Excelsior the book

'Although it is illegal and an infringement of your copyright for someone to copy your work without your permission, the reality is that it is very easy for someone to do. It is possible to limit the systems that can access your site, for example, only UC computers could gain access; or set up a password system to allow only certain users to the site. You should place a copyright notice on the work and advise browsers what they may and may not do with your work. None of these approaches will prevent someone from copying your works off your site. In short, if you have something very valuable that you don't want people to use, don't put it on your web page.'

© Copyright 2001 The Regents of the University of California, All Rights Reserved.

I mean, sure, I can understand the general idea that things posted here are being willingly thrown out into the ether to be viewed by whoever happens to come across them; most of us use handles anyway and aren’t writing anything that’s particularly dear to us. But ILX has attracted a whole lot of people whose names and reputations are directly tied to the work they do. Which has always made me really happy --- that someone like John or the countless working-critics on ILM could join freely into the discussions without worrying that they were engaging in anything other than some casual in-house banter. Everyone’s always respected that on here; this whole book idea, whether anyone looks at it or not, basically knifes the idea that even the most explicit of our protections on here --- the clearly-stated copyright --- will mean anything to anyone. You may not care what happens to the stuff you post, but some people do, period.

Beyond which c’mon: it’s just illegal! You can't do this; you can't search up everything John ever wrote and publish “First Pl4ne to J4karta: The Collected Works of J0hn D4rneille”; you can't just wholesale print and bind Simon Reynolds’ blog, either. You write content here; it stays here. If people want to read it on the toilet, all they need are printers and heavy-duty staplers.

But it isn't a Jay-Z album. I don't want to dismiss your analogy, because I agree with part of it, but there's an important difference between "words by people who sell words" and "sellable words by people who sell words, written with the intent of making money from them."

The other difference -- regardless of that part of the analogy -- is that you can also make CafePress pages semi-private, so they're not listed in the directory or their internal search engines; no one finds them unless they're given the link. (I don't know if they're googleproofed; what would people google in this case?) Mark hasn't gone around "advertising" this. Even if he had, the page tells you virtually nothing about what's involved; no one who isn't familiar with ILX would have any reason or incentive to buy it.

I'm not arguing Mark had the right to put this together, although I don't think any harm has been done; I just think the response is completely disproportionate, and possibly in places not very considered.

yanc3y will then photocopy it onto microfiche, and sell the original on ebay.

To use an analogy, sure, you can't expect any conversation you ever have not to be monitored or recorded or listened-to by strangers, but you don't expect a lover or a friend or a band-member to tattle about your sex life to a gossip columnist.

(This may all be redundant now, since I haven't looked at the last twenty or so posts, but whatever...)

There's nothing at all "disproportionate" about the fact that J0hn left; my guess is that up until now, he had some vague trust that ILXors weren't about to do something dumb like this, and now --- in whatever tiny, doesn't-make-a-difference way --- he's been reminded that he can't trust that at all.

One final thing: this argument about exactly how much harm it does is ridiculous and beside the point. Each of us has copyright on what we write here. It's up to each of us to decide how we feel about what happens to our words, and we don't have to defend our reactions to anyone else.

Well yeah, obviously (that's part of what makes the analogy). No one's denying Mark didn't have copyright here, and I pointed out on the Moderator Request Forum that CafePress is known to respond quickly to "X doesn't have copyright to Y" complaints. But that doesn't actually sound like the substance of peoples' complaints.

Also, Tep, your Jay-Z analogy refutation, if I understand it, is off; copyright protection isn't just about sellable works you originally intended to sell -- it's about anything you created that happens to be sellable.

Chris, you're confusing an argument about legality, which I have no interest in, with the argument I'm actually participating in.

J0hn D, don't flee...the book won't happen now, it's all good...

x-post

I can't agree that it sets a precedent, because I can't believe it's the first time. The first time we know about it? Seems like it. The first time it's happened to ILX specifically? Could be. (Although wasn't there something about an ILB thread being reprinted in a newspaper? I could be misremembering.)

People keep bringing up J0hn as though his threat to leave were the whole issue here, and for the most part I haven't talked about that at all -- it's his choice, and I don't see why anything I'd say would make any difference. I started out trying just to figure out what, exactly, people were uncomfortable with or angry about. If we want to set a precedent, shouldn't it to make it clear what the community's okay with and what it isn't?

(Every time I hit Submit there are new posts! I may never see any of you again.)

ost of x-posts. And Tep, much as I like you I have to say fuckyou to the idea that you can label someone's objections to stuff like this "silly." This is like shouting-out-of-cars all over again: you can't do rights-infringing shit to people and then call them crybabies when they'd prefer you not to.

I was on the other side for shouting-out-of-cars, though. (Well, one of the other sides ... oh, let's not bring it all back up.)

You can object to my using the word "silly," and that's fine, but c'mon, we don't need to get into the "you have the right to do X and I have the right to think Y about you doing X, which triggers your right to think Z about my actually saying Y about your X..." Somebody started singing it not knowing what it was, etc.

That's not the sum of my argument, but sure, a CafePress isn't inherently a book the way something published by a professional publisher is. A publisher might use CafePress, but when I put my cookbook through there, for instance, it doesn't have an ISBN number, it can't be ordered by anyone not looking for it, it isn't listed on Amazon, it can't be special-ordered somewhere, etc., etc.

I don't know if I'd say it's the same as the difference between a mix CD and a commercially produced CD, but it's a major difference. If there wasn't, I'd be a published cookbook author.

summarize a book in 25 words, I think. But the diff here is that its an ilxor, on the other hand, the newspaper person should also know abt copyright.

xpost ISBN and Amazon don't get to decide what a "book" is or not! Many of my favorite books don't have ISBN's and aren't on Amazon, that's the whole idea behind "small press"! And I'm pretty sure most bookstores won't special order something that doesn't have an ISBN anyway.

Lemme suggest something better: how about ILX regulars just print out threads they think are funny to keep for themselves? It's not difficult.

(Chris, for heaven's sake, I'm both an author and an editor in the small press. We aren't going to have an argue about the innate essence of bookness. You can feel free to alone.)

'Webboard comments have ranged from anti-European ("More tastelessness and idiocy from across the Atlantic") to mildly amused ("Somebody had to say it") to vehement agreement ("George W. Bush should die in a hotel fire in Birmingham, wrapped in sheets gritty with Mr Kipling crumbs") since the incident.'

All three comments, unattributed, came from one ILM thread, and the third is mine... But it's a parody paraphrase of a comment Morrissey himself made about Brett Anderson. So, if the lawyers had their way, we could sue Pitchfork, Morrissey could sue me, Bush could join him in a class action, Brett Anderson could sue Morrissey, Bush could invade Highgate, Ned could lock every thread on ILM, and so on and so on. Only the lawyers would benefit, and in the end only three vultures would be left alive on earth. (Cue TAFKAJD to say 'Momus, don't be disrespecting vultures. They are noble animals.')

*This is not to say I don't think some of you have very valid arguments - it IS, rather, to say that he said if people said no that he'd get rid of it, people have said no, and now he'll get rid of it. Why waste the time and energy on something which has practically already been solved?