I, too, wondered how he/she/they got around so much. I did enjoy the thread while it lasted, however. Just out of curiosity, assuming it was more than one person, was there necessarily any rules broken? Is that a cardinal sin or was the "donation" comment the proverbial smoking gun?

The donation item was on their own board, not on Roadfood.

The amount and frequency of their posting didn't bother me.  There was no time frame ever posted.  It could have been from eating at these places over a year or longer.

I found ETR to be far too opinionated for a newbie. Granted you probably would be hard pressed to find another site as opinionated as ours but he/she/it rubbed me very wrong right from the earliest post. I held my tongue as Baskin-Robbins doesn't carry 31 flavors by accident, but I decided it was a poster who I put in my personal jerk file and I no longer bothered reading it's posts. Good riddance as my pet peeve are posters with a hidden agenda ala some one time posters hawking a product under the guise of posting a review.

The thing to remember is that the person/persons posting used photos that did not belong to them/him and poached stuff from others. In other words, the poster/posters cheated, stole and scammed. That ws clear from the beginning.

I cringed when I opened almost any topic or thread and ETR was always the last one who posted (as I seem to be doing here)

We all can Google, but ETR seemed to think that only they knew that secret and showed us over and over again.

Wintem01


I, too, wondered how he/she/they got around so much. I did enjoy the thread while it lasted, however. Just out of curiosity, assuming it was more than one person, was there necessarily any rules broken? Is that a cardinal sin or was the "donation" comment the proverbial smoking gun?

  EatingtheRoad has not been banned, so their disappearance is self imposed. No forum rules were broken that I recall, although some links were edited because they seemed to be a little heavy on the directing of people to other sites/advertising.

I must note that while I see comments about this poster being more than one person, all posts here seemed to originate from one computer in one location. I am still not sure if this poster had a real interest in being here, or was just using this as a stepping stone and marketing tool for their own site, but I think they did add some interesting info to the site.

Tony Bad


...  but I think they did add some interesting info to the site.

Yeah. Plagiraism for fun.






edited for form not content.

thank you, tony.

Michael Hoffman


The thing to remember is that the person/persons posting used photos that did not belong to them/him and poached stuff from others. In other words, the poster/posters cheated, stole and scammed. That ws clear from the beginning.

Being somewhat of a newbie to these things, is that necessarily wrong? I mean, these photos aren't copywrited, are they? Again, just curious. I don't normally post unless something stirs a particular passion. But even uncopywrited, is it simply considered bad taste to use photos from, say, a restaurant's website? Or if you went to a place and forgot to take photos or didn't have a camera with you or probably more common, ate it all before snapping a shot, can you not take a photo from someone else's review just to add a visual aspect to your commentary? Seems if it is on the internet it should be public property, If I can get someone's home address online, a picture of what they ate last night should be pretty harmless. Just my opinion, but honestly curious.

Wintem01

Michael Hoffman


The thing to remember is that the person/persons posting used photos that did not belong to them/him and poached stuff from others. In other words, the poster/posters cheated, stole and scammed. That ws clear from the beginning.

Being somewhat of a newbie to these things, is that necessarily wrong? I mean, these photos aren't copywrited, are they? Again, just curious. I don't normally post unless something stirs a particular passion. But even uncopywrited, is it simply considered bad taste to use photos from, say, a restaurant's website? Or if you went to a place and forgot to take photos or didn't have a camera with you or probably more common, ate it all before snapping a shot, can you not take a photo from someone else's review just to add a visual aspect to your commentary? Seems if it is on the internet it should be public property, If I can get someone's home address online, a picture of what they ate last night should be pretty harmless. Just my opinion, but honestly curious.

Yes the photos are copyrighted. And no, you cannot use anyone's photos or words without their permission.

Think of it as a book in the library.
You can't copy it and offer it as your own.

On Ebay people post pictures of things that they are going to sell.  If someone else uses the same picture they can get kicked off of Ebay because it's stealing something that doesn't belong to you.

Same thing here.

As for what Tony posted.  In the beginning I found ETR's posts interesting.  Then I realized they were only posting a picture here and forcing me to go to their board.

Then I quit looking and became irritated every time I saw something Googled every time they figured we didn't know something.    As if we couldn't do the very same thing.

Wintem01,

I think I have easily posted over a thousand photos to Roadfood.com. I did so voluntarily and every single one of them was taken by me or maybe a friend or my wife with my camera and settings if I happened to be in the photo itself. Each and every one of them is owned by me and technically, yes, I do own the copyright. Many of my photos have appeared elsewhere. It does not bother me as long as the poster of them at least acknowledge they had found it on the internet and did not try to claim the phone as their own. When someone does try to claim a photo then I consider that as crossing the line.

I realize photos are going to be ripped off. That's why I downsize my original to a smaller resolution and select a medium to low JPEG conversion. That not only makes them smaller in kilobytes so they load faster for your convenience in a message but also makes them non-commercially viable. The downside is my photos on my computer look a lot better than what gets posted. The upside is I can always prove I own the photo with the RAW format high resolution that is only in my possession.

We just found out in this thread that ETR did rip off wanderingjew's 2008 top 10 and posted them on the ETR blog site. He/she did acknowledge they were wanderingjew's photos but they were ripped off Roadfood.com without acknowledgment. In my online experience, I consider that wanderingjew owns the copyright of the photos and his commentary but Roadfood.com owns the body of the content of the whole thread and topic that wanderingjew voluntarily contributed to. However you look at it, it was ripped off unless wanderingjew volunteered them to the ETR blog as well. If not, to me, that is a total breach of etiquette and cast suspicion on all of ETR's uploads here.

Tony Bad
 

 I must note that while I see comments about this poster being more than one person, all posts here seemed to originate from one computer in one location.

Eating The Road

On a journey to find out what the American road tastes like 

About Future Stops Regional Foods Restaurant List

Eating all this food can become pricey and we're just lonely bloggers (not getting paid for this).

If you like what you read why not buy us a meal or two!

 
 

Lets face it;  this guy was a damn thief...................I  figured this out weeks ago

Not sure what your point is WJ or why you quoted me before posting all that stuff, but as I said, all the posts on THIS site seem to have been made by one person. Whether they were accumulations of other people's work, I can't say. 

Davydd


Wintem01,

I think I have easily posted over a thousand photos to Roadfood.com. I did so voluntarily and every single one of them was taken by me or maybe a friend or my wife with my camera and settings if I happened to be in the photo itself. Each and every one of them is owned by me and technically, yes, I do own the copyright. Many of my photos have appeared elsewhere. It does not bother me as long as the poster of them at least acknowledge they had found it on the internet and did not try to claim the phone as their own. When someone does try to claim a photo then I consider that as crossing the line.

I realize photos are going to be ripped off. That's why I downsize my original to a smaller resolution and select a medium to low JPEG conversion. That not only makes them smaller in kilobytes so they load faster for your convenience in a message but also makes them non-commercially viable. The downside is my photos on my computer look a lot better than what gets posted. The upside is I can always prove I own the photo with the RAW format high resolution that is only in my possession.

We just found out in this thread that ETR did rip off wanderingjew's 2008 top 10 and posted them on the ETR blog site. He/she did acknowledge they were wanderingjew's photos but they were ripped off Roadfood.com without acknowledgment. In my online experience, I consider that wanderingjew owns the copyright of the photos and his commentary but Roadfood.com owns the body of the content of the whole thread and topic that wanderingjew voluntarily contributed to. However you look at it, it was ripped off unless wanderingjew volunteered them to the ETR blog as well. If not, to me, that is a total breach of etiquette and cast suspicion on all of ETR's uploads here.

Davydd
 
I was aware that ETR posted my best of list on his/hers/their blog. I've stated previously that "I" personally am not in this for the money, and do not intend to make a profit on this. I rarely spend time on the internet, other than roadfood,  so it really doesn't matter to me. My photos have been used by others all over the internet, and I guess my opinion about the whole thing is "whatever" it doesn't mean its right or wrong for me personally, although I know others  feel otherwise

Tony Bad


Not sure what your point is WJ or why you quoted me before posting all that stuff, but as I said, all the posts on THIS site seem to have been made by one person. Whether they were accumulations of other people's work, I can't say. 

Just wanted to point out why I deduced that that ETR's posts might be coming from more than just one person as it was ETR's website that referred to the plural

wanderingjew

Tony Bad


Not sure what your point is WJ or why you quoted me before posting all that stuff, but as I said, all the posts on THIS site seem to have been made by one person. Whether they were accumulations of other people's work, I can't say. 

Just wanted to point out why I deduced that that ETR's posts might be coming from more than just one person as it was ETR's website that referred to the plural

All I know is all the posts I checked came from one physical location. 

mar52

As for what Tony posted.  In the beginning I found ETR's posts interesting.  Then I realized they were only posting a picture here and forcing me to go to their board. 

 


I see what you are saying, but what I meant was that his/her/its posts mentioned quite a few places I never knew about. Whether the poster actually went there or not is certainly important, but the fact they were mentioned did allow me to discover some new spots. Even an unwound watch is right once or twice a day.

Dale, your posts weren't the only ones used.

Buffetbuster (Profile)
2008 Top 10 Breakfasts
2008 Top 10 Desserts
2008 Top 10 Burgers
2008 Top 13 BBQ Restaurants
List of Pies

Wanderingjew (Profile)
2008 Top 10 Restaurants
2008 Top 10 Standbys
2008 Top 10 Honorable Mentions
2008 Top 10 Desserts
2008 Top 4 Breakfasts
2008 Top 6 Sides

Ayersian (Profile)
Best of Cross-Continental

CajunKing (Profile)
List of Pies

Tony I agree with you completely on that one.

bill voss


thank you, tony.

BrownNoser

Well, isn't this interesting. There's nothing that I enjoy more than finding out that I've had the wool pulled over my eyes. Nice going, pal.    

mar52

     This is his new board:

http://topcultured.com/

Yep, we were used.

Well this is interesting...check the comment


http://topcultured.com/honest-journalism/

So, I guess the consensus is that, Eating The Road isn't who he/she/they says they is/are. Hmmm..... I wonder who he/she/they really is/are?

joerogo


So, I guess the consensus is that, Eating The Road isn't who he/she/they says they is/are. Hmmm..... I wonder who he/she/they really is/are?

 


My guess?

Cute, Tony.  Pure Honesty!

Did you notice the number of hits his articles are getting?  
If even a penny a click that's nice change.

EatingTheRoad is now posting at topcultured.com under the name Heesa Phadie. I feel that this name is some pun that I should interpret as "He's a ___", but I'm being dense and not figuring out how to fill in the blank. If the name was "Heesa Phudie", I'd read it as "He's a foodie", but the A is stymieing me.

You're kidding, of course.

Wintem01

Michael Hoffman


The thing to remember is that the person/persons posting used photos that did not belong to them/him and poached stuff from others. In other words, the poster/posters cheated, stole and scammed. That ws clear from the beginning.

Being somewhat of a newbie to these things, is that necessarily wrong? I mean, these photos aren't copywrited, are they? Again, just curious. I don't normally post unless something stirs a particular passion. But even uncopywrited, is it simply considered bad taste to use photos from, say, a restaurant's website? Or if you went to a place and forgot to take photos or didn't have a camera with you or probably more common, ate it all before snapping a shot, can you not take a photo from someone else's review just to add a visual aspect to your commentary? Seems if it is on the internet it should be public property, If I can get someone's home address online, a picture of what they ate last night should be pretty harmless. Just my opinion, but honestly curious.

normally, when one can't correctly refer to copyright, one's understanding of copyright is equally as corrupted.
 
As MH pointed out, most of your assumptions about the use of works posted on the Internet are wrong.
 
Section 106 of 17 USC:
 
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.