― Andrew (enneff), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:43 (nineteen years ago) link
― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:48 (nineteen years ago) link
― Andrew (enneff), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:55 (nineteen years ago) link
― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:58 (nineteen years ago) link
― Kim (Kim), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:00 (nineteen years ago) link
― E.S.P (ipsofacto), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:00 (nineteen years ago) link
I wonder which shit he thinks he is copping.
probably ILX.
― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:01 (nineteen years ago) link
― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:06 (nineteen years ago) link
― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:07 (nineteen years ago) link
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
― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:08 (nineteen years ago) link
― ..., Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:10 (nineteen years ago) link
― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:13 (nineteen years ago) link
― Kim (Kim), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:13 (nineteen years ago) link
― Andrew (enneff), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:17 (nineteen years ago) link
Just the one spike?
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:18 (nineteen years ago) link
― Andrew (enneff), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:18 (nineteen years ago) link
SAIL! SAIL! SAIL!
― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:20 (nineteen years ago) link
― Andrew (enneff), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:21 (nineteen years ago) link
― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:24 (nineteen years ago) link
― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:25 (nineteen years ago) link
― Kim (Kim), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:26 (nineteen years ago) link
― TOMBOT, Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:37 (nineteen years ago) link
― oops (Oops), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:38 (nineteen years ago) link
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
― Tep (ktepi), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:42 (nineteen years ago) link
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
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
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
― Tep (ktepi), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:49 (nineteen years ago) link
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
― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:53 (nineteen years ago) link
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
― QUITORAMA, Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:55 (nineteen years ago) link
ILX is dead, long live ILX (or something).
― Trayce (trayce), Thursday, 24 June 2004 01:00 (nineteen years ago) link
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
Nobody would buy a blank book.
― Andrew (enneff), Thursday, 24 June 2004 01:06 (nineteen years ago) link
― Tep (ktepi), Thursday, 24 June 2004 01:07 (nineteen years ago) link
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
― Kim (Kim), Thursday, 24 June 2004 01:08 (nineteen years ago) link
― Andrew (enneff), Thursday, 24 June 2004 01:09 (nineteen years ago) link
― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Thursday, 24 June 2004 01:11 (nineteen years ago) link
No way! That ILB thread was quoted in German newspapers, Italian newspapers, Australian newspapers, British newspapers, BBC radio, and even a magazine and NO ONE was ever contacted for permission.
― scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 24 June 2004 01:12 (nineteen years ago) link
say if we had been using an ad-supported forum provider we'd have made money for the forum for linking to those images that will make people read these threads more and give more ad exposure.
― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 24 June 2004 01:13 (nineteen years ago) link
Sure, that's the thing -- on one end, it's not like image leeching; on the other, it's not like anthologizing peoples' published work without their permission, either. It's not the same as anything. It's its own thing.
(And I can't believe it's trolling, not only because Mark Grout is not exactly a name to leap to mind when I think of trolls, but because it would be such a bizarre thing to try trolling with -- and a CafePress shop takes some time and work to set up, if he didn't just fake the .pdf -- especially since it's something people have suggested before.)
― Tep (ktepi), Thursday, 24 June 2004 01:13 (nineteen years ago) link
Mark if that wasnt your aim, FFS speak up, your silence is deafening and suspicious.
― Trayce (trayce), Thursday, 24 June 2004 01:19 (nineteen years ago) link
I CAN'T HEAR A FUCKING THING.
― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 24 June 2004 01:20 (nineteen years ago) link
― Tep (ktepi), Thursday, 24 June 2004 01:20 (nineteen years ago) link
― Kim (Kim), Thursday, 24 June 2004 01:22 (nineteen years ago) link
― Trayce (trayce), Thursday, 24 June 2004 01:23 (nineteen years ago) link