Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [wmlprogramming] It's not a gross copyright violation, it's a feature

Expand Messages
  • Luca Passani
    I am not sure why you keep arguing on something different than I have said. ... did I say this? I did not. I said that the responsibility lies partly with the
    Message 1 of 16 , Feb 6, 2009
      I am not sure why you keep arguing on something different than I have said.

      > And if the responsibility lies not with the vendors....

      did I say this? I did not. I said that the responsibility lies partly
      with the vendors and partly with the operators. In addition, I said that
      identifying which of two kinds of vendors we are dealing with, because
      this changes the approach we need to take.

      Some transcoder vendors are proactively promoting their transcoding
      features with their customers (novarra and bytemobile), while others
      transcoder vendors (infogin, openwave and volantis) implement them to be
      competitive in the market, but are not proactive in convincing operators
      to use them (this is because the vendor realizes of the damage they are
      doing).

      The good vendors are the ones we can talk civilizedly to, because we
      know they are reasonable and will cooperate in finding a compromise that
      is good enough for everyone.

      The second kind are arrogant bastards that need to be treated as the
      beasts they are. This may also apply to their customers who were stupid
      enough to let themselves be misled by vendor BS. In this case, blogging
      hard and complaining loudly is the way to go. Operators will go back to
      their vendor and ask "why did you bring this mountain of poo down on my
      carefully built good brand name? didn't you tell me that I was about to
      get mountains of free content and everyone would be happy?"

      In some extreme cases, operators may be knowledgeably trying to
      subjugate the ecosystem (Vodafone is a textbook example here). There we
      should be complaining loudly about the operator too. The operator
      strategy there is to keep doing the abuse for long enough until it
      becomes old news. Our counter strategy should be to keep telling them
      how much we hate them until they don't cease and desist.

      Luca

      Tom Hume wrote:
      > Thanks for the threat Luca, but I'm not talking about the Manifesto.
      > I'm pointing out that every major transcoder (that I found with a
      > cursory search) has the feature you consider irresponsible in it. Yes,
      > I'm expressing mild scepticism that they've implemented (and
      > presumably maintain or develop) this feature but would never support
      > its deployment. And if the responsibility lies not with the vendors,
      > then it's important to engage with operators in this discussion:
      > because they're the ones who decide to deploy responsibly or
      > irresponsibly.
      >
      > Or to put it more positively: what else can we do to persuade
      > operators to behave responsibly - whether that be by signing the
      > manifesto or any other means?
      >
    • Jim McLachlan
      I ve basically stopped reading the threads on this group because I get so annoyed by what I see going on. I have avoided getting involved because I don t have
      Message 2 of 16 , Feb 7, 2009
        I've basically stopped reading the threads on this group because I get
        so annoyed by what I see going on. I have avoided getting involved
        because I don't have the abundant patience that Luca demonstrates.
        This will be my one posting about what I see.

        Seriously Luca, respect to you for not completely losing it by now.

        I just got my digest and yet again, I see Tom Hume posting his toxic
        time-wasting arguments. His arguments are a disturbing mix of
        weasel-words, slight-of-hand, manipulation and political double-talk.
        His only purpose on this forum seems to be to muddy the waters and
        endlessly argue in order to waste everyone's time. There *might* be
        one or two positive and useful contributions that he's made, but he
        has also post far too much rubbish to wade through.

        This is a really good example:

        > Are there any transcoder vendors that *don't* offer this as a feature?
        >
        > InfoGin: http://www.infogin.com/solutions.asp
        > "Customized footers enable end users to continue their PC browsing
        > habits on their mobile devices, such as: History, Favorites and most-
        > commonly surfed sites."
        >
        > OpenWave:
        http://www.openwave.com/us/products/mobile_internet_services/openweb/
        > (see also PDF)
        > "OpenWeb enables operators to leverage their most unique asset -
        > information about subscriber preferences and location — to generate
        > revenue from targeted, personalized and context-based merchandising
        > and advertising."
        >
        > Volantis: http://www.volantis.com/transcoder
        > "Customers remain involved in the delivery chain when subscribers
        > browse "off-portal", allowing advertisements and menus to be
        > automatically inserted into headers and footers.
        >

        He is *clearly* saying with this comment that he finds this acceptable
        because "that's what everyone does". I'm sure that he'll argue that
        he didn't say that, or that he didn't mean that, or that "in the
        context of the entire thread... blah blah blah", but this is exactly
        my point. "I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some
        moments ago." Weasel words and double talk.

        All those quotes are one-sided and only express the benefits to
        operators. In each case they are just saying that they enable the
        insertion of additional (unrequested) content (adverts) into sites
        without the permission of the site author (copyright holder).

        A while ago, I saw a series of statements supporting Tom's right to
        have his say and arguing that Luca shouldn't ban him. If I remember
        correctly, that was due to "bad faith" arguing about the Manifesto.
        So, having logged make this post, what do I find, but yet another
        forum-troll response from Tom:

        "Thanks for the threat Luca, but I'm not talking about the Manifesto."

        Does anyone else see this deliberate attempt to wind up Luca by trying
        to dodge the rules about his behaviour by claiming that he's now
        arguing about something else?

        And the sarcasm!!!!!

        "So none of those vendors will deploy transcoders which use that
        feature they've all implemented and sell? They've all committed that
        they won't do that?

        Wow."

        "(that I found with a cursory search)"

        Tom, you are clearly a clever, well educated and eloquent man. You
        clearly have a good knowledge of the workings of the mobile industry.
        What is wrong with you? Get your act together. Make some useful,
        helpful, positive contributions or please leave the forum.

        Jim.
      • Tom Hume
        Jim I think I m not explaining myself clearly: if this feature is objectionable (and I can see good reasons why it is), then surely it s objectionable no
        Message 3 of 16 , Feb 7, 2009
          Jim

          I think I'm not explaining myself clearly: if this feature is
          objectionable (and I can see good reasons why it is), then surely it's
          objectionable no matter who supplies it? My point is that it's not
          just the Bad Transcoders (Bad defined by whatever definition you're
          using - non-manifesto signatories, history of abusive deployments,
          failure to listen to developers, whatever) - it's *all* of them. And
          yes, I'm sceptical that they're putting time and money into developing
          features which they are simultaneously committing to not deploy.

          Of course the quotes I supply are one-sided: they're copy-n-pasted
          from those vendors sites. I'm not saying I find the feature
          acceptable: I'm pointing out that they're all offering it, and have
          been for some time: this isn't anything new.

          If it's OK for transcoder vendors to develop software with this
          feature, and if we want to avoid this sort of thing happening, then
          why not talk to the operators and others deploying the software, as
          well as the software vendors?

          So I'll say it again: how about some constructive ideas as to how we
          engage with the folks deploying transcoders, to minimise the damage
          they're doing?

          Tom

          On 7 Feb 2009, at 11:16, Jim McLachlan wrote:

          > I've basically stopped reading the threads on this group because I get
          > so annoyed by what I see going on. I have avoided getting involved
          > because I don't have the abundant patience that Luca demonstrates.
          > This will be my one posting about what I see.
          >
          > Seriously Luca, respect to you for not completely losing it by now.
          >
          > I just got my digest and yet again, I see Tom Hume posting his toxic
          > time-wasting arguments. His arguments are a disturbing mix of
          > weasel-words, slight-of-hand, manipulation and political double-talk.
          > His only purpose on this forum seems to be to muddy the waters and
          > endlessly argue in order to waste everyone's time. There *might* be
          > one or two positive and useful contributions that he's made, but he
          > has also post far too much rubbish to wade through.
          >
          > This is a really good example:
          >
          > > Are there any transcoder vendors that *don't* offer this as a
          > feature?
          > >
          > > InfoGin: http://www.infogin.com/solutions.asp
          > > "Customized footers enable end users to continue their PC browsing
          > > habits on their mobile devices, such as: History, Favorites and
          > most-
          > > commonly surfed sites."
          > >
          > > OpenWave:
          > http://www.openwave.com/us/products/mobile_internet_services/openweb/
          > > (see also PDF)
          > > "OpenWeb enables operators to leverage their most unique asset -
          > > information about subscriber preferences and location � to generate
          > > revenue from targeted, personalized and context-based merchandising
          > > and advertising."
          > >
          > > Volantis: http://www.volantis.com/transcoder
          > > "Customers remain involved in the delivery chain when subscribers
          > > browse "off-portal", allowing advertisements and menus to be
          > > automatically inserted into headers and footers.
          > >
          >
          > He is *clearly* saying with this comment that he finds this acceptable
          > because "that's what everyone does". I'm sure that he'll argue that
          > he didn't say that, or that he didn't mean that, or that "in the
          > context of the entire thread... blah blah blah", but this is exactly
          > my point. "I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some
          > moments ago." Weasel words and double talk.
          >
          > All those quotes are one-sided and only express the benefits to
          > operators. In each case they are just saying that they enable the
          > insertion of additional (unrequested) content (adverts) into sites
          > without the permission of the site author (copyright holder).
          >
          > A while ago, I saw a series of statements supporting Tom's right to
          > have his say and arguing that Luca shouldn't ban him. If I remember
          > correctly, that was due to "bad faith" arguing about the Manifesto.
          > So, having logged make this post, what do I find, but yet another
          > forum-troll response from Tom:
          >
          > "Thanks for the threat Luca, but I'm not talking about the Manifesto."
          >
          > Does anyone else see this deliberate attempt to wind up Luca by trying
          > to dodge the rules about his behaviour by claiming that he's now
          > arguing about something else?
          >
          > And the sarcasm!!!!!
          >
          > "So none of those vendors will deploy transcoders which use that
          > feature they've all implemented and sell? They've all committed that
          > they won't do that?
          >
          > Wow."
          >
          > "(that I found with a cursory search)"
          >
          > Tom, you are clearly a clever, well educated and eloquent man. You
          > clearly have a good knowledge of the workings of the mobile industry.
          > What is wrong with you? Get your act together. Make some useful,
          > helpful, positive contributions or please leave the forum.
          >
          > Jim.
          >
          >
          >

          --
          Future Platforms
          e: Tom.Hume@...
          t: +44 (0) 1273 819038
          m: +44 (0) 7971 781422
          work: www.futureplatforms.com
          play: tomhume.org







          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Luca Passani
          Bye bye, Tom Luca
          Message 4 of 16 , Feb 7, 2009
            Bye bye, Tom

            Luca

            Tom Hume wrote:
            > Jim
            >
            > I think I'm not explaining myself clearly: if this feature is
            > objectionable (and I can see good reasons why it is), then surely it's
            > objectionable no matter who supplies it? My point is that it's not
            > just the Bad Transcoders (Bad defined by whatever definition you're
            > using - non-manifesto signatories, history of abusive deployments,
            > failure to listen to developers, whatever) - it's *all* of them. And
            > yes, I'm sceptical that they're putting time and money into developing
            > features which they are simultaneously committing to not deploy.
            >
            > Of course the quotes I supply are one-sided: they're copy-n-pasted
            > from those vendors sites. I'm not saying I find the feature
            > acceptable: I'm pointing out that they're all offering it, and have
            > been for some time: this isn't anything new.
            >
            > If it's OK for transcoder vendors to develop software with this
            > feature, and if we want to avoid this sort of thing happening, then
            > why not talk to the operators and others deploying the software, as
            > well as the software vendors?
            >
            > So I'll say it again: how about some constructive ideas as to how we
            > engage with the folks deploying transcoders, to minimise the damage
            > they're doing?
            >
            > Tom
            >
            > On 7 Feb 2009, at 11:16, Jim McLachlan wrote:
            >
            >
            >> I've basically stopped reading the threads on this group because I get
            >> so annoyed by what I see going on. I have avoided getting involved
            >> because I don't have the abundant patience that Luca demonstrates.
            >> This will be my one posting about what I see.
            >>
            >> Seriously Luca, respect to you for not completely losing it by now.
            >>
            >> I just got my digest and yet again, I see Tom Hume posting his toxic
            >> time-wasting arguments. His arguments are a disturbing mix of
            >> weasel-words, slight-of-hand, manipulation and political double-talk.
            >> His only purpose on this forum seems to be to muddy the waters and
            >> endlessly argue in order to waste everyone's time. There *might* be
            >> one or two positive and useful contributions that he's made, but he
            >> has also post far too much rubbish to wade through.
            >>
            >> This is a really good example:
            >>
            >>
            >>> Are there any transcoder vendors that *don't* offer this as a
            >>>
            >> feature?
            >>
            >>> InfoGin: http://www.infogin.com/solutions.asp
            >>> "Customized footers enable end users to continue their PC browsing
            >>> habits on their mobile devices, such as: History, Favorites and
            >>>
            >> most-
            >>
            >>> commonly surfed sites."
            >>>
            >>> OpenWave:
            >>>
            >> http://www.openwave.com/us/products/mobile_internet_services/openweb/
            >>
            >>> (see also PDF)
            >>> "OpenWeb enables operators to leverage their most unique asset -
            >>> information about subscriber preferences and location — to generate
            >>> revenue from targeted, personalized and context-based merchandising
            >>> and advertising."
            >>>
            >>> Volantis: http://www.volantis.com/transcoder
            >>> "Customers remain involved in the delivery chain when subscribers
            >>> browse "off-portal", allowing advertisements and menus to be
            >>> automatically inserted into headers and footers.
            >>>
            >>>
            >> He is *clearly* saying with this comment that he finds this acceptable
            >> because "that's what everyone does". I'm sure that he'll argue that
            >> he didn't say that, or that he didn't mean that, or that "in the
            >> context of the entire thread... blah blah blah", but this is exactly
            >> my point. "I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some
            >> moments ago." Weasel words and double talk.
            >>
            >> All those quotes are one-sided and only express the benefits to
            >> operators. In each case they are just saying that they enable the
            >> insertion of additional (unrequested) content (adverts) into sites
            >> without the permission of the site author (copyright holder).
            >>
            >> A while ago, I saw a series of statements supporting Tom's right to
            >> have his say and arguing that Luca shouldn't ban him. If I remember
            >> correctly, that was due to "bad faith" arguing about the Manifesto.
            >> So, having logged make this post, what do I find, but yet another
            >> forum-troll response from Tom:
            >>
            >> "Thanks for the threat Luca, but I'm not talking about the Manifesto."
            >>
            >> Does anyone else see this deliberate attempt to wind up Luca by trying
            >> to dodge the rules about his behaviour by claiming that he's now
            >> arguing about something else?
            >>
            >> And the sarcasm!!!!!
            >>
            >> "So none of those vendors will deploy transcoders which use that
            >> feature they've all implemented and sell? They've all committed that
            >> they won't do that?
            >>
            >> Wow."
            >>
            >> "(that I found with a cursory search)"
            >>
            >> Tom, you are clearly a clever, well educated and eloquent man. You
            >> clearly have a good knowledge of the workings of the mobile industry.
            >> What is wrong with you? Get your act together. Make some useful,
            >> helpful, positive contributions or please leave the forum.
            >>
            >> Jim.
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
          • Simon Maddox
            Luca, I ve read these threads over the recent months, and have been appaled at your negativity towards anything new. Now, Tom is big enough to speak for
            Message 5 of 16 , Feb 8, 2009
              Luca,

              I've read these threads over the recent months, and have been appaled at
              your negativity towards anything new.

              Now, Tom is big enough to speak for himself, but obviously now you've
              ejected him from the list I feel like I've got to say something...

              I think everyone reading this list agrees that what Byte Mobile (and others)
              are doing is totally wrong - afaik, nobody disputes that.

              Tom Hume merely pointed out that almost every transcoder vendor - even the
              ones which have signed your manifesto - have implemented this "feature".

              Do you really think that a feature that many companies have spent time and
              money implementing and deploying will never see the light of day? Especially
              if they're still actively promoting said feature?

              To ban Tom for raising that point is, in my opinion, downright ludicrous. I
              think I've also run my course with the wmlprogramming list - the ability for
              anyone to question what you say without being publicly insulted has gone,
              and that has led to this list going from a whole load of posts each day, to
              the odd one or two.

              If anyone knows of a place where mobile developers can discuss things
              without the fear of ridicule and banning - please let me know.

              Luca - thanks for what you've done with WURFL. It's a great project.

              Regards,

              Simon

              On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Luca Passani <passani@...> wrote:

              >
              > Bye bye, Tom
              >
              > Luca
              >
              > Tom Hume wrote:
              > > Jim
              > >
              > > I think I'm not explaining myself clearly: if this feature is
              > > objectionable (and I can see good reasons why it is), then surely it's
              > > objectionable no matter who supplies it? My point is that it's not
              > > just the Bad Transcoders (Bad defined by whatever definition you're
              > > using - non-manifesto signatories, history of abusive deployments,
              > > failure to listen to developers, whatever) - it's *all* of them. And
              > > yes, I'm sceptical that they're putting time and money into developing
              > > features which they are simultaneously committing to not deploy.
              > >
              > > Of course the quotes I supply are one-sided: they're copy-n-pasted
              > > from those vendors sites. I'm not saying I find the feature
              > > acceptable: I'm pointing out that they're all offering it, and have
              > > been for some time: this isn't anything new.
              > >
              > > If it's OK for transcoder vendors to develop software with this
              > > feature, and if we want to avoid this sort of thing happening, then
              > > why not talk to the operators and others deploying the software, as
              > > well as the software vendors?
              > >
              > > So I'll say it again: how about some constructive ideas as to how we
              > > engage with the folks deploying transcoders, to minimise the damage
              > > they're doing?
              > >
              > > Tom
              > >
              > > On 7 Feb 2009, at 11:16, Jim McLachlan wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > >> I've basically stopped reading the threads on this group because I get
              > >> so annoyed by what I see going on. I have avoided getting involved
              > >> because I don't have the abundant patience that Luca demonstrates.
              > >> This will be my one posting about what I see.
              > >>
              > >> Seriously Luca, respect to you for not completely losing it by now.
              > >>
              > >> I just got my digest and yet again, I see Tom Hume posting his toxic
              > >> time-wasting arguments. His arguments are a disturbing mix of
              > >> weasel-words, slight-of-hand, manipulation and political double-talk.
              > >> His only purpose on this forum seems to be to muddy the waters and
              > >> endlessly argue in order to waste everyone's time. There *might* be
              > >> one or two positive and useful contributions that he's made, but he
              > >> has also post far too much rubbish to wade through.
              > >>
              > >> This is a really good example:
              > >>
              > >>
              > >>> Are there any transcoder vendors that *don't* offer this as a
              > >>>
              > >> feature?
              > >>
              > >>> InfoGin: http://www.infogin.com/solutions.asp
              > >>> "Customized footers enable end users to continue their PC browsing
              > >>> habits on their mobile devices, such as: History, Favorites and
              > >>>
              > >> most-
              > >>
              > >>> commonly surfed sites."
              > >>>
              > >>> OpenWave:
              > >>>
              > >> http://www.openwave.com/us/products/mobile_internet_services/openweb/
              > >>
              > >>> (see also PDF)
              > >>> "OpenWeb enables operators to leverage their most unique asset -
              > >>> information about subscriber preferences and location � to generate
              > >>> revenue from targeted, personalized and context-based merchandising
              > >>> and advertising."
              > >>>
              > >>> Volantis: http://www.volantis.com/transcoder
              > >>> "Customers remain involved in the delivery chain when subscribers
              > >>> browse "off-portal", allowing advertisements and menus to be
              > >>> automatically inserted into headers and footers.
              > >>>
              > >>>
              > >> He is *clearly* saying with this comment that he finds this acceptable
              > >> because "that's what everyone does". I'm sure that he'll argue that
              > >> he didn't say that, or that he didn't mean that, or that "in the
              > >> context of the entire thread... blah blah blah", but this is exactly
              > >> my point. "I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some
              > >> moments ago." Weasel words and double talk.
              > >>
              > >> All those quotes are one-sided and only express the benefits to
              > >> operators. In each case they are just saying that they enable the
              > >> insertion of additional (unrequested) content (adverts) into sites
              > >> without the permission of the site author (copyright holder).
              > >>
              > >> A while ago, I saw a series of statements supporting Tom's right to
              > >> have his say and arguing that Luca shouldn't ban him. If I remember
              > >> correctly, that was due to "bad faith" arguing about the Manifesto.
              > >> So, having logged make this post, what do I find, but yet another
              > >> forum-troll response from Tom:
              > >>
              > >> "Thanks for the threat Luca, but I'm not talking about the Manifesto."
              > >>
              > >> Does anyone else see this deliberate attempt to wind up Luca by trying
              > >> to dodge the rules about his behaviour by claiming that he's now
              > >> arguing about something else?
              > >>
              > >> And the sarcasm!!!!!
              > >>
              > >> "So none of those vendors will deploy transcoders which use that
              > >> feature they've all implemented and sell? They've all committed that
              > >> they won't do that?
              > >>
              > >> Wow."
              > >>
              > >> "(that I found with a cursory search)"
              > >>
              > >> Tom, you are clearly a clever, well educated and eloquent man. You
              > >> clearly have a good knowledge of the workings of the mobile industry.
              > >> What is wrong with you? Get your act together. Make some useful,
              > >> helpful, positive contributions or please leave the forum.
              > >>
              > >> Jim.
              > >>
              > >>
              > >>
              > >>
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > As of July 14 2005, it's much easier to be banned from WMLProgramming!
              > Please fail to read http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/ before
              > you post.Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Luca Passani
              Simon, my only regret about this is that I did not ban Tom earlier. He was in bad faith, thinking he was smart and simply making fun of us. Your comments are
              Message 6 of 16 , Feb 8, 2009
                Simon, my only regret about this is that I did not ban Tom earlier. He
                was in bad faith, thinking he was smart and simply making fun of us.

                Your comments are unfair. On this list, discussions have always been
                very open and frank, sometimes harsh, but always respectful of those who
                deserved respect.

                Please no more posts about the banning of Tom Hume. This has already
                burned way too many cycles that I could have spent more usefully on
                WURFL itself.

                Luca

                Simon Maddox wrote:
                > Luca,
                >
                > I've read these threads over the recent months, and have been appaled at
                > your negativity towards anything new.
                >
                > Now, Tom is big enough to speak for himself, but obviously now you've
                > ejected him from the list I feel like I've got to say something...
                >
                > I think everyone reading this list agrees that what Byte Mobile (and others)
                > are doing is totally wrong - afaik, nobody disputes that.
                >
                > Tom Hume merely pointed out that almost every transcoder vendor - even the
                > ones which have signed your manifesto - have implemented this "feature".
                >
                > Do you really think that a feature that many companies have spent time and
                > money implementing and deploying will never see the light of day? Especially
                > if they're still actively promoting said feature?
                >
                > To ban Tom for raising that point is, in my opinion, downright ludicrous. I
                > think I've also run my course with the wmlprogramming list - the ability for
                > anyone to question what you say without being publicly insulted has gone,
                > and that has led to this list going from a whole load of posts each day, to
                > the odd one or two.
                >
                > If anyone knows of a place where mobile developers can discuss things
                > without the fear of ridicule and banning - please let me know.
                >
                > Luca - thanks for what you've done with WURFL. It's a great project.
                >
                > Regards,
                >
                > Simon
                >
                > On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Luca Passani <passani@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                >> Bye bye, Tom
                >>
                >> Luca
                >>
                >> Tom Hume wrote:
                >>
                >>> Jim
                >>>
                >>> I think I'm not explaining myself clearly: if this feature is
                >>> objectionable (and I can see good reasons why it is), then surely it's
                >>> objectionable no matter who supplies it? My point is that it's not
                >>> just the Bad Transcoders (Bad defined by whatever definition you're
                >>> using - non-manifesto signatories, history of abusive deployments,
                >>> failure to listen to developers, whatever) - it's *all* of them. And
                >>> yes, I'm sceptical that they're putting time and money into developing
                >>> features which they are simultaneously committing to not deploy.
                >>>
                >>> Of course the quotes I supply are one-sided: they're copy-n-pasted
                >>> from those vendors sites. I'm not saying I find the feature
                >>> acceptable: I'm pointing out that they're all offering it, and have
                >>> been for some time: this isn't anything new.
                >>>
                >>> If it's OK for transcoder vendors to develop software with this
                >>> feature, and if we want to avoid this sort of thing happening, then
                >>> why not talk to the operators and others deploying the software, as
                >>> well as the software vendors?
                >>>
                >>> So I'll say it again: how about some constructive ideas as to how we
                >>> engage with the folks deploying transcoders, to minimise the damage
                >>> they're doing?
                >>>
                >>> Tom
                >>>
                >>> On 7 Feb 2009, at 11:16, Jim McLachlan wrote:
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>> I've basically stopped reading the threads on this group because I get
                >>>> so annoyed by what I see going on. I have avoided getting involved
                >>>> because I don't have the abundant patience that Luca demonstrates.
                >>>> This will be my one posting about what I see.
                >>>>
                >>>> Seriously Luca, respect to you for not completely losing it by now.
                >>>>
                >>>> I just got my digest and yet again, I see Tom Hume posting his toxic
                >>>> time-wasting arguments. His arguments are a disturbing mix of
                >>>> weasel-words, slight-of-hand, manipulation and political double-talk.
                >>>> His only purpose on this forum seems to be to muddy the waters and
                >>>> endlessly argue in order to waste everyone's time. There *might* be
                >>>> one or two positive and useful contributions that he's made, but he
                >>>> has also post far too much rubbish to wade through.
                >>>>
                >>>> This is a really good example:
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>> Are there any transcoder vendors that *don't* offer this as a
                >>>>>
                >>>>>
                >>>> feature?
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>> InfoGin: http://www.infogin.com/solutions.asp
                >>>>> "Customized footers enable end users to continue their PC browsing
                >>>>> habits on their mobile devices, such as: History, Favorites and
                >>>>>
                >>>>>
                >>>> most-
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>> commonly surfed sites."
                >>>>>
                >>>>> OpenWave:
                >>>>>
                >>>>>
                >>>> http://www.openwave.com/us/products/mobile_internet_services/openweb/
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>> (see also PDF)
                >>>>> "OpenWeb enables operators to leverage their most unique asset -
                >>>>> information about subscriber preferences and location — to generate
                >>>>> revenue from targeted, personalized and context-based merchandising
                >>>>> and advertising."
                >>>>>
                >>>>> Volantis: http://www.volantis.com/transcoder
                >>>>> "Customers remain involved in the delivery chain when subscribers
                >>>>> browse "off-portal", allowing advertisements and menus to be
                >>>>> automatically inserted into headers and footers.
                >>>>>
                >>>>>
                >>>>>
                >>>> He is *clearly* saying with this comment that he finds this acceptable
                >>>> because "that's what everyone does". I'm sure that he'll argue that
                >>>> he didn't say that, or that he didn't mean that, or that "in the
                >>>> context of the entire thread... blah blah blah", but this is exactly
                >>>> my point. "I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some
                >>>> moments ago." Weasel words and double talk.
                >>>>
                >>>> All those quotes are one-sided and only express the benefits to
                >>>> operators. In each case they are just saying that they enable the
                >>>> insertion of additional (unrequested) content (adverts) into sites
                >>>> without the permission of the site author (copyright holder).
                >>>>
                >>>> A while ago, I saw a series of statements supporting Tom's right to
                >>>> have his say and arguing that Luca shouldn't ban him. If I remember
                >>>> correctly, that was due to "bad faith" arguing about the Manifesto.
                >>>> So, having logged make this post, what do I find, but yet another
                >>>> forum-troll response from Tom:
                >>>>
                >>>> "Thanks for the threat Luca, but I'm not talking about the Manifesto."
                >>>>
                >>>> Does anyone else see this deliberate attempt to wind up Luca by trying
                >>>> to dodge the rules about his behaviour by claiming that he's now
                >>>> arguing about something else?
                >>>>
                >>>> And the sarcasm!!!!!
                >>>>
                >>>> "So none of those vendors will deploy transcoders which use that
                >>>> feature they've all implemented and sell? They've all committed that
                >>>> they won't do that?
                >>>>
                >>>> Wow."
                >>>>
                >>>> "(that I found with a cursory search)"
                >>>>
                >>>> Tom, you are clearly a clever, well educated and eloquent man. You
                >>>> clearly have a good knowledge of the workings of the mobile industry.
                >>>> What is wrong with you? Get your act together. Make some useful,
                >>>> helpful, positive contributions or please leave the forum.
                >>>>
                >>>> Jim.
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>
                >> ------------------------------------
                >>
                >> As of July 14 2005, it's much easier to be banned from WMLProgramming!
                >> Please fail to read http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/ before
                >> you post.Yahoo! Groups Links
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > As of July 14 2005, it's much easier to be banned from WMLProgramming!
                > Please fail to read http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/ before you post.Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • David Tolnem
                ... Bye bye, wmlprogramming. It s been interesting. /David
                Message 7 of 16 , Feb 8, 2009
                  > Bye bye, Tom

                  Bye bye, wmlprogramming. It's been interesting.

                  /David
                • James Pearce
                  Ditto. I m sorry to see that a once-respected mailing list has become a running joke of the mobile industry. Mobile developers deserve a better reputation. The
                  Message 8 of 16 , Feb 8, 2009
                    Ditto. I'm sorry to see that a once-respected mailing list has become a
                    running joke of the mobile industry. Mobile developers deserve a better
                    reputation.

                    The sore point that Tom has touched on is simple but true. The Manifesto
                    hasn't been signed by any operators. Transcoder deployments are entirely
                    shaped by those companies' business models and strategies, and getting
                    lip-service from their vendors should only ever have been the start.

                    Rather than squabbling within the list and being extremely abusive about
                    other groups' work, it would have been helpful to have united to figure out
                    how to do that.

                    But I'll leave you to it. The constructive stuff is all happening over at
                    http://mobiForge.com, folks.

                    Sad day indeed.

                    James



                    2009/2/8 David Tolnem <yahoo@...>

                    > > Bye bye, Tom
                    >
                    > Bye bye, wmlprogramming. It's been interesting.
                    >
                    > /David
                    >
                    >


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Luca Passani
                    James, I think I have found a name for you. The jackal. You jump into an unrelated thread (which I had explicitly asked to please stop discussing), and you use
                    Message 9 of 16 , Feb 9, 2009
                      James, I think I have found a name for you. The jackal. You jump into an
                      unrelated thread (which I had explicitly asked to please stop
                      discussing), and you use it to smear falsity and infamy on
                      WMLprogramming and the Manifesto AND divert attention to the .Mobi stuff.

                      This forces me to set the record straight about a few things:

                      > http://mobiForge.com

                      I never said anything bad about .Mobi, but since you ask, I think that
                      the joke is a consortium that takes the data and the ideas from an
                      open-source project to create a tool they sell for money without feeding
                      anything back.
                      Also, .Mobi is backed by Vodafone, Google and Microsoft among others.
                      Questioning its independence would be more than legitimate.
                      Having the dotMobi ex-CTO accuse WMLprogramming of being a joke makes me
                      sad, because it means that I have misjudged your moral integrity all of
                      this time.

                      > once-respected mailing list has become a
                      > running joke of the mobile industry.

                      this is the mailing list on which WURFL, the GAP and the Manifesto were
                      born. Your attempt to wind me up started on the wrong foot.

                      > Manifesto

                      it was not signed by operators because they had nothing to gain in
                      signing it, but it was very well received, because they built their
                      transcoding requirements on it. Loads of real deployments have been
                      stopped, fixed and re-designed because of the Manifesto.
                      Compare this to W3C's CTG (backed by .mobi) which is still not final
                      after one and a half year of work and, so far, has achieved the following:
                      - allowed Novarra to deploy abusively in the name of W3C.
                      - has become a tool for transcoder vendors to get legitimation for
                      breaking HTTPS (they have not managed yet, but they are still trying)
                      - has become a tool for transcoder vendors to "optimize" already mobile
                      optimised sites(!) (still trying)

                      And of course, let's not forget that CTG's message to developers in this
                      moment is:

                      "Transcoders should leave your content alone, but if they don't, it is
                      your duty to place no-transcode headers on each and every file served.
                      This may work if transcoders are kind and abide by CTG"

                      (compare this to the Manifesto message "you don't need to do anything.
                      If some operator transcodes your content, refer them to the manifesto
                      which a very large share of the industry has embraced and *demand* that
                      your rights are respected").

                      > extremely abusive about other groups' work

                      if you are referring to CTG, the reality is that W3C has turned into an
                      instrument for justifying abusive behavior.
                      My reaction, which was admittedly strong at some point, was
                      proportionate to the actions which were being carried out in W3C's name.
                      Of course, this transcoder issue is embarassing for .Mobi, which would
                      like to build an image as a developer friend, but has vodafone and
                      google among its supporters. This is not my problem and, above all, it's
                      really pathetic that your reaction is to bring WMLprogramming to disrepute.

                      > Tom Hume

                      In almonst 10 years, nobody was banned that was not a spammer or a
                      no-strings-attached idiot. Tom is the first exception to this. The
                      problem is that he was on a scientific mission to create confusion and
                      he had been warned to stop several times. Since it's my duty to keep a
                      3000 developer strong list running smoothly and provide value to
                      everyone, I decided that this had to stop. And this decision came with
                      some regret, because Tom was an old-timer. Yet, it was the right thing
                      to do. I think that 10 years of service for the community buys me
                      credits to do this and be believed that it was the right thing to do.

                      Once more. Let's stop the Tom thread here.

                      Luca


                      James Pearce wrote:
                      > Ditto. I'm sorry to see that a once-respected mailing list has become a
                      > running joke of the mobile industry. Mobile developers deserve a better
                      > reputation.
                      >
                      > The sore point that Tom has touched on is simple but true. The Manifesto
                      > hasn't been signed by any operators. Transcoder deployments are entirely
                      > shaped by those companies' business models and strategies, and getting
                      > lip-service from their vendors should only ever have been the start.
                      >
                      > Rather than squabbling within the list and being extremely abusive about
                      > other groups' work, it would have been helpful to have united to figure out
                      > how to do that.
                      >
                      > But I'll leave you to it. The constructive stuff is all happening over at
                      > http://mobiForge.com, folks.
                      >
                      > Sad day indeed.
                      >
                      > James
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > 2009/2/8 David Tolnem <yahoo@...>
                      >
                      >
                      >> > Bye bye, Tom
                      >>
                      >> Bye bye, wmlprogramming. It's been interesting.
                      >>
                      >> /David
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.