Item removal: "I'll Take Liberty" aka www.threepersphere.com
I added the link because it was a nice aggregation of some of the people on my blogroll. I am removing it because it uses those same links as a means to drive hits to his own website, where advertising is now enabled.
I don't have an issue with generating ad revenue, per se. I do have an issue with revenue generation using other people's work, where the originator of the content doesn't use ads themself, or where the site in question generates no original content on its own.
Sorry...
If I am wrong on this one, so be it. To me, right now, it just looks like a way to ride on someone else's back and take the dime from them. I get enough of that from the government. I don't need it from people who wish to identify with the Liberty movement.
Pax,
Newbius
12 comments:
The one time I went there I got all kind of "suspicious site" warnings from my anti spy, anti pirate, anti they don't like bacon, web security devices.
Good point Newb.
I'm sorry you feel that way. Please see my note at ThreeperSphere.
I use ads on my sites. I also generate my own content. It would feel a bit strange to get ad revenue from other's work. The only content I use from others is that I gather from interviews, where they know ahead of time it will be published.
I don't think you are off on this. It is a persona call, but one I would make in the same fashion.
@ThreeperSphere regarding your note: To me the issue isn't about how much revenue you generate on ads. It is the principle of utilizing other people's intellectual property for your own gain.
I would think that someone who professes to be a "threeper" and who claims to understand the fundamental issues of Life, Liberty, and Property, would grasp why I am objecting.
I'll reiterate. I may be off base here, and I am OK with that.
Newbius and others, I went to his site and read some of the content about this. I noticed (I think I noticed?) neither you nor he has James Wesley, Rawles listed on your blog, although a lot of you have him listed and even some others of you must read his site at least some of the time. I didn't see much, in my quick read, that would seperate his site from others I read everyday. Rawles probably makes more on his site than most of you do and he publishes nothing other than other peoples stuff. Thats my take anyway. I don't have him listed on my computer as I haven't even heard of him until this evening. Theres no reason to add this site for me as I usually read all the others listed there every day anyhow. Sorry for the long post but a lot of you are guilty of the same old same old and I read you every day. Hell, I read Brigid every day in hopes of just seeing a full on picture of her, just full face or full body I don't care which. I also know that's not going to happen for her security sake.
I am aware of Rawles, I have his books. Look, we all link around to each other, usually with our own commentary added, and that's fine.
When "Jennifer III" had a Wordpress blog, it was on my sidebar, as was the current site until yesterday. If I want an RSS Reader to feed me links to sites I go to anyway, I can get it done another way without having to filter out the ads, whose revenue is not shared with the source (royalties, anybody?).
Oh, and double-check the "Fair Use" laws again, I am pretty sure there are limitations on Commercial Use without written permission...
I have no personal beef with "Jennifer III". I am just objecting to the "ThreeperSphere" site's current composition, which gives the impression that the originating authors like Mike V, Pete @ WRSA, and the other authors linked there support, contribute to, and/or benefit from being linked there.
If it's useful information, and somebody is making sure it stays up, and makes money for that service, I have no problem. The bigger question is: is/was "Jennifer III" a real person, really one of us, or was she a prank? Too many weird things happened on and about that site.
That's right Capitalism IS evil isn't it? It isn't? It is? I'm so confused.
Actually, Mr. Anonymous (why is it always "Anonymous" who is throwing the sand?), collectivism is evil.
If I choose to give my work product away freely, I am still a Capitalist, as it is MY capital to spend as I choose. A Collectivists desires to use my work product for their own gain, monetary or otherwise, then tries to justify the activity as being for "the greater good" or "for the movement".
Touched a nerve, did I?
Wonder why?
Anonymous,
Not really. I don't take seriously those who refuse to take a stand, and who just throw rocks from the sidelines. Bring something substantive to the discussion, and be willing to put a name behind it (even a pseudonym), and I might consider you an irritant.
Right now you are just a troll...
Post a Comment