The Statement of Jive Ass Horn:
When this site first went up in late September I resolved that, when specifically asked to do so by John Servais, I would voluntarily remove his original content. "Please:" Always the magic word.
On Oct 22 I received the following correspondence from Google:
We are asking that you please remove the allegedly infringing content in your blog. If you do not do this within the next 3 days (by 10/25/07), we will be forced to remove the posts in question. If we did not do so, we would be subject to a claim of copyright infringement, regardless of its merits.
Accordingly, I have removed the materials under the safe harbor provision of DMCA. It is amusing that it has taken John this long to think to __JUST ASK__.
I've kept the comments, as they are unique to this site. I'm also keeping the site name, perhaps for future mischief. I've also kept a lengthy post by Tip Johnson because, unlike JS, he evidently wanted it disseminated and commented upon. Tip's a fighter; John's a sniper.
I am not in agreement that copyrights were violated when there are copyright notices all over the site (plus a direct link back to NWCitizen); most blogs are cut-&-paste jobs with comments--so if what I've done here is unethical, so are the majority of blogs everywhere. And perhaps they are. At least I exercised the courtesy not to alter the original material and allowed it speak for itself (and others to also speak to it).
But despite my feelings that no wrong was done (and several rights advanced), I don't really care--never cared--to make an issue of it. He's asked me to take it down, and I do.
The site was created 1) as a prank and 2) as a thought experiment to see what would the response would be--both from John Servais and his readers--if Northwest Citizen was actually opened to analysis. The thought was prompted--as described in the sidebar--by an email posting from a critic of Servais, presented by Servais himself on his webste site, daring Servais to open his site to comments.
So... I opened his site.
The effort did not take long or require any brains (a half-witted effort, as someone noted), and there was nothing premeditated or especially malicious about it, other than pulling a prank. Turn about is fair play, after all, and people have been on the receiving end of Servais barbs for years.
I've found bullies are more fit to inflict torment than endure it.
I put the site together on my own steam, in my own free spare time as a private individual, and not in consultation with or by permission of anyone else. It was not politically motivated--how could it be, when John himself controlled the source content? If he wanted to write about daffodils, the comments would have addressed daffodils.
Is it defensible? Is any prank defensible?
Apart from a little anagrammmatical fun with John Servais' name, site presentation was fairly neutral and the comments could have been favorable or unfavorable. Either were okay by me. Funny, there wasn't much circling of the wagons from Servais supporters (other than Tip's unhinged defense); perhaps there aren't any Servais supporters. The fact that he and Tip instantly assumed dirty politics was the motive just shows what gutter their heads are in.
After the blog's existence was discovered and noted (joy!) the only amusement left was waiting for how long it might take John to just ask that it be removed. Boy, that took a long time! As I noted in a comment-- too simple; not enough revenge in that.
Funny that Servais went on a witch hunt for the guilty instead of just writing and asking that the site be taken down, but I guess that says everything about his approaches: Witch hunts and sniper fire rather than cooperative solutions.
Now I close this site.
--Jive Ass Horn