Excelsior the book

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (832 of them)
Can I quote you on that?

Steven Spielberg (Momus), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:13 (nineteen years ago) link

Love, love, love.
Love, love, love.
Love, love, love.

There’s nothing you can do that can’t be done.
Nothing you can sing that can’t be sung.
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game.
It’s easy.

Nothing you can make that can’t be made.
No one you can save that can’t be saved.
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be you in time.
It’s easy.

All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.

All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.

Nothing you can know that isn’t known.
Nothing you can see that isn’t shown.
Nowhere you can be that isn’t where you’re meant to be.
It’s easy.

All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.

All you need is love (all together, now!)
All you need is love. (everybody!)
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need (love is all you need).

Yee-hai!
Oh yeah!
She loves you, yeah yeah yeah.
She loves you, yeah yeah yeah.

Can't we all just get along?, Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:15 (nineteen years ago) link

name some ILXers.

RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:21 (nineteen years ago) link

Can I quote you on that?

Of course.

Andrew (enneff), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:21 (nineteen years ago) link

Thanks. And in exchange, you have permission to republish my question 'Can I quote you on that?' But I wish you'd asked first.

Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:34 (nineteen years ago) link

ha ha

nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:34 (nineteen years ago) link

You are making me laugh a lot today Momus.

nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:35 (nineteen years ago) link

I think Momus has been taking hits from the bong.

oops (Oops), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:36 (nineteen years ago) link

There's a difference between quotation and republication. I'm sorry, Momus, I didn't get your joke at first. (although I do appreciate your humour) I find this kind of thing a very unfunny matter.

Andrew (enneff), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:43 (nineteen years ago) link

some people.

RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:48 (nineteen years ago) link

RJG, I'm really not interested in copping this shit from you.

Andrew (enneff), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:55 (nineteen years ago) link

I think people are taking this way too seriously. But then, I think that about almost everything.

oops (Oops), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:58 (nineteen years ago) link

I don't know, I'm a bit torn on this. I know the FAQ says we have copyright over our own material, but that's never meant that we have control over it (past the moment we hit submit anyway) so it implies ownership only. I agree that "repackaging" the content here without permission does cross a line, but I don't see a massive difference between this and the image linking and content messing about WE do with stuff from everywhere else on the web. I just kind of accept it as a genral term of use - I expect my ownership to be fundamentally respected, but you know, if someone here takes the liberty of surprise photoshopping raccoons into my personal photos etc. which is technically a violation (note - not an invitation Mr. Carruthers) I probably wouldn't freak out. It's not a black and white issue in any case.

Kim (Kim), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:00 (nineteen years ago) link

No, I agree with you oops. It hardly seems worth filing a complaint about. As someone said up thread, Mark had an error of judgement and is probably feeling quite ganged up on right now. Can't people just let it go?

E.S.P (ipsofacto), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:00 (nineteen years ago) link

andrew is definitely taking things way too seriously.

I wonder which shit he thinks he is copping.

probably ILX.

RJG (RJG), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:01 (nineteen years ago) link

ilx actually comes out of rjg's bum

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:06 (nineteen years ago) link

I can't accept that.

RJG (RJG), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:07 (nineteen years ago) link

I don't see a massive difference between this and the image linking and content messing about WE do with stuff from everywhere else on the web.

The difference lies in the sale of the repackaged material. Nobody could successfully argue that photoshopping a giant penis onto Crudders' head isn't fair use. Embedding images is a grey area, as the content itself is still being supplied by the original publisher.

Republishing material unchanged without consent (as is the case here) is obviously not simply 'fair use'.

Andrew (enneff), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:07 (nineteen years ago) link

I'm just imaginging the whole thing filmed in Orson Welles style: the presses roaring, the books being stacked in boxes, a dissolve shot to people picking up newspapers with the gigantic headline 'EXCELSIOR!', another dissolve shot to 'Citizen' Grout lighting up a cigar and puffing his elbows out and gazing upwards, an insert of dollar bills fluttering from the sky, shots of people hurrying home with the book, reading it, taking out their M0untain G0ats records and throwing them on the fire, then a scene of a man wearing a trucker hat chiselling some names off a plaque in the Pantheon. Finally, two inscrutable images: an insert of a four-eared kitten, followed by a shot of an old man on his deathbed, leaning up towards the camera and croaking 'Excelsior!' before falling back, lifeless.

Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:08 (nineteen years ago) link

erm....excelsior?

..., Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:10 (nineteen years ago) link

Right now I'm imagining a steel spike being driven through my eardrum and into my brain. It's a good image.

VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:13 (nineteen years ago) link

It's still a little grey to me - cafe press is a printing service that costs money to directly repackage stuff. ilx is website that also costs money and we repackage a lot too. It's just more diffuse. I'm not defending the idea of a book, just saying that there is no land totally above water here.

Kim (Kim), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:13 (nineteen years ago) link

SALE. SALE. SALE.

Andrew (enneff), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:17 (nineteen years ago) link

Right now I'm imagining a steel spike being driven through my eardrum and into my brain. It's a good image.

Just the one spike?

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:18 (nineteen years ago) link

Do you not see that CafePress would be making money from the words of ILXers? I don't see how it could be any more clear.

Andrew (enneff), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:18 (nineteen years ago) link

there is no land totally above water here.

SAIL! SAIL! SAIL!

Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:20 (nineteen years ago) link

Momus, you should write a song about this book and put it on your new album. (obv titled 'EXCELSIOR!')

Andrew (enneff), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:21 (nineteen years ago) link

I've already done it, but I changed the names to protect the guilty. It's called ROSEBUD!

Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:24 (nineteen years ago) link

haha erm xpost Excelsior the album

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:25 (nineteen years ago) link

Should we sue him if he tries to get away with it? Meta-lawsuit.

Kim (Kim), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:26 (nineteen years ago) link

Dan, you need to quit this board too.

TOMBOT, Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:37 (nineteen years ago) link

You mean like you did?

oops (Oops), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:38 (nineteen years ago) link

Do you not see that CafePress would be making money from the words of ILXers? I don't see how it could be any more clear.

Andrew, this has been covered, and while I don't defend the book, that's positively ridiculous. They'd be making money from the sale of binding glue, labor, and paper.

You can disagree, and you do, but the bullshit like "I don't see how it could be any more clear" is exactly why I started posting: because we had a gaggle of geese running around thinking everyone saw it in crystal-clear terms exactly like theirs, and no one in fact did.

Tep (ktepi), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:41 (nineteen years ago) link

(If you really think there's no substantial difference between "making money off of ilxors' words" and "making money off the material their words are printed on," you have a very low opinion of those words.)

Tep (ktepi), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:42 (nineteen years ago) link

This is bizarre. Do people really view their posts to ILX (esp., but also ILF/ILB/ILM) as 'works'? It would never occur to me to assert the copyright to (or ever worry about) something I wrote on an Internet forum or to worry about it all.

This isn't material (in the sense of a work of art, or a magazine article) and it was never published. Internet forums are the equivalent of talking with friends.

I understand why it's bad form to not float the idea at all or ask for input, but for the life of me, I don't understand why anyone would be upset about this thing's existence. There's no harm done. ILX posts aren't something anyone does in the course of business, so it hurts no one on the money end. ILX posts are available to many more people every day, so privacy concerns are out.

miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:45 (nineteen years ago) link

(x-post)

Subtract those words and they'd be selling blank books, and while there are companies who do that, I don't think that's what CafePress had in mind.

Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:46 (nineteen years ago) link

The fact of content is important; the specifics of content are not, nor do those specifics affect price, their profits, or whether or not they perform any marketing. And really, they aren't selling books: despite a minor amount of lip service on their part, which amounts to not much more than a listing of participating stores, they're a service vendor, not a product vendor.

Photocopiers don't sell blank paper -- but they don't sell math finals, either.

Tep (ktepi), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:48 (nineteen years ago) link

(All of the above -> why publishers are named in copyright infringement lawsuits, not printing presses, no matter how much the press may have made in profit.)

Tep (ktepi), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:49 (nineteen years ago) link

People told that NYC photographer to blow it out of his ass when he came here complaining his copyright was being stolen for us linking to his pix/stealing his bandwidth.

People here link photos, sometimes from large money-making websites, without fucking asking.

And yet people are getting their knickers in a knot about a pissy little photocopied chapbook that NO ONE WILL BUY so NO ONE WILL PROFIT FROM and if you all stopped talking about, IT WOULD GO AWAY QUIETLY.

Unlike ILX itself which is here for all to see. I *really* do not understand the reactions to this.

Having said all that, I think the concept is also silly, cus why would I want to buy a paper copy of something I could print out myself? I mean, huh?

Trayce (trayce), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:50 (nineteen years ago) link

trayce otm. it does obv infringe copyright, but dudes chill.

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:53 (nineteen years ago) link

Having said all that, I think the concept is also silly, cus why would I want to buy a paper copy of something I could print out myself? I mean, huh?

exactly, it's not like someone's singing out your beautiful words over accordion gina g.

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:54 (nineteen years ago) link

http://socsci.gulfcoast.edu/fsale/presentations/LOGIC2/img045.jpg

QUITORAMA, Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:55 (nineteen years ago) link

Mark G has, I think, done this on purpose to shit all over the board. Look how he's made you all react. How very nice of him.

ILX is dead, long live ILX (or something).

Trayce (trayce), Thursday, 24 June 2004 01:00 (nineteen years ago) link

Trayce:

For the record, people (after an initial "eh?" period) conceded that the photographer had a point and removed his images. After we removed his images, he hung around and continued to whine and complain as if we were still linking his images. This was the point when we told him to fuck off.

VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 01:01 (nineteen years ago) link

They'd be making money from the sale of binding glue, labor, and paper.

Nobody would buy a blank book.

Andrew (enneff), Thursday, 24 June 2004 01:06 (nineteen years ago) link

See above.

Tep (ktepi), Thursday, 24 June 2004 01:07 (nineteen years ago) link

Dan: a fair point yeah, I'd forgotten that.

It has not stopped many (most) people here from linking images willy-nilly all over the board the rest of the time though, which semanticallty isnt far removed from what this is about, to my mind (you may not agree tho). I'm guilty of it myself, of course.


I dont think the book is a good idea, but only cos I think it is stupid.

I also think everyone's just been superbly trolled. Dropt a bomb and walked off, he has. Hasnt anyone noticed how quiet he went? Hmm.

Let this ruin everyones good natured friendships, if y'all like...

xpost: Andrew, nobody would have bought this one anyway. I mean c'mon. IT WAS A TROLL.

Trayce (trayce), Thursday, 24 June 2004 01:07 (nineteen years ago) link

Yeah that guy was enraged and doing it on principle or something. I almost forgot about that - did he actually just go fuck off?


Kim (Kim), Thursday, 24 June 2004 01:08 (nineteen years ago) link

Point taken, Tep. I'm just reacting to people saying "wtf man this is the same as image leeching!!"

Andrew (enneff), Thursday, 24 June 2004 01:09 (nineteen years ago) link

Image leeching could be a bigger deal. If, somehow, leeching pushed someone over their bandwidth or cost them money, that's a bigger deal than this book.

miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Thursday, 24 June 2004 01:11 (nineteen years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.