Excelsior the book

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (832 of them)
Made it ma, top o' the world.

Enrique (Enrique), Thursday, 24 June 2004 07:45 (nineteen years ago) link

cant wait for "ilx, the book: the third times the charm (inability to predict reactions)"

charltonlido (gareth), Thursday, 24 June 2004 07:46 (nineteen years ago) link

OK, I'm sure this is a moot point by now, but I'm kind of miffed that all the interesting debate took place while I was asleep or offline.

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

Right, I have read the whole thread.

Seriously, thanks for all your opinions, anti, pro and support/defensive. You are all cool.

As hstencil said, I printed one
1) for me
2) to read away from work
3) to test out the 'book publishing' service.

I did do this a while ago, but the book came out at 67 pages, so was really just a big pamphlet. This one is much bigger and should show me what quality you can expect with smaller type/wider spine/etc. I did let the major contributors to the first know, privately. All were cool apart from one who was not cool and that was OK too. This was 'available' for about a month, withdrawn when I got the objection, and only 1 copy was produced.

As this one had a larger number of contributors, it would have been unfeasible to contact everybody. So, I posted this question yesterday morning. By the end of the day, 50 posts and no outright objections.

I had one e-mail to me personally, amater!st, who wished his contribs to be removed. I agreed obv.

I logged on and saw the general opinion was to withdraw the availability of the item. This I have done.

I shall contact J*hn D personally.

I apologise to all who feel they have been insulted, violated, or just plain rubbed up the wrong way. I thank the many erudite supporters and/or defenders, I don't feel 'ganged up' on, and that's thanks to you. I also dont feel 'guo' as even the vociferous anti people were still for the most part fair and good about it (If i've had real bile and/or insults I missed it)

My only regret is upsetting JD as much as I seem to have.

For what it's worth, I don't think any more than my one copy will get produced.

It may seem obvious, but I will not be doing any more books like this. In actal fact, I was not going to anyway. But that's beside the point I know.

Anyway, see you around.

mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 24 June 2004 07:55 (nineteen years ago) link

I should thank Kate and Momus and hstencil particularly, for understanding the spirit of the thing. Oh now I sound like I won an oscar.

What I always liked about ILX was that all the things I can say have some sort of permanence, and I have never said anything I don't believe, either here or anywhere else. (I haven't told any major lies either, life is a weird thing already)

mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 24 June 2004 07:58 (nineteen years ago) link

How dare you bracket me with Kate and Stencil! This is the final straw. I am leaving this forum forever, and will never return after this post.

Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 08:02 (nineteen years ago) link

I'm still mad about this.

Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 08:03 (nineteen years ago) link

Still?

Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 24 June 2004 08:04 (nineteen years ago) link

Go away, I'm not here!

Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 08:06 (nineteen years ago) link

Momus, it only works if you actually stop posting, like J0hn did.

AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 24 June 2004 08:09 (nineteen years ago) link

That would make you happy, wouldn't it? Well, I won't!

Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 08:10 (nineteen years ago) link

I will keep posting. But metaphysically, I will be absent.

Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 08:11 (nineteen years ago) link

That's been the case for a while, surely Shirley?

Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 24 June 2004 08:11 (nineteen years ago) link

Now, now. Would Momey wike a wowwypop?

AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 24 June 2004 08:12 (nineteen years ago) link

Yes.

Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 08:18 (nineteen years ago) link

c==========8

AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 24 June 2004 08:20 (nineteen years ago) link

hi!

Sir Chaki McBeer III (chaki), Thursday, 24 June 2004 08:28 (nineteen years ago) link

I guess there's nothing susbstantial for me to add, seeing this thread so late. But I'd still like to speak my mind:

The trucker hat/couch thread contained a post where I talked about a rather embarassing sexual encounter I had in the past. It is true that I posted it on the Internet for every potential googler to see; I'm not particularly sensitive about the these issues, and I would've probably allowed Mark to print it, had he asked beforehand. I don't care a shit about legal or copyright issues (I'm mostly anti-copyright, especially if it's for non-profit reasons), but there is the issue of trust. I don't expect a friend to tape a conversation we had and play it on the radio without my permission; similarly, I don't expect a fellow regular ILX-poster to put in a book what I've written without asking me first. Whether the book would've sold any copies or not, or whether Mark would've made any profit out of it is irrelevant; it's a matter of principle. I trust most of you folks to be sensible around such issues, and I hope that I won't lose that trust in the future. Also, I'd be similarly irritated if I'd find out some ILXor regular would have posted some personal things I said here to another Internet page without asking me first. The googlers and the lurkers are a whole different thing, that's the risk we all have to take, and that's why many of us post anonymously.

However, I do agree that this thing has caused perhaps too much fuss. Mark made a stupid mistake, but it's not like he did something irredeemably evil. He has apologized and reversed his actions, and I am willing to trust him in the future. The good thing about all this, that it does set a precedent: ILX regulars know now what reactions such an action might cause, so none of us won't hopefully make the same mistake in the future.

Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 24 June 2004 08:38 (nineteen years ago) link

Gosh. I mean really. Gosh.

Matt (Matt), Thursday, 24 June 2004 08:46 (nineteen years ago) link

(massive massive xpost but still)
Fuck! I seriously cannot believe anyone would be so GORMLESS as to reprint copywrighted material (which this is; we have a FAQ) before asking permission from their friends and acquaintances to do so.

Mark, you've been very stupid indeed. Sorry for the lack of subtlety here but come on, MANY of us have what I'd basically call careers in belles lettres and would have felt massively compromised in intent if this went ahead. Also bear in mind that many writers are very much control freaks about how their work appears; if they hit 'submit' they agree to their work appearing *here* and that's fine. We take great pains to delist threads from Google and through the use of handles to also obscure certain identity issues to minimise any potential aggro we might get off perfectly allowable references to what we post in the media wherein 'poster x on internet messageboard talking about online craze y'-type quotes are used in news features.

Also the last time I appeared in a chapbook, I was like FIVE. What may be good enough for you...

[ps Nabiscothingy, mail me asap at suzy(lastname)@yahoo.co.uk - interesting news for you ;-)]

suzy (suzy), Thursday, 24 June 2004 08:52 (nineteen years ago) link

FWIW Mark, thanks for your clear reply and I apologise for suggesting you did this on purpose out of malice. The time difference did indeed escape me, which Kate pointed out. I think this thread, to put some kind of positive spin on it, has at least helped focus what it is we do here and the levels to which we expose ourselves in posting what we do online anywhere.

Trayce (trayce), Thursday, 24 June 2004 09:04 (nineteen years ago) link

five hours earlier...

RJG (RJG), Thursday, 24 June 2004 09:12 (nineteen years ago) link

As hstencil said, I printed one
1) for me
2) to read away from work
3) to test out the 'book publishing' service.

that was not what I was saying at all. I was saying fuck using cafepress, just print it up from your desk and hope your boss doesn't notice.

hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 13:25 (nineteen years ago) link

'I know what's missing in my life: one billion bits of looseleaf A4 with ILX threads printed on them!'

Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 14:22 (nineteen years ago) link

talk about disposable commodity culture.

hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 14:25 (nineteen years ago) link

Tuomas so totally otm

roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Thursday, 24 June 2004 14:29 (nineteen years ago) link

I think so too.

mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 24 June 2004 14:31 (nineteen years ago) link

For the record: Mark, I hope you really weren't offended by anyone's reactions on here. I'm guessing most people were reacting more on abstract principle than any notion that you'd specifically wronged them.

And maybe Suzy's right: maybe it's just a writerly habit to be very concerned about copyright, well before it officially "matters."

Just for the official record, here’s how I’d personally want the ILX copyright issue to be explained and observed. ILX is a collective publication with many contributors --- not unlike a fiction anthology or a magical magazine that lets its writers maintain ownership of their copy. By posting to this collective publication, we give permission to the entity as a whole to publish our posts here and here only, in perpetuity. It’d also be nice if we could agree to something like this: we give ILX, this "collective publication," the authority to take action on any infringement of the rights to large chunks of its material --- meaning that if someone swipes whole threads, and posters object, Andrew or any other representative of the group could demand action on their behalf.

nabiscothingy, Thursday, 24 June 2004 15:51 (nineteen years ago) link

Include this: "Just a bit of fun, so lets be cool."

deanomgwtf!!!p%3Fmsgid%3D4581997 (deangulberry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 15:52 (nineteen years ago) link

Include also: "The fact that YOU see it as 'just a bit fun' doesn't automatically mean the people who want something more rigid are de facto wrong."

VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 15:58 (nineteen years ago) link

Include also: "fuck you, fuck you in the ear"

VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 16:00 (nineteen years ago) link

include also:

"jel is a great person, and it's a shame he doesn't feature much in this here book"

jel -- (jel), Thursday, 24 June 2004 16:01 (nineteen years ago) link

include also:

"I like slayer"

jel -- (jel), Thursday, 24 June 2004 16:02 (nineteen years ago) link

hasn't this horse been beaten to death by now?

luna (luna.c), Thursday, 24 June 2004 16:02 (nineteen years ago) link

"Just a bit of fun, Dan, so lets be cool."

deanomgwtf!!!p%3Fmsgid%3D4581997 (deangulberry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 16:02 (nineteen years ago) link

Protect your webpage from being printed

People love Gravity and Ebullition! (ex machina), Thursday, 24 June 2004 16:03 (nineteen years ago) link

Include also: "I like glue."

VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 16:04 (nineteen years ago) link

whoa, thanks JW.

hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 16:05 (nineteen years ago) link

"Be cool."

deanomgwtf!!!p%3Fmsgid%3D4581997 (deangulberry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 16:05 (nineteen years ago) link

Kate, coming through with the info.

deanomgwtf!!!p%3Fmsgid%3D4581997 (deangulberry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 16:05 (nineteen years ago) link

those of you still trippin on this need a cold douche in your ass.

Sir Chaki McBeer III (chaki), Thursday, 24 June 2004 16:06 (nineteen years ago) link

"It's just a bit of fun."

deanomgwtf!!!p%3Fmsgid%3D4581997 (deangulberry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 16:08 (nineteen years ago) link

uh, I don't think anyone is "still trippin," Sir Chaki.

hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 16:08 (nineteen years ago) link

can't I get one too, Sir C III?

oops (Oops), Thursday, 24 June 2004 16:09 (nineteen years ago) link

the thing is that im a writer, and i get a pretty good living out of it (not great, not really enough to surrive, but more then i should) and i dont give a flying fuck about copyright, in fact i think loving copy right is corrosive.

anthony, Thursday, 24 June 2004 16:46 (nineteen years ago) link

So if we keep this one thread alive (but change the focus from topic to topic), can J0hn continue to post on it, as long as it's just this ONE thread? Come back, John...

Also, I love the idea that the random googlers who come on here ("Kanye I LUV YU I know you been thru hardtimes, me too I would do anything 4 u sexually or even as a frend") hold a copyright on their messages.

Also, I must confess that my first thought when I saw the thread originally was "Man, I hope I posted some funny shit in those threads!"

Neb Reyob (Ben Boyer), Thursday, 24 June 2004 16:53 (nineteen years ago) link

if anything of mine is in these books, delete them forthwith, thanks. I'm not going to react as vehemently as J0hn but this is pretty lame.

Matos W.K. (M Matos), Thursday, 24 June 2004 17:21 (nineteen years ago) link

actually it is TOTALLY FUCKING LAME and so is the COMPLETELY IDIOTIC idea that "copy right is corrosive."

Matos W.K. (M Matos), Thursday, 24 June 2004 17:31 (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.