I'm a subscriber to the Areivim and Avodah lists for some time now. On Friday I used a story I saw there as the basis for a post. I credited them as I should have, and never gave it a second thought as far as getting into "trouble" for it. Little could I have imagined that the following e-mail would appear in my inbox today:
"You have been unsubscribed from the Areivim mailing list. Before leaving, you may want to consider retaining only your Avodah subscription."
To which I responded: why was I unsubscribed?!
Micha Berger responded: There is a statement in the membership agreement which reads:
[9.]c. People post to Areivim knowing that access is limited. Repeating
an Areivim post is therefore inappropriate unless you first ask the
author. Also, many of the posts on Avodah and Areivim do not represent
the views of AishDas. Therefore, when referring to a post in a manner
that mentions AishDas, including a URL to the Avodah archives, kindly
ask the list management at avodah-owner@aishdas.org or in addition to the author. Violating this rule could result in immediate dismissal ch"v.
As per the last sentence, your post at http://theantitzemach.blogspot.com/2007/10/story-for-your-shabbos-table cost you your Areivim membership. Had you asked reshus, I see no
reason that we would have denied it -- this wasn't dirty laundry or anything someone would be embarrassed to see discussed beyond the community. However, you didn't. We can't have members who defy the chevrah's trust in the list's privacy. Your Avodah subscription remains.
SheTir'u baTov!
Micha
[Ya gotta love the corny message even when writing a dismissal notice. Sorta like getting a smiley face on your pink slip, eh?]
My response: All I can say is I thought better of you people. I obviously didn't intentionally ignore the rules, yet you couldn't wait to send me flying. Not nice.
Micha responds: Not "obvious" at all that you didn't intend to tell the world something you allegedly agreed not to when you signed up. It's not
just a buried codicil number 9.c -- this privacy is the whole reason
Areivim exists as distinct from the public Avodah. If I didn't firmly enforce the rule, I would have no recourse against someone who mines Areivim for things to post in some anti-Orthodox forum.
Tzig asks: How would someone know whether or not I got permission?
The anti-Orthodox excuse makes no sense.
To which Micha responded: You didn't ask any of the moderators... so that part of the process wasn't followed. I'm not arguing this. You were warned that such citation could lead to being summarily dismissed. You were therefore summarily dismissed. The active term is "summarily".
[I'm guessing Micha Berger is or was a very strict school teacher.]
I asked: I was asking about your reasoning. You said that if you didn't enforce it the anti-Orthodox would comment-mine and use it it to their benefit. Yet all you ask is that I ask for permission. To which I say, how would they know whether or not I got permission? so why use that as a reason to dismiss me?
The Bergermeister curtly responded: Look: You accepted a rule. The consequences of the rule are spelledout. You violated the rule. You are paying the price spelled out. This isn't rocket science. The rule is important because if people find Areivim posts all over the web they are less likely to be as forthright in posting to the list. Discussions that have in the past led to changes by the Agudah, the OU, and in the prosecution of the Lanner case (admitted small changes) would stop if people felt they may be risking their children's shidduchim (or whatnot). I therefore promise a measure of privacy, which means I must enforce the privacy when it is violated.
[Notice the way he lists his accomplishments here, and how it's the safety of the innocent that he's really protecting by dumping me....]
Correct me if I'm wrong, people, but the whole lot of them seem pretty haugty and stuck-up to me. I may have told Abish Brodt to "get off his high horse," but these guys ride giraffes, not horses, horses aren't high enough for them. They must look at that mirror and tell it how lucky it is to have that beautiful, Torah'dike, yet MO light face to host. I mean, after all, having Toby Katz AND Harry Maryles as regular contributors must make that list pretty darn proud, no?
I did warn you a while ago about quoting Areivim posts in public.
ReplyDeletePeople write all sorts of things to Areivim that they don't want to get out in public. That's why Areivim is not archived, while Avodah is. Anything you write to Avodah is out there for everyone to read, for the indefinite future. Anything people don't want to get that kind of publicity they send to Areivim, and they expect it to be kept confidential.
This privacy has been breached in the past, and people have suffered for it. There was a major case a few years ago, and after that a lot of people stopped posting because they hold positions that could be jeopardised if the wrong people read their uncensored opinions.
On the other hand, the defense you should have made was that you didn't reveal the name of the poster, and the post itself was entirely a quote of a story from a book, not the poster's own contribution. It makes sense that such a post - minus the poster's name - is not confidential. Still, if I were you I'd have just said it came from "a mailing list", and not said which one. Areivim is a private forum and should stay that way.
Tzig, I can understand your indignation and yes, a warning for a first time offense is always more appropriate, but I can tell you that I know from other private mailing lists that when the content became publicized people simply stopped posting.
ReplyDeletetake that you punk! :-)
ReplyDeleteWhat are they proving with "immediate dismissal CH"V?"
ReplyDeleteSo what's to stop u rejoining with another name??
ReplyDeletenothing really, I guess. Although thy'd probably be on the lookout for me.
ReplyDeleteLet's remember: this was a story that somebody submitted to the list, not some kind of personal dilemma. Aaaand, i did quote them as the source, which I guess is a case of me being too nice, because it cost me my membership.
You have light years ahead of you before you reach the likes of Harry Maryles and Toby Katz.Areivim has very much to be proud these and many other posters.
ReplyDeleteMicha B is a good guy.Very good guy, besides adopting kids etc etc.
You are showing your true colours by your name calling.
"So what's to stop u rejoining with another name??"
ReplyDeleteHonesty. Pseudonyms are not allowed on Areivim without special permission from the moderators. And to join you have to agree to a membership agreement which includes this rule as well as the one about confidentiality.
In case it wasn't clear, when I wrote above that "This privacy has been breached in the past, and people have suffered for it", I don't mean by being kicked off the list, I mean that there were real-world consequences, in parnoseh and agmas nefesh, because their words were publicised. And after that happened many others stopped posting, for fear that the same thing would happen to them.
I am surprised someone doesn't take you to task for using a picture from iStockphoto without paying for it.
ReplyDeleteFor shame!
;)
Back a second.
ReplyDeleteIf iStockphoto requires your payment, it's an issur ranging from dina demalchusa dina to risking a chilul Hashem. If you wouldn't eat something without an inspection because it might not be kosher, how can you make light of monetary judgment?
Are chumras only for milk, and not for genaivas akum? Perhaps we will all be "taken to task" for which things we think are worth chumrah, and which not.
I fail to see the joke.
-Grumpy the Dwarf,
nauseated by the lackadaisical attitude toward Choshen Mishpat in the "Orthodox" community
semi
ReplyDeletedoes the logo on the pic mean I didn't pay for it?
a simple google image search brought that pic, and nowhere did it say that it was copyrighted or that there was a charge to use it.
Better question: since when is breach of copyright geneivah?
ReplyDeleteMilhouse,
ReplyDeleteI did write about "chumrah" for a reason. I figured some might question the rulings I invoked, and therefore wanted to avoid that whole conversation. Relying on lenient positions is not something we would do when it comes to kashrus, but if it's only money...
But to answer your question, the Nodah beYehudah (Choshen Mishpat #24) considers copyright violation to be theft. In terms of zeh neheneh vizeh chaseir, so it would apply to genaivas akum too.
The Shach defines dina demalchusa dina in terms that would include copyright (following the Ramban) and the Bais Yitschak specifically applies this ruling to copyright law. That's not genaivah, but still, reason why one should be careful.
And of course, the threat of you getting caught means that you are playing with fire - chilul Hashem.
But my nausea is with the basic attitude. When it comes to milk, we have people worrying about whether one ought to rely on the USDA. When it comes to the money obtained to buy that milk, we are fine hunting for every lenient opinion. Where are the basic values that someone can prioritize that way?
-Grumpy the Dwarf
What an amaratzisher talmid chuchem, grumpy the dwarf. Your giluy punim matches those of the baal achsanya here. Enough with silly obsessions with the sodomite interpretations of "copyright" law, coupled with misunderstood "dina demalchusa" and twisted teitch of geneivah. And if you can't see between that and a meforash seif in Sh"A that prohibits milk in most forms or shapes, you're indeed a grumpy MO dwarf.
ReplyDeleteI can't stand Micha. He is such a baal gayva and an annoying yekke.
ReplyDelete