Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.
Re: What's the deal with Third Voice?
Author: Jeremy Bowers Posted: 9/27/1999; 11:01:26 AM Topic: Windows apps on Linux: the real reason Msg #: 11493 (In response to 11492) Prev/Next: 11492 / 11494
I certainly think this is fair. The problem is what happens once your content leaves your server. No one is arguing that people should be able to alter content on your server. Once it's on the wire, however, it's not clear how much protection there should be for (your version of) it.
No.... you can't argue this route. "Versioning" implies that you are making changes; clearly modification and clearly illegal. (If you aren't happy with "illegal", I'll settle for "unethical".)
The only way to argue for Third Voice is to claim that it doesn't, ever, modify the original web page in any way, hence the "Third Voice is only an overlay" argument (although, as I've said elsewhere, I don't understand how simply "overlaying" a site is not itself a modification...). This has been argued, to death, in the aforementioned previous threads, so I won't go over it again. I just wanted to make the previously un-made point that as soon as you "admit" that Third Voice is versioning/changing/adding/modifying, you've pretty much lost.
On a somewhat related note, another previously unmentioned "solution". Suppose a court finds Third Voice totally legal in every way, shape, and form. Dave would object to this, even though it's legal (as I would as well). Now, not speaking for Dave (which I've noticed on several occaisions he doesn't like very well "qbullet.smiley"), but, as an example, could he liscense his content in such a fashion that you promise not to annotate it in any way, subject to some breach-of-contract penalty? "By using this web site, you agree that you will not view it while using annotation software."
No statements about not posting annotations (so no "free speech" concerns), although you are not allowed to see them, and you obviously can't and therefore won't ban discussing the site elsewhere, so you can't say free speech is being restricted.
This is a question and a thought... I don't know the answer to it.
There are responses to this message:
- Re: What's the deal with Third Voice?, Bryant Durrell, 9/27/1999; 11:53:13 AM
- Enforce the rule -- "No TV Here", Bret Shroyer, 9/27/1999; 1:12:42 PM
- Re: What's the deal with Third Voice?, Paul Snively, 9/27/1999; 9:13:52 PM
This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:52:49 PM.
© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.