JD wrote:Desert_Voyager wrote:JD wrote:
I have to agree (maybe not about the inasne bit
) but none of you are paying subscribers ...its his own business whether he keeps it up , takes it down or covers in it photos of his dog ....he owes nothing to any of you,. What a terrible inconvenience that somebody else's personal problem has deprived you of you something.that didnt belong to you anyway.
True, but you don't have to have paid for, been owed or owned something, in order to miss it when it's gone (which it hasn't as it is archived, thankfully).
No I agree ...but the anger and resentment shown here is just odd and childishly selfish.
I dont know or have ever corresponded to the guy who ran VITN. I hope that he is doing well and is OK.
That said, the insanity of some in the tee dee community is astonishing. Me selfish??? You are off your rocker. Out of your mind, beyond comprehension.
I struggle to find one valid reason that this web site was taken away? Just one reason! Sure...legally it may have been his property and can remove it at will. That is the smallest right you can imagine. Were everyone to operate with such a limited about of generousity, the world would truly blow more than it does now.
Why wouuld he take the site off? Examples:
1. He doesnt have the time to maintain it. Fair enough. So, let it stand as it. The site was exceedingly useful to fans across the world and WOULD CONTINUE TO BE SO FOR MANY MANY YEARS.
2. He doesnt have the money to keep the web site alive. OK, let it run until his contract runs out. He pulled it before this contract ended. Notify people and let them archive it or find other ways to keep it going.
3. Major family/health problems. Again, let it languish as is until the contract ends, and turn it over to what would easily be a HUGE line of people who love the band want to keep their legacy alive.
Those who support "he owns the site and can do what he wants with it" opinion are pathetic. Your type are those who run large corporations. That skirt ethics as much as possible while remaining inside the law. Doing whatever they can for themselves at the expense of advancing the common good.
Suppose someone had the only copy of a classic TD concert, say Nottingham or Detroit 77. Posted it in some form that was listenable but not copyable. Everyone tuned in and loved the music. Then, the poster took it down (for the same reasons that VITN disappeared) and removed it from the public. Is that right? Is that good? Just because he owned it? Or would it have been better had he found a way to continue to share it in some way? Which way is better for the common good?
It is not me who is selfish here. Not in the slightest.
FYI, I hardly ever used Voices In the Net. Hardly at all. I am outraged at the injustice of someone who removes something from the public for no good valid reason. This EASILY could have been handed over to another person to continue it.
Everyone here just loves to rip Tadream.net. Yet the spirit of helping extend the bands legacy is far, Far, FAR greater over there. The entire you know what series was a phenomenal excercise in love for TD.
There is ONE and only ONE reason to remove VITN from the public and keeping it from continuing and that is SELFISHNESS. "If I cant have it, no one else can."
To the poster who called me selfish, it is YOU that supports the selfish behaviour of others. You defend it and allow it to continue.