Rachel speaks:, Embarassing details about life dating Jimbo Options

[Heat]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman...ticle914989.ece

Text and the City
BEING dumped is never a pleasant experience.

But most spurned lovers at least get the news in person.

So spare a thought for Rachel Marsden, who only realised her fella had given her the elbow when she read it on website Wikipedia.

Jimmy “Jimbo” Wales is a co-founder of the web encyclopedia but took his pledge to provide up-to-date information too far when he used Wikipedia to axe his romance with Rachel, 33, – allegedly without telling her first.

Last week Jimmy, 41, posted this statement on his Wikipedia page: “I am no longer involved with Rachel Marsden.”

Rachel, a political commentator who lives in New York and had been seeing Jimmy for two months, was stunned.

She said: “The first I knew of it was when I started receiving emails on my Blackberry from people saying ‘have you seen Wikipedia? I think Jimmy’s just broken up with you.’ I don’t think I realised at first that he was actually ending the relationship.

“I tried to call him but he didn’t answer his phone. Hours later he got back to me on an online instant messaging service.

“I wrote, ‘I think we need to talk, is that right, you just dumped me on Wikipedia?’

And he replied, ‘Yeah, I want to end it, I hope that’s fine.’

“To follow a dumping on Wikipedia with an online instant message is unbelievable. So I followed it with an email calling him a slime bag and a sleaze. What kind of man does that?”

But Rachel didn’t stop there. She hit back at Jimmy’s public airing of their dirty laundry by airing HIS dirty laundry in public. She dug out a T-shirt and jumper her former lover had left at her home and put them up for sale on internet auction site eBay.

The accompanying message read: “Hi, my name is Rachel and my (now ex) boyfriend, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, just broke up with me via an announcement on Wikipedia.”

She said: “When Jimmy finished with me I was pretty hurt. I really liked this guy and thought the relationship had some longevity.

“However, the manner in which he dumped me suggests that maybe I am better off without him.

“It was all pretty embarrassing so I thought I would make the best of it by trying to have a laugh. After all, he was the one who made it public in the first place.”

The details of Jimmy and Rachel’s liaison offer a fascinating insight into the high-tech world of modern dating.

Rachel revealed that a hefty proportion of her two-month relationship with Florida-based Jimmy was conducted via the web.

She said: “Jimmy is obsessed with instant messaging services which allow you to chat ‘live’ online. On his insistence I ended up joining two.

“Jimmy also insisted I get a service called Skype which allows you to make phone calls over the internet and speak via webcam.

“I wasn’t sure at first as it all sounded kind of sleazy to me.

“But he insisted it was a good way to keep in touch because he was constantly travelling. In the end we talked every night.

“But as I suspected, inevitably there were times when he was lying naked in bed with the laptop and you can imagine what happened. He encouraged that kind of thing but I really wasn’t into it.”

However, Rachel said conducting a love affair online wasn’t all bad.

She said: “Really our first date was over Skype and it was actually really good.

“Sure you are speaking over a webcam but in many ways there are a lot fewer distractions than when you are on a normal date. And the first time we used the webcam we laughed till we cried.

“So in some senses I think the internet can be good for modern relationships, especially if it is long-distance.

“But Jimmy was just so obsessed with that stuff that it went too far.

“He wanted to be in contact all the time through technology and I personally don’t believe that can ever be a substitute for real face-to-face contact.

“I basically found I was dating a giant computer.

“Jimmy would continually be on this website called Twitter where you write one-sentence updates on what you are doing at that moment, even small things like ‘I’m making a sandwich’. I couldn’t understand it.

“Once his daughter called him because she was upset and he told her to instant-message him about it, which seemed very weird.

“He is a personable guy but it is like he is incapable of verbal communication.” But instant messages between the two leaked to a California weblog show that online loving could get Rachel cyber-sizzling.

When Jimmy wrote about South Korea’s broadband infrastructure, an excited Rachel replied: “When you talk about megabits and broadband you have no idea what it does to me. lol.”

Rachel and Jimmy’s relationship was never what you would call conventional. They got to know each other, more than two years ago, when Rachel threatened to sue Jimmy over her Wikipedia biography.

They corresponded over the issue then, months later, stumbled across each other again on Facebook.

Embarrassingly for Jimmy, his public spat with Rachel raised questions over whether his editing of her biog broke Wikipedia’s guiding principals – the site demands that all content should be written from a “neutral point of view”.

Rachel suspects that it was Jimmy’s fears that his involvement with her page would be seen as a conflict of interest that prompted him to dump her so abruptly.

She said: “He was paranoid about it coming out that we were dating. He never explained why he was so secretive so I can only speculate that he feared people would accuse him of a conflict of interests.

“Given his paranoia, however, it seems weird that he broke up with me in such a public way.”

Rachel says she will steer away from “techies” in future.

She said: “I will try to find someone who is comfortable talking face to face.

“I’ve had break-ups before that have been weird – but nothing like this.”

This post has been edited by Heat: Fri 14th March 2008, 3:17pm

[Happy drinker]

So people keep going on about BLP and the need to remove stuff from BLP articles, but when somebody does so, you complain? Is the suggestion that Jimbo is in some sense subhuman hence not entitled to the same rights as you would grant to others?

And I strongly suspect it was a copyvio.

This post has been edited by Happy drinker: Mon 2nd November 2009, 9:24pm

[Alison]

So people keep going on about BLP and the need to remove stuff from BLP articles, but when somebody does so, you complain? Is the suggestion that Jimbo is in some sense subhuman hence not entitled to the same rights as you would grant to others?

In the sense, maybe, that his chat-up lines are puerile in the extreme

There are currently 885 editors watching Jimmy's BLP. Just how many do you think are watching the average Joe's (or Jo's? Melissa McEwan's BLP had lain vandalized for over two months before being reverted). So yeah - he's superhuman, more like

And I strongly suspect it was a copyvio.

How so, if Rachel released it publicly, and it was her conversation, too?

[GlassBeadGame]

So people keep going on about BLP and the need to remove stuff from BLP articles, but when somebody does so, you complain? Is the suggestion that Jimbo is in some sense subhuman hence not entitled to the same rights as you would grant to others?

In the sense, maybe, that his chat-up lines are puerile in the extreme

There are currently 885 editors watching Jimmy's BLP. Just how many do you think are watching the average Joe's (or Jo's? Melissa McEwan's BLP had lain vandalized for over two months before being reverted). So yeah - he's superhuman, more like

And I strongly suspect it was a copyvio.

How so, if Rachel released it publicly, and it was her conversation, too?

Next mafia bosses will say wiretaps or at least text messages are copyvios, too. Everything that is imputed on a keyboard is not a creative work.

[Milton Roe]

Next mafia bosses will say wiretaps or at least text messages are copyvios, too. Everything that is imputed on a keyboard is not a creative work.

Actually it is. In the US, it is copyrighted the moment it is recorded by a medium like your hard disk. Reproducing it without permission exposes you to liability, unless you can show fair use. And in the U.S., printing somebody's email would probably violate the stored communications act (SCA), except for materials specifically named in a warrant.

What happens when one person prints an emailed conversation between two people? Hard to say. The states vary on the legality of voice-recording (in some states only one person has to know it's being done, in others, two). At the fed level, I think it would come down to the SCA, if the communication was over the phone lines, which it certainly would be in most cases.

[GlassBeadGame]

Next mafia bosses will say wiretaps or at least text messages are copyvios, too. Everything that is imputed on a keyboard is not a creative work.

Actually it is. In the US, it is copyrighted the moment it is recorded by a medium like your hard disk. Reproducing it without permission exposes you to liability, unless you can show fair use. And in the U.S., printing somebody's email would probably violate the stored communications act (SCA), except for materials specifically named in a warrant.

What happens when one person prints an emailed conversation between two people? Hard to say. The states vary on the legality of voice-recording (in some states only one person has to know it's being done, in others, two). At the fed level, I think it would come down to the SCA, if the communication was over the phone lines, which it certainly would be in most cases.

No it's not. Mere conversation is not property. Asking your girlfriend for a blowjob is not a creative work. Just like Freud saw everything as sex some people see everything as property.

[Milton Roe]

Next mafia bosses will say wiretaps or at least text messages are copyvios, too. Everything that is imputed on a keyboard is not a creative work.

Actually it is. In the US, it is copyrighted the moment it is recorded by a medium like your hard disk. Reproducing it without permission exposes you to liability, unless you can show fair use. And in the U.S., printing somebody's email would probably violate the stored communications act (SCA), except for materials specifically named in a warrant.

What happens when one person prints an emailed conversation between two people? Hard to say. The states vary on the legality of voice-recording (in some states only one person has to know it's being done, in others, two). At the fed level, I think it would come down to the SCA, if the communication was over the phone lines, which it certainly would be in most cases.

No it's not. Mere conversation is not property. Asking your girlfriend for a blowjob is not a creative work. Just like Freud saw everything as sex some people see everything as property.

Voice conversation is not property, but as soon as any conversation is recorded in a fixed medium (such as an exchange of paper letters, or even in a tape recording), it is automatically copyrighted under US law, and then it IS property (the physical letters and tapes are property of the ordinary kind, and their content is intellectual property of the same kind as a novel or essay). Such stuff doesn't have to be judged to be "creative."

Which is good, or else the copyright laws would have to somehow attempt to define "creativity." And, except for my own stuff , that would cause a lot of difficulty, because some nameless people's letters, and other communications committed to media while being sent, are hackneyed and boring as hell. Imagine the courts having to decide IF they were creative enough to be copyrightable.

Actually it is. In the US, it is copyrighted the moment it is recorded by a medium like your hard disk. Reproducing it without permission exposes you to liability, unless you can show fair use. And in the U.S., printing somebody's email would probably violate the stored communications act (SCA), except for materials specifically named in a warrant.

Only if the material so recorded embodies something which can be the subject of a copyright. If there's no creative content, there's no copyright.

I recommend perusal of the WP article on copyright.

[GlassBeadGame]

Next mafia bosses will say wiretaps or at least text messages are copyvios, too. Everything that is imputed on a keyboard is not a creative work.

Actually it is. In the US, it is copyrighted the moment it is recorded by a medium like your hard disk. Reproducing it without permission exposes you to liability, unless you can show fair use. And in the U.S., printing somebody's email would probably violate the stored communications act (SCA), except for materials specifically named in a warrant.

What happens when one person prints an emailed conversation between two people? Hard to say. The states vary on the legality of voice-recording (in some states only one person has to know it's being done, in others, two). At the fed level, I think it would come down to the SCA, if the communication was over the phone lines, which it certainly would be in most cases.

No it's not. Mere conversation is not property. Asking your girlfriend for a blowjob is not a creative work. Just like Freud saw everything as sex some people see everything as property.

Voice conversation is not property, but as soon as any conversation is recorded in a fixed medium (such as an exchange of paper letters, or even in a tape recording), it is automatically copyrighted under US law, and then it IS property (the physical letters and tapes are property of the ordinary kind, and their content is intellectual property of the same kind as a novel or essay). Such stuff doesn't have to be judged to be "creative."

Which is good, or else the copyright laws would have to somehow attempt to define "creativity." And, except for my own stuff , that would cause a lot of difficulty, because some nameless people's letters, and other communications committed to media while being sent, are hackneyed and boring as hell. Imagine the courts having to decide IF they were creative enough to be copyrightable.

Actually it is. In the US, it is copyrighted the moment it is recorded by a medium like your hard disk. Reproducing it without permission exposes you to liability, unless you can show fair use. And in the U.S., printing somebody's email would probably violate the stored communications act (SCA), except for materials specifically named in a warrant.

Only if the material so recorded embodies something which can be the subject of a copyright. If there's no creative content, there's no copyright.

I recommend perusal of the WP article on copyright.

Perhaps your problem is you have pursued the article. If you are talking about 18 USC 2701 it does not create nor define property at all. It addresses privacy, not property. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[Milton Roe]

Next mafia bosses will say wiretaps or at least text messages are copyvios, too. Everything that is imputed on a keyboard is not a creative work.

Actually it is. In the US, it is copyrighted the moment it is recorded by a medium like your hard disk. Reproducing it without permission exposes you to liability, unless you can show fair use. And in the U.S., printing somebody's email would probably violate the stored communications act (SCA), except for materials specifically named in a warrant.

What happens when one person prints an emailed conversation between two people? Hard to say. The states vary on the legality of voice-recording (in some states only one person has to know it's being done, in others, two). At the fed level, I think it would come down to the SCA, if the communication was over the phone lines, which it certainly would be in most cases.

No it's not. Mere conversation is not property. Asking your girlfriend for a blowjob is not a creative work. Just like Freud saw everything as sex some people see everything as property.

Voice conversation is not property, but as soon as any conversation is recorded in a fixed medium (such as an exchange of paper letters, or even in a tape recording), it is automatically copyrighted under US law, and then it IS property (the physical letters and tapes are property of the ordinary kind, and their content is intellectual property of the same kind as a novel or essay). Such stuff doesn't have to be judged to be "creative."

Which is good, or else the copyright laws would have to somehow attempt to define "creativity." And, except for my own stuff , that would cause a lot of difficulty, because some nameless people's letters, and other communications committed to media while being sent, are hackneyed and boring as hell. Imagine the courts having to decide IF they were creative enough to be copyrightable.

Actually it is. In the US, it is copyrighted the moment it is recorded by a medium like your hard disk. Reproducing it without permission exposes you to liability, unless you can show fair use. And in the U.S., printing somebody's email would probably violate the stored communications act (SCA), except for materials specifically named in a warrant.

Only if the material so recorded embodies something which can be the subject of a copyright. If there's no creative content, there's no copyright.

I recommend perusal of the WP article on copyright.

Perhaps your problem is you have pursued the article. If you are talking about 18 USC 2701 it does not create nor define property at all. It addresses privacy, not property. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Please look above. I'm not the person claiming that SCA only applies to material which "embodies something that can be the subject of a copyright". The two laws (copyright law and privacy law) have essentially nothing to do with each other.

In the US, there are essentially no barriers to need for "creativity" of copyright material which aren't routinely met by any "ordinary" communication, like a piece of mail. However banal. Perhaps the binary message of two lanterns in the Old North Church steeple, vs. one, would not make the definition, but any communication more complex, so long as it was recorded on a medium, would do it.

This has been tested. I wanted to publish "My Letters From J.D. Salinger: Boring as Hell". But I couldn't get legal liability insurance, so there they sit.