Ex-top 10 Cornas producers thread?

[Gerhard_P]

@Lyle Fass

No Neal. It was a Top 10 list of the best, that my partner rudely posted without my permission. He knows I don’t post here and I have banned him from posting here ( I am the majority partner, so I can do that) but he still did it. I asked a mod to delete it. Thanks.

So YOU were it who made this (Top 10 …) list which omitted three major producers !
???

I feel slightly angry about a totally deleted thread … with some of my replies …!

[Ian_Sutton]

Lyle
How dare you (or your business colleague) not post about wines that you may have an interest in!
I demand that you facilitate the reinstatement of the original thread.
As it stands this forum has nothing to criticise, which is frankly unacceptable (and bloody dangerous for the next innocent thread starter).
regards
Ian

[Ramon_C]

I like Lyle’s top 10 write-up, although I may disagree with some of the contents.

i just wished that they deleted the original post, as requested, and left the rest of the responses. I had a few there, too.

[Arv_R]

So what are the new / best top 10 Cornas producers?

[Andrew_Hamilton]

@Lyle Fass

@Robert Alfert

Wait, so one person can pull a thread that had valuable contributions from others?

it’s called having connections. But seriously he took my post from my blog, which is my work and shared it in a place i don’t want it to be shared. Whatever else happens beyond that in the thread is not relevant.

It is unfortunate that this has to be aired out like this but he will not stop posting my material.

But you posted it publicly on the Internet. More to the point your blog is hosted by Google on Blogspot and therefore your post is no longer solely your property. If you want to operate a “walled garden” on the Internet you might want to look into password protecting your content and hosting on your own infrastructure. You also might want to read Google’s terms of service regarding your content on Blogspot. Specifically:

When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content.

from https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/

[JulianD]

I think you misread that… it doesn’t give ANYONE a license to use it. It gives Google and its associates license.

Plus, this isn’t a public board - the owner of this website can set whatever rules he wants with regard to private property or privacy, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue.

[Andrew_Hamilton]

@JulianD

I think you misread that… it doesn’t give ANYONE a license to use it. It gives Google and its associates license.

Plus, this isn’t a public board - the owner of this website can set whatever rules he wants with regard to private property or privacy, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue.

I think it depends on what your definition of a public site is Julian. Wine Talk is freely accessible via the Internet without authentication and search engine crawlers routinely index the content here. Furthermore I’m not arguing that Todd or the moderators don’t have the right to curate any content on this site at their own discretion, obviously they do.

More to the point though I’m trying to highlight that Lyle’s post on top 10 Cornas producers isn’t copyrighted or protected in any manner and therefore reproduction of that material in other places isn’t something he can control. Where on the page we’re discussing, or any other part of his blogspot site, do you see any mention of copyright or an explicit barring of reproduction of posted material? So are you trying to argue that non-copyrighted content isn’t able to be freely distributed on the Internet, because that’s how I see this situation.

[Cam_Wheeler]

@Andrew Hamilton

More to the point though I’m trying to highlight that Lyle’s post on top 10 Cornas producers isn’t copyrighted or protected in any manner and therefore reproduction of that material in other places isn’t something he can control. Where on the page we’re discussing, or any other part of his blogspot site, do you see any mention of copyright or an explicit barring of reproduction of posted material? So are you trying to argue that non-copyrighted content isn’t able to be freely distributed on the Internet, because that’s how I see this situation.

You don’t need to mention copyright for it to be copyrighted, it is in fact automatic.

[Neal.Mollen]

It is a matter of courtesy, not law. Lyle’s original content was used without his permission and posted on a board with which he doesn’t want to be associated. The powers that be (or, in this case, a minion of the power that is) responded to his request to have it deleted. It wasn’t a question of whether he had the legal right to “order” that it be done, but whether Todd’s Empire agreed to do so. As Jorge said, that’s really the beginning and end of it.

My issue was (and is) that the content of those who wanted it here, for the benefit of all, got thrown out with the bathwater unnecessarily. FWIW, I doubt Todd et al were asked to delete the entire thread, only the “pirated” text. If they were asked to delete the whole thread, I would have said no, emphatically, and it is disappointing that that wasn’t the response, if, again, that was the request

[Jorge_Henriquez]

@Neal.Mollen

It is a matter of courtesy, not law. Lyle’s original content was used without his permission and posted on a board with which he doesn’t want to be associated. The powers that be (or, in this case, a minion of the power that is) responded to his request to have it deleted. It wasn’t a question of whether he had the legal right to “order” that it be done, but whether Todd’s Empire agreed to do so. As Jorge said, that’s really the beginning and end of it.

My issue was (and is) that the content of those who wanted it here, for the benefit of all, got thrown out with the bathwater unnecessarily. FWIW, I doubt Todd et al were asked to delete the entire thread, only the “pirated” text. If they were asked to delete the whole thread, I would have said no, emphatically, and it is disappointing that that wasn’t the response, if, again, that was the request

Unfortunately that was indeed the request and I acted out of haste in partially not wanting to deal with the “follow up” that would surely have continued by Mr. Fass. My primary error was not consulting Todd. Lesson learned and mistake that will not be repeated.

I assure you, Neal, Mr. Fass made it clear that the aftermath, had the thread not been deleted, would have been “nuclear”.

[Neal.Mollen]

@Jorge Henriquez

@Neal.Mollen

It is a matter of courtesy, not law. Lyle’s original content was used without his permission and posted on a board with which he doesn’t want to be associated. The powers that be (or, in this case, a minion of the power that is) responded to his request to have it deleted. It wasn’t a question of whether he had the legal right to “order” that it be done, but whether Todd’s Empire agreed to do so. As Jorge said, that’s really the beginning and end of it.

My issue was (and is) that the content of those who wanted it here, for the benefit of all, got thrown out with the bathwater unnecessarily. FWIW, I doubt Todd et al were asked to delete the entire thread, only the “pirated” text. If they were asked to delete the whole thread, I would have said no, emphatically, and it is disappointing that that wasn’t the response, if, again, that was the request

Unfortunately that was indeed the request and I acted out of haste in partially not wanting to deal with the “follow up” that would surely have continued by Mr. Fass. My primary error was not consulting Todd. Lesson learned and mistake that will not be repeated.

I assure you, Neal, Mr. Fass made it clear that the aftermath, had the thread not been deleted, would have been “nuclear”.

Well, that’s disappointing. I appreciate the work you guys do and that it can be thankless, so I completely get how this could happen. But the idea that he would demand that the thread – and the content that had zero to do with him – be deleted is both entirely in keeping with who he is and always has been and totally off base. Sad that we ended up here. The notion that he would have “gone nuclear” about your refusal to delete content that was not his is both laughable and, I suppose, entirely predictable.

[Robert.A.Jr]

@Cam Wheeler

@Andrew Hamilton

More to the point though I’m trying to highlight that Lyle’s post on top 10 Cornas producers isn’t copyrighted or protected in any manner and therefore reproduction of that material in other places isn’t something he can control. Where on the page we’re discussing, or any other part of his blogspot site, do you see any mention of copyright or an explicit barring of reproduction of posted material? So are you trying to argue that non-copyrighted content isn’t able to be freely distributed on the Internet, because that’s how I see this situation.

You don’t need to mention copyright for it to be copyrighted, it is in fact automatic.

Does that prevent us from posting a link? I see this the way Andrew does.

[Robert.A.Jr]

@Jorge Henriquez

I assure you, Neal, Mr. Fass made it clear that the aftermath, had the thread not been deleted, would have been “nuclear”.

What exactly does that mean? Weird how peope trying to sell stuff will conduct their business. I could never imagine buying anything from this guy. I was on his emailer and just could not get myself to pull the trigger on any of his otherwise very cool offerings given his occasional eruptions on this site. I just unsubscribed. Too many very nice businesses to deal with odd ones.

[Neal.Mollen]

Just FYI, 17 U.S. Code § 102:

(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.

Your architectural works and pantomimes do not have to carry a copyright symbol to be protected

[Robert.A.Jr]

@Neal.Mollen

Just FYI, 17 U.S. Code § 102:

(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.

Your architectural works and pantomimes do not have to carry a copyright symbol to be protected

That sexy snap chat video I sent you is protected then, do not send to the WB crowd.

[Neal.Mollen]

.

[Neal.Mollen]

@Robert Alfert

@Neal.Mollen

Just FYI, 17 U.S. Code § 102:

(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.

Your architectural works and pantomimes do not have to carry a copyright symbol to be protected

That sexy snap chat video I sent you is protected then, do not send to the WB crowd.

I deleted it immediately. Plus, I’d never think of it without permission from you, Cory, and the mule

[Robert.A.Jr]

@Neal.Mollen

.

Good thing you took that video down, I’dda gone nuk-lee-r!

[Markus_S]

Heh heh heh…

[David_K2]

@Neal.Mollen

@Jorge Henriquez

I assure you, Neal, Mr. Fass made it clear that the aftermath, had the thread not been deleted, would have been “nuclear”.

The notion that he would have “gone nuclear” about your refusal to delete content that was not his is both laughable and, I suppose, entirely predictable.

I have to say, although there was a lot of good content in the now-deleted thread, losing it was almost worth it in order to get this amazing quote. What does “going nuclear” even mean for a wine merchant? Maybe a big “blast” email?