I think a plausible explanation for J0hn's fear and loathing here is that it took the idea of this book to make him realise the self-betrayal implicit in his every post. In something akin to Heidegger's account of 'the Uncanny', he was jolted out of 'posting-as-habit' and suddenly saw posting as vulnerability, self-betrayal, even a kind of unwelcome self-recognition.
That was my take on it, too.
― oops (Oops), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:58 (twenty years ago) link
you have a point, but I was really responding to Momus's implied "all property laws are bad" position more than anything.
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:59 (twenty years ago) link
(a) There are conceivably instances in which something somebody posts here could wind up somewhere that he or she would seriously, for any number of reasons, prefer it not to wind up.
(b) On the off chance that such a thing were to happen, it'd be totally cool and convenient if that person could do something about it. Not even because of ownership or fairness or anything like that, but because, duh, they'd like it not to be there.
(c) The best way to provide people with that chance is to say -- just to say, for the record! -- that everything on this server is copyright-the-poster, and to just stick with that idea rather than bending and equivocating and talking about Kanye West and fair use and telling people not to be upset. It doesn't even need to be a legal issue. It can be a simple social issue: a lot of people would prefer ILX to be the kind of place where it was clear that disseminating people's posts in all sorts of directions is, I dunno, frowned upon. Like Tuomas said: the same way it's understood, in daily interaction, that recording your friends and playing the tapes willy-nilly is just generally not cool.
(d) And chances are, that in 99.9% of the cases that something gets reprinted outside of ILX -- quotes, posts, paraphrases, whole threads, little "hey look at this" cut-n-pastes like we ourselves do all the time -- nobody will be upset. Nobody will care. We all understand that information works that way, and we all understand that our posts are public and will likely flow here and there. But on that slim .1% chance that something winds up in a place that someone has good reason to really, honestly not want it, he or she will at least be able to respond by asserting some clearly backed-up rights.
If people are shocked because they think this book of Mark's was clearly one of those 99.9% who-cares instances, then sure: it is. My guess is that people reacted strongly because this instance seemed to serve no clear purpose whatsoever except to bring up the whole copyright issue. Turns out in the end that he had a perfectly good reason -- testing the printing service -- but as it stood it looked like a simple test of principle.
― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 24 June 2004 21:24 (twenty years ago) link
― ron (ron), Thursday, 24 June 2004 23:04 (twenty years ago) link
momus isnt saying the laws are bad. he's saying that with the way things are now, they are meaningless. so we might as well face the reality of everything being up for grabs.
― Sir Chaki McBeer III (chaki), Thursday, 24 June 2004 23:18 (twenty years ago) link
― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 23:20 (twenty years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 23:21 (twenty years ago) link
― Sir Chaki McBeer III (chaki), Thursday, 24 June 2004 23:21 (twenty years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 23:23 (twenty years ago) link
― Sir Chaki McBeer III (chaki), Thursday, 24 June 2004 23:24 (twenty years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 23:26 (twenty years ago) link
― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 23:27 (twenty years ago) link
― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 24 June 2004 23:37 (twenty years ago) link
― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 23:39 (twenty years ago) link
― oops (Oops), Thursday, 24 June 2004 23:41 (twenty years ago) link
― Andrew Blood Thames (Andrew Thames), Thursday, 24 June 2004 23:42 (twenty years ago) link
― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 24 June 2004 23:43 (twenty years ago) link
― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 23:44 (twenty years ago) link
― Kim (Kim), Friday, 25 June 2004 02:48 (twenty years ago) link
― Amazing Lars, Friday, 25 June 2004 03:19 (twenty years ago) link
i have more respect for the "noise idiots" than some other members on the board. go figure.
― todd swiss (eliti), Friday, 25 June 2004 04:22 (twenty years ago) link
As a complete outsider here with nothing to lose or gain, I can definitely say that there's been a slight but obvious "going downhill" since I've been here (which is, like, a minute).
But, ILX, you still feel special to me.
*solitary tear
― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Friday, 25 June 2004 04:56 (twenty years ago) link
― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Friday, 25 June 2004 05:24 (twenty years ago) link
I was puzzled too, Kevin, so I did an image search and this is what came up:
http://www.dertonline.com/ramones.jpg
― the music mole (colin s barrow), Friday, 25 June 2004 05:30 (twenty years ago) link
― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Friday, 25 June 2004 05:36 (twenty years ago) link
― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Friday, 25 June 2004 05:37 (twenty years ago) link
― gem (trisk), Friday, 25 June 2004 05:38 (twenty years ago) link
http://www.dangerousbrothers.co.uk/images/pjh_cap.jpg
― the music mole (colin s barrow), Friday, 25 June 2004 05:46 (twenty years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 25 June 2004 05:47 (twenty years ago) link
― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Friday, 25 June 2004 05:51 (twenty years ago) link
http://hennaking.com/sample159.jpg
― the music mole (colin s barrow), Friday, 25 June 2004 05:56 (twenty years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 25 June 2004 06:03 (twenty years ago) link
http://static.wired.com/music/96/01/stuff/green.bug.gif
― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Friday, 25 June 2004 06:03 (twenty years ago) link
http://www.arkidsfirst.com/images/photos/rdboy.gif
― Gear! (Gear!), Friday, 25 June 2004 06:32 (twenty years ago) link
― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 25 June 2004 12:28 (twenty years ago) link
http://www.party-oz.com.au/costumes/the-end.jpg
― mark grout (mark grout), Friday, 25 June 2004 12:59 (twenty years ago) link
― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 25 June 2004 13:07 (twenty years ago) link
― ambrose (ambrose), Friday, 25 June 2004 13:29 (twenty years ago) link
― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 25 June 2004 13:30 (twenty years ago) link
what ilx was like in october 2002
― charltonlido (gareth), Friday, 25 June 2004 13:36 (twenty years ago) link
― charltonlido (gareth), Friday, 25 June 2004 13:37 (twenty years ago) link
NOISE IDIOTS STRIKE AGAIN
― People love Gravity and Ebullition! (ex machina), Friday, 25 June 2004 13:39 (twenty years ago) link
― Ste (Fuzzy), Friday, 25 June 2004 13:40 (twenty years ago) link
― ron (ron), Friday, 25 June 2004 13:41 (twenty years ago) link
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~dbw8m/Personal/Photos/Honeymoon/DonkeyTeeth.jpg
― Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Friday, 25 June 2004 13:46 (twenty years ago) link
― Momus (Momus), Friday, 25 June 2004 13:50 (twenty years ago) link
― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 25 June 2004 13:53 (twenty years ago) link
A trial project to archive 6,000 UK websites was announced on Tuesday by the UK Web Archiving Consortium. The consortium, led by the British Library, includes the Wellcome Trust, the National Archives and the Scottish and Welsh national libraries.
Each member of the consortium will choose content relevant to its subject. All types of web content will be included, from government documents to blogs.
Richard Boulderstone, director of e-strategy at the British Library, said that all types of material will be collected including "informal material" such as discussion forums. "Letters and other informal works tell us how society is actually operating," he said.
The British Library will not censor the material because it does not want to restrict what people can find out about in the future.
"We would like to take a snapshot of every year, as a sample of what the web looked like", said Boulderstone, suggesting that in the future people could look back to 2004 and see the swear words that web users were using.
Only a limited number of websites will be archived initially but "ultimately, we would like to archive the whole UK web," said Boulderstone.
One of the problems faced by the consortium is that, due to UK copyright law, permission is needed before a site can be archived. The British Library is working with the government to extend the law to allow them blanket access to all websites because "there are four million sites that we would like to capture - we cannot ask everyone for permission," said Boulderstone.
The UK Web Archiving Consortium is not the first to archive the web. The Wayback Machine, run by US-based Internet Archive, is a service that allows people to visit archived versions of websites.
According to Boulderstone, the British Library's approach differs from that of the Internet Archive because his organisation seeks permission from websites. In the future, the British Library hopes to improve on Wayback by archiving more frequently and with more depth, and through providing metadata so that information can be found more easily.
from Silicon.com
― ambrose (ambrose), Friday, 25 June 2004 15:15 (twenty years ago) link
― St. Nicholas (Nick A.), Friday, 25 June 2004 15:33 (twenty years ago) link