― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 04:43 (nineteen years ago) link
(x-post)
― spittle (spittle), Thursday, 24 June 2004 04:43 (nineteen years ago) link
― oops (Oops), Thursday, 24 June 2004 04:44 (nineteen years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 04:50 (nineteen years ago) link
spittle, I don't know the answer to this. There might be some implied copyright or property there, I dunno.
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 04:51 (nineteen years ago) link
Andrew had his copyright violated by both his posts being included and things being taken from his server without his permission (I don't believe the image linking thing would apply here as it's basically impossible - as far as I can tell - to prevent text theft in a technical webmaster-y way, obv. claiming copyright is non-technical).Right, Andrew had his copyright violated, he had standing to complain (as did others). (I'm using standing in a semi-legal sense - anyone could, of course, write to cafepress and inform them of a copyright violation, but the only people who could actually take Mark/daCapo/cafepress to court would be the violated) Andrew wouldn't have standing as the Owner/Wizard of ILX.
He didn't have anything taken "from his servers" from the impression I got - the book was a collection of posts owned by individuals, without any ILX-owned material (which would be the FAQ and other information, I guess?). The posts are hosted on ILX's server, but ILX's guidelines forfeit any copyright claims.
(if C@llum posts one of his things and a moderator edits it - who owns the copyright to that post?)
Milo, could the individual copyright owners not sue the infringers of their copyright? Wouldn't that make a clean-cut class-action civil case? I can't imagine how somebody could argue these posts are in the public domain when it is stated clearly on this site that they are, in fact, not.Absolutely, individuals could sue, so long as they were violated.
(The more I think about it, the more curious I am about the nature of posts to an Internet forum. Are they assumed by the courts to be similar to speaking in public, where anyone could quote you? Or are they treated as written articles? Has a court ever ruled on a case like the "selected conversations" idea?)
― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Thursday, 24 June 2004 04:53 (nineteen years ago) link
― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Thursday, 24 June 2004 04:57 (nineteen years ago) link
I've wondered about this myself
― Andrew Blood Thames (Andrew Thames), Thursday, 24 June 2004 05:01 (nineteen years ago) link
― spittle (spittle), Thursday, 24 June 2004 05:03 (nineteen years ago) link
― spittle (spittle), Thursday, 24 June 2004 05:04 (nineteen years ago) link
do i need copyright permission to fuckiong quote someone on a thread? i mean, for fucks sake.
just calm down. no one is buying this shitty book. cafepress wont make money. this is no different from me printing copies for myself and handing them out to friends.
no one is going to put lawsuits up... or no one should because it is a complete waste of motherfucking time.
christ. this is making me angry. just fucking chill out.
i still agree with trayce, milo and tep fwiw.
i hate you all for making me read this rubbish.
die.
― todd swiss (eliti), Thursday, 24 June 2004 05:04 (nineteen years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 05:05 (nineteen years ago) link
― Andrew Blood Thames (Andrew Thames), Thursday, 24 June 2004 05:07 (nineteen years ago) link
Right, at least that's what the fair use doctrine says. But in a case like this, where the individual posts are, theoretically, all owned by the individual posters, then each post constitutes a separate document, constituting a "whole" unto itself, so that a quote of a single post is actually the same as wholesale copying. Except that I can't imagine that argument flying in a legal setting -- it would be like CBS alleging that every pixel of every image in every frame of a broadcast constituted a separate document.
― spittle (spittle), Thursday, 24 June 2004 05:09 (nineteen years ago) link
― spittle (spittle), Thursday, 24 June 2004 05:11 (nineteen years ago) link
seriously. everyone just calm the fuck down.
its a motherfucking internet message board. its supposed to be fun.
once again. die.
― todd swiss (eliti), Thursday, 24 June 2004 05:16 (nineteen years ago) link
― Andrew (enneff), Thursday, 24 June 2004 05:17 (nineteen years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 05:20 (nineteen years ago) link
― todd swiss (eliti), Thursday, 24 June 2004 05:24 (nineteen years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 05:25 (nineteen years ago) link
― todd swiss (eliti), Thursday, 24 June 2004 05:27 (nineteen years ago) link
― oops (Oops), Thursday, 24 June 2004 05:28 (nineteen years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 05:29 (nineteen years ago) link
wouldnt that be nice?
― todd swiss (eliti), Thursday, 24 June 2004 05:31 (nineteen years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 05:32 (nineteen years ago) link
― oops (Oops), Thursday, 24 June 2004 05:35 (nineteen years ago) link
― oops (Oops), Thursday, 24 June 2004 05:36 (nineteen years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 05:36 (nineteen years ago) link
― oops (Oops), Thursday, 24 June 2004 05:38 (nineteen years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 05:40 (nineteen years ago) link
― todd swiss (eliti), Thursday, 24 June 2004 05:41 (nineteen years ago) link
― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 24 June 2004 05:43 (nineteen years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 05:45 (nineteen years ago) link
― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 24 June 2004 05:45 (nineteen years ago) link
― Trayce (trayce), Thursday, 24 June 2004 06:23 (nineteen years ago) link
― Trayce (trayce), Thursday, 24 June 2004 06:24 (nineteen years ago) link
― oops (Oops), Thursday, 24 June 2004 06:24 (nineteen years ago) link
― oops (Oops), Thursday, 24 June 2004 06:25 (nineteen years ago) link
― oops (Oops), Thursday, 24 June 2004 06:27 (nineteen years ago) link
― Orbit (Orbit), Thursday, 24 June 2004 06:29 (nineteen years ago) link
Also this is an area of the law that makes me glad I quit lawyering.
― Colin Meeder (Mert), Thursday, 24 June 2004 06:44 (nineteen years ago) link
I think there has been some massive overreation on this thread, but I guess I kind of understand why. I have no real comment on that.
He's asked me upthread not to talk about his previous attempt to do this, but honestly, from the amount of ruck caused by 3 or 4 people, he could perhaps have guessed a least a fraction of the controversy it would cause? The only person who objected to the former exercise was a known troll, so, I don't know. Who knows.
(Please note: the explanation he gave for why he tried it before was that he wanted to try out CafePress as a practice or sample for work purposes, and needed a large sample of text to be published, to assess their quality. A particular thread on ILX provided this opportunity.)
Anyway, I'm putting words in his mouth at this point, but I'm sure that he will log back on when his work is slow, make an apology and sort things out.
― People love Gravity and Evolution! (kate), Thursday, 24 June 2004 06:55 (nineteen years ago) link
I shall read this thread and contact those who I have seriously pissed off.
Later.
― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 24 June 2004 07:09 (nineteen years ago) link
Good luck. If you manage it you'll be doing better than me.
― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 24 June 2004 07:16 (nineteen years ago) link
xpost - even better: print up what you think is funny at work without your boss seeing!
That's exactly why I did the book. (continuing)
― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 24 June 2004 07:26 (nineteen years ago) link
― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 07:38 (nineteen years ago) link
― EndlessKev (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 24 June 2004 07:44 (nineteen years ago) link
― Enrique (Enrique), Thursday, 24 June 2004 07:45 (nineteen years ago) link
― charltonlido (gareth), Thursday, 24 June 2004 07:46 (nineteen years ago) link
Basically, it all boils down to two issues.
1) The copyright issue. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't pretend to know the in's and out's of international copyright law.
Shit happens all the time that I'm not entirely happy about, but you know, I'm more bothered by things like record companies putting out my songs and then "forgetting" to pay the mechanicals. If you're quotable, you get quoted. If I had a dime for every meme or phrase I've actually coined... I could buy a yacht off the royalties! Try googling a phrase which you have coined or used repeatedly - I did yesterday, and was amazed by how far some of my "trademarks" had got. Some people quote and attribute. Ironically, the person who used raised the biggest stink in the previous debate used my words and phrases without attributing.
Fair enough, if you're a writer and you make your living off your words, then you want to protect those words. But where do you draw the line? During my brief spell as a critic, I can't count the number of times I would see my quotes ending up in press releases. That's someone else - a band - trying to make money off my words. Am I OK with that?
2) The privacy issue. This is something above and beyond the copyright issue. There's been a lot of talk about "oh, this is just private and casual chatter with my friends".
The intimacy and familiarity of ILX *does* lull you into a false sense of security, that this is somehow a private place, outside of the real world. IT'S NOT. I had my peace of mind regarding ILX shattered quite rudely last year, but ultimately it did teach me an important lesson The internet is not private, and ILX is not "safe" and everyone should learn to police their *own* behaviour accordingly.
The great thing about ILX is that people feel free to speak without thinking. The terrible thing about ILX is that people feel free to speak without thinking. Freedom of speech implies a responsibility as well as a right.
I learned the hard way, don't write anything on ILX that you would not be comfortable with your mom, your ex-boyfriends, your internet stalker, your label boss, random music journalists reading. That might be an unintentional lesson which is perhaps more important than the ins and outs of international copyright law.
― Kate St.Claire (kate), Thursday, 24 June 2004 07:47 (nineteen years ago) link