HI,

Ed published an email from me in his book Time Bomb 2000. I never gave him permission to do so. This is the truth.

-- (lurker@here.com), October 09, 1999

Answers

lurker,

I'd appreciate it if you could provide details. My standard practice is to contact anyone whose email I'm thinking of including in a book, in order to make sure it's okay with them. It has nothing to do with the fine points of copyright law, which other posters have debated on another thread; I do it simply because it's the ethical thing to do, and it's the way I would want to be treated. In addition, my publisher (Prentice Hall) harrasses me to do it, because it's good business practice.

So I'm surprised to hear that I published an email from you without your permission. Could it be that you used an email pseudonym like "lurker@here.com"? In any case, please do let us know what the message was...

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), October 09, 1999.

All,

An individual contacted me a couple of days ago to indicate that she had sent me an email message while the first edition of "Time Bomb 20- 00" was being written, and that I incorporated her message into the book without her permission. It appears that she is right; I checked my email archives and found a couple of email interactions with her, but no formal request for permission. Here's what I wrote to her yesterday:

but I don't see any email messages in which I asked your permission to use [your message]. One possibility is that I sent all those requests out after we finished the first draft of the book, at the end of August, 1997; your first message to me arrived, as you can see, in late September. Another possibility is that I sent the request by snail- mail, but that seems unlikely since I don't know your address. Still another possibility is that my publisher told me that I didn't have to obtain your permission, since your first message indicated that you wished to be anonymous. And, of course, there is also the possibility that I blew it completely, and simply forgot to ask your permission. If that's the case, I certainly apologize."

"The business of contacting people who sent me email messages was a fairly serious business at the time, especially since one of the correspondents had mentioned a computer vendor that felt was definitely non-compliant; and while the draft version of the manuscript was available on my web-site, the vendor noticed the situation, and threatened to sue everyone in sight. So if I did neglect to contact you, it was an oversight, not a conscious omission."

********************** If "lurker" had a similar experience, then I owe him/her an apology, too.

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), October 10, 1999.

So what?You feel that you've been violated?If you're such a victim,get a lawer and file a lawsuit.Do it on judge Judy so we can all laugh at you.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), October 09, 1999.

Gee, wonder what prompted this ???? I sent Michael Hyatt an e-mail and the contents were put in his book. No permission, but not a second thought.

-- BH (silentvoice@pobox.com), October 09, 1999.

You are all complaining about having yourselves published on another thread. Is Ed publising my email any different.

I figured you'd all jump on me for this.

-- (lurker@here.com), October 09, 1999.

Gosh, I've never heard of a letter being published without the author's permission. Heck, I've had several letters to the Houston Chronicle published. Not once did I give my permission. I should sue.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), October 09, 1999.

I sent Larry McMurtry a letter of appreciation for his work. I compared some of his novels to soaring arias that entranced me with their beauty. Guess how his next book ended?

Get over yourself.

Zev

-- Zev Barak (zev@msn.com), October 09, 1999.

I think what Zoobie is trying to say is that the frivoloty of filing a lawsuit this late in the game coupled with the ironicness of having it aired on Judge Judy's show will cause even the most humor challenged GI to have a smile on his face.

-- What is he trying to say (may@never.know), October 09, 1999.

BH....

Then why is everyone complaining about having their comments published?? What's the difference? Is it because Ed Yourdon did the writing??

-- (lurker@here.com), October 09, 1999.

lurker is right. before you jump on lurker, read the loooooong thread oct. 8 "how many of regulars and trolls would mind if I..." from someone who wanted to publish emails from THIS forum in his book. never saw so many regulars scream "NO!!!!!!!!!!!!... GOT NO RIGHT TO DO THAT!!!!!!!!!! Not MY words. They are copyrighted." What hubris. If you don't want to share your thoughts, keep em to yourself. Please. This is a public forum.

-- (dont tell em anything@zip.com), October 09, 1999.

Hey lurker...

CONGRATULATIONS !!!

You should be proud.

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 09, 1999.

I've never had any of my e-mails published-that I know of. But then, I never read Ed's book...uh-oh. jk

-- chairborne commando (what-me-worry@armageddon.com), October 09, 1999.

There's a subtle difference between sending a letter to an editorial page, a writer, publisher, magazine, newsletter, company, newspaper and the case of a private piece of mail between two people.

If I sent an email to Ed who I know writes books and submits material to magazines on the topic of computers, Y2K and such, I would not be surprised to see my letter or portions there of in print.

On the other hand, if I send private email to KOS expressing my secret desire to engage in a three-way mud match with Diane Squire (after she finishes off the Pollies with the Hartz Polly-off). I'd feel betrayed if KOS revealed such personal, deep feelings to the world.

Material in this forum is in the middle. I don't consider my writing here to be public domain. Yet, it is not as private as the KOS example.

-- cory (kiyoinc@ibm.XOUT.net), October 09, 1999.

I agree with Cory, the 'who its to' and 'context' makes the difference. In my case (above) it was in response to MH invitation to help 'edit' his work. Complaining, not me

-- BH (silentvoice@pobox.com), October 09, 1999.

I think the furor of "fuggeddaboudit!" notes to the anonymous wannabe author of the earlier thread had more to do with the fact that he disclosed neither his identity nor his intentions.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), October 09, 1999.

Personally I would be honored to have anything I have posted printed in Ed Yourdon's books.

-- Butt Nugget (nubuttet@better.mousetrap), October 09, 1999.

LOL Cory!!!

Ed... YOU have my permission to include anything I write.

;-D

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), October 09, 1999.

When an anonymous individual announces his intention to produce a book composed of opinions expressed on this forum, we have no idea as to his/her intent. Will the quotations be presented in their original context? Will portions of sentences be printed as if they stood alone?

We have all seen how editors can turn the meaning of a person's words to make them appear to be saying the opposite of what the person intended. What someone else has done has nothing to do with my perspective on the matter. If I am writing for publication, I want to know it up front.

regards,

Gene

-- gene (ekbaker@essex1.com), October 09, 1999.

What this thread poster seems to be falling back on is the old Ad hominem Tu Quoque, (You too!), logical fallacy. This new thread of course is related to the previous one from the 'anonymous' paperback writer concerning potential copyright infringement.

For a great list of logical fallacies try: Fallacies http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Constant and purposeful use of logical fallacies in dialogue demonstrates a failure of critical thinking. For more information on critical thinking try here: Logical Fallacies http://www.criticalthinking.org/University/univlibrary/cthistory.nclk

It's a K-8 world!

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 09, 1999.

Oops....last link is correct but the title is: A Brief History of Critical Thinking

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 09, 1999.

The point is this! Ed published an email without my permission. This is why I don't understand all the complaining on the other thread about having comments published.

-- (lurker@here.com), October 09, 1999.

lurker, this is between Ed and yourself. Why are you wasting our time with this?

-- Please (noone@nowhere.com), October 09, 1999.

Lurker,

Hey dimwit, we are familiar with the quality of material that Ed publishes and we trust him. That other moron gave us no info and I'd be willing to bet he is going to make a mockery of our comments. Get a clue.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 09, 1999.

everyone's a victim now a days.....

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), October 09, 1999.

lurker,

Ed is an ethical guy and we know who he is. He is saying that he couldn't contact you for permission because he doesn't have your email address.

As for Author announcing that if we didn't answer in 15 seconds he/she would not only use our posts, but publish our email addresses, which may be live, that is unscrupulous to the max!!!

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), October 09, 1999.

Look, there is never an easy answer to how to treat "private" communications, and anyone who doubts this should consider how our court system has struggled with it all these years. I mean, if someone tells you "in confidence" that they have committed a serious crime, are you going to keep quiet? Even if possibly the wrong person has been charged with it? Even if you are bound by a doctor-patient relationship? Etc., etc.

Internet e-mail, especially when annonymous names and addresses are involved, hardly constitute what I would consider to be "private" communication. But that's just my $0.02. The best advice that I have ever heard on anything regarding e-mail is to ALWAYS ASSUME that once you have written and sent it,it is now in the public domain.

Of course, if you receive e-mail from someone that REQUESTS that it be kept confidential, then I would think that the honorable thing is to indeed keep it confidential. Like Cory's e-mail the other day regarding the 3-way with Diane, for example. (BTW, Cory, I'm sorry, but the part about all those damn doughnuts is just way more than I care to think about. Gawd, now THAT is some kind of kinky!!)

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 09, 1999.

Well, since this is Ed's ballpark, so to speak, I think he probably has the right to publish anything posted on his site.

Although, I would have a problem with anyone else doing the same thing.

-- ActionBill (actionbil@aol.com), October 09, 1999.

Lurker,

It is a mixed-up murky world. I understand your puzzlement as to why other forum users complained about having comments from here published. As long as my comments are published in their entirety (typos and all) then I don't mind. If someone else is going to be making a profit then I would prefer if that profit went to something I can condone.

Nonetheless, I realize that once I send my words off into cyber space, anything could happen to them. Technically, a writer's worda are the property of the writer. However if that writer wrote anonymously then they are pretty much relinquishing any control because they would have a tough time proving they wrote it in the first place.

This forum bucks the mainstream media and dominant paradigm daily. Its no wonder we are a touchy bunch. Our words are important to us because its all we have to stem the tidal wave of ignorance, apathy and just plain deceit which surrounds us about Y2k. Many of us expect to lose loved ones because of the lies being foisted every where we turn. The possibility that our own words might be twisted and used to confuse others still further is terrifying. So cut the folks some slack. They are all trying to save the people they care most about and their words are the only tool they have.

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), October 09, 1999.

If you all haven't noticed yet, lurker has yet to respond to Ed's question.

-- lynne (leaves8@hotmail.com), October 09, 1999.

I hate to say I told you so, but I posted in the thread from "Author" that it smelled like troll. That thread was the wind up, and - badda boom, badda bing - this here thread's the pitch. Set up like a bowling pin, as the old song went.

The lesson here is not who can publish what, but rather it is best to stop and think before you give in to righteous indignation. The high blown rhetoric of the other thread, now looks like so much hypocrisy, regardless of how sincerely it was meant at the time.

I'm sorry, but it's score one for the pollies.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), October 09, 1999.

To ALL,

If you are concerned about your posts being published, you can always put "copyright 1999" then add your name.

That way you should be safe from any unauthorized publication.

Copyright 1999 ActionBill

-- ActionBill (actionbil@aol.com), October 09, 1999.

Lurker,

I dont think that folks got your original point. So you wrote....

The point is this! Ed published an email without my permission. This is why I don't understand all the complaining on the other thread about having comments published. -- (lurker@here.com), October 09, 1999.

Ed has answered you and you have ignored him. Seems he is very kind and won't take your head off.

-- the Virginian (unknown@unknown.com), October 09, 1999.

Posts to a public forum are a different animal than personal mail. Generally speaking, an e-mail is treated in law the same as a snail-mail letter. Again, generally speaking, such a letter becomes the personal property of the recipient who can then do with it as he or she wishes. Forum posts are generally treated as intellectual property as, for instance, a magazine article would be.

The foregoing is not to be construed as legal advice. I am not a lawyer and do not play one, but have played with several--once during a memorable water-gun fight in New Orleans City Park. But I digress.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), October 09, 1999.

lurker, you said:

"Ed published an email from me in his book Time Bomb 2000. I never gave him permission to do so. This is the truth."

Perhaps, but I'm having a bit of a problem with that since Ed published a couple of emails from me in his book "Death March" only after soliciting my permission both through email and with a multi- part form from the publisher that I read, signed and returned (after taking my copy, of course). Other correspondance was quoted in a short-lived publication called "Ed Yourdon's Guerilla Programmer" only after obtaining permission via e-mail. (Ed, FWIW, I really miss GP.)

I've been corresponding with Ed on various computing issues for about seven years, and I have never known him to be anything other than professional, ethical and (best of all) decent in his treatment of me or of anyone else. lurker, I'm not saying that you are wrong, but I am saying that this is difficult for me to believe given long-term experience with Ed. It will take more than the say-so of an anonymous poster with no direction towards the offending quote to convince me that Ed's motives or his actions are not honorable in this area.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), October 09, 1999.

The ohter point was that , PRIOR to the publication of TB2K, hte forum was used to elicit feedback and to identify errors and errata. PERHAPS one who responded to that forum at that time SHOULD have expected something of the sort.

I most certainly would assume that anything I contribute to HumptyDumpty would be fair game,as that is a forum currently specifically for the thinking through what is to be done on the other side, and coming up with options. Humpty Dumpty is a work in progress as was TB2K.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), October 09, 1999.

Wow! A complicated and very well textured thread.

Why did so many of us presume, from the begining, that this troll was actually telling the truth? In our zeal to critically investigate an apparent contradiction in our own thoughts, did we overlook the obvious probability? We should not have accepted the troll's characterization of Ed Y. without further evidence, for to do so damages Ed's credibility. Could this have been the purpose of the troll?

By the way, thanks for the link to info on 'critical thinking'. It is a great summary of the growth of the scientific method. The article on 'fallacies' is just as important to me as an earlier article on 'dis/information'. IMHO, we could all benefit from a more thorough study of these articles.

Sincerely,

-- Uhmm.. (jfcp81a@prodigy.com), October 10, 1999.

I'm sure Ed is an ethical guy. Any writer knows he or she should get permission to publish letters, etc. I think lurker is trying to cause trouble here. Another polly. Ed wouldn't lie.

-- (JoeSixPack@america.com), October 10, 1999.

Did ya see that MR. Neuhardt?

-- (hmm@hmm.com), October 11, 1999.

Ummm, Did you see that? Trolls don't lie. :)

-- (hmmm@hmmm.com), October 11, 1999.

"Did ya see that MR. Neuhardt?"

Sure did, and it changes nothing. My statement was not that I was sure that the incident described did not happen, only that I doubted it had. Show me a person who's never believed one thing only to find out another happened and I'll show you a person who's never believed in anything.

Secondly, I stated that I had no doubts about Ed's ethics or professionalism in this area, and I still don't. He admits to a mistake and apologizes for it. Furthermore, it was an oversight that was easily made under the circumstances. Show me a person who never made a mistake and I'll show you a person who's never done anything.

I understand your reluctance to accept that Ed's motives might be good given your experience, but you should accept that my experience makes me reluctant to accept the opposite.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), October 12, 1999.

Quite a brown nose you have there Mr. Neuhardt. Ed must have the cleanest butt in the USA. I suppose you read the thread about getting out of large cities where Ed glossed over that statement about Beruit. Hoffmeister called him on it with a direct quote.

Mr. Yourdon, are you related to the president? :)

-- (hmmm@hmm.com), October 12, 1999.