not to use the information provided by the AEMET in any publication, except previous written authorization by the AEMET.
I don't want to cast aspersions - but the folks who seem to demand free access to data also seem to be the very same folks who think private ownership is the one true way of the world. I don't get that.
Post a Comment