How Social Mores Can Deal With 'Unfair' Copying, Even In Absence Of Copyright
from the being-neighborly dept
One of the complaints that we hear often from various publishers is the idea that, without copyright, other sites could simply copy all content. In fact, this is the big complaint we keep hearing from newspapers these days -- the idea that they do all this expensive "reporting," and then along comes some "blog" that just copies the work, adds a bit of commentary and gets all the traffic. I tend to point out that this is a silly position to take. The thing is, I say that even though I've experienced being on the "other" side of this discussion, and not with a smaller site, but a larger one. For quite some time a publication (that will remain nameless) that is larger and more well known than us had a habit of "rewriting" stories that were found on Techdirt, as well as a few other moderately popular blogs, without any credit. It became quite obvious that this was happening -- especially on stories that I would sit on for a couple weeks for various reasons, only to post them and see a very similar story pop up six hours later on this other site. The timing was uncanny. I finally asked a writer at the site about one such story, and was told that the editor had sent him my story, but said that since he did additional reporting on it, they felt no need to credit me -- and even claimed that this was the same stance that "real reporters" took, such as the AP and Reuters. Of course, that's not quite true, and the AP just changed its credit policies, so that it will clearly credit any publication that publishes a story before they do.Now, I can already hear critics of Techdirt furiously writing their "you hypocrite..." comments, but let me finish before declaring that. At no point did I think this was wrong, and it most certainly was not illegal. But I did think that it was not very nice and not very neighborly. One of the nice things about many blogs is that they're quite generous with "hat tips" and giving credit to other sites where they find things. Those links may not have much overall impact, but it's just a social nicety. At one point, I tried to make this point to an editor at that other publication -- again, trying to point out in as friendly a manner as possible, that it was the nice or neighborly thing to do to simply give a little "found via" or "so and so alerted us to..." link. My point wasn't that they had to do this, or that not doing it was "harming" me in any way. In fact, it was unrelated to us directly. I pointed out that from a perception standpoint, I was actually worried this would hurt that other publication's reputation. I pointed out that I wasn't the only one noticing this, and that some other sites were as well -- and that the potential "cost" of having people criticize them for "not being nice" over such a practice -- even if it was perfectly legal -- could be quite high as compared to the "cost" of providing a simple hat tip.
Eventually, two things happened. A few stories were written on other sites about this publication, falsely accusing it of "stealing" stories from other sites. I didn't think those stories were accurate or fair, because no stories were "stolen," but it did create a reputation issue for the publication, and in response that publication quickly became much better about giving "credit" to where it found the stories, even when it did significant reporting on its own. In my eyes, the reputation of this site increased quite a bit, not because it was obeying any law, or doing what it "had" to do -- but because it started doing the nice and neighborly thing to do.
I was thinking about this again, after reading Cory Doctorow's recent column for Locus Magazine, where he discusses someone who got upset with him for reposting public domain advertisements that others had scanned and uploaded to a community that discusses such things. The main complaint was that people felt (incorrectly) that Cory had reposted such things "without credit." After pointing out that there was, in fact, credit, everything was fine. Cory spends most of the article discussing why "permission" isn't needed -- but I actually think that this story, and my experience above, highlight a separate point that is really important:
Even in cases where there is no intellectual property right, social mores, social expectations and desire to keep one's own reputation, can actually solve such issues.
Believers in strong copyright act as if this is impossible or that it never happens. But that's not the case. In both my example above, and in the situation Cory faced, there were no intellectual property rights at stake. There was no legal obligation to credit whatsoever. But there was tremendous social pressure to do so. There's actually been some serious economic research on this topic, and Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel Prize in Economics for exactly this type of research -- showing that social mores within certain communities can often act as a better regulator of "public goods," than any government mandated privileges or property rights.
Does this mean that copying without credit is stopped entirely? Of course not. But it does show that it is not, as some people claim, a "costless," situation. There can be a tremendous cost to reputation in doing so. It's why people have an inherent negative reaction when they hear stories about comedians "copying" each others' jokes, or any other situation where someone tries to take credit for something that someone else did before them. And, in the end, these things tend to work themselves out, without relying on an overly broad form of government protectionism.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copying, culture, social mores
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Of course it turns out it wasn't the submitter's photo and the actual photographer was a friend of Doctorow's who had given him permission to use it. Not to mention the photo was of Cory's own hammock...
http://ask.slashdot.org/story/10/07/28/1744245/What-To-Do-About-CC-License-Violations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hah. They're such fakers
They routinely violate rights to photos. Where did the photo attached here come from?
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/09/10/return-of-at-the-mov.html
Or this one:
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/09/09/allen-dale-june-an-o.html
And don't get me started about how much of their site is just block quotes from people who do the real work.
I think they're cleaning up their act these days but they've got quotas to fill and time gets short.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hah. They're such fakers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hah. They're such fakers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FOSS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous situations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: anonymous situations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: anonymous situations
I really appreciate links to the original material (and if it isn't online, citations) and for the same reason I always provide them in my writing. It's helpful to go to the original source rather than just read an interpretation of the material. And by going to the original source, that often takes you to even more sources, so you can really pursue a topic in depth if you wish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: anonymous situations
Those links were invaluable for someone like me, who had little idea of what DRM even was much less how awful it could be for the paying customer, how careful I had to be then (and now) about where my money went. I was also made aware of ancillary issues like copyright law and the DMCA, and maybe most importantly, my rights under the law regarding copyrighted materials I purchase.
I returned the favor by sharing links myself wherever I could, for backup, for informational purposes, for awareness of the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now just for fun the incredible chinese news animation about newspapers.
http://www.youtube.com/user/NMAWorldEdition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Small communities versus the entire world
For the entire web, it isn't likely people are going to notice. Photographers, graphic artists, and bloggers have found their material used without credit by websites and companies that they weren't aware of until they randomly stumbled upon them. So I think social mores work well when everyone knows everyone, or there are relatively few degrees of separation. But once you leave that circle, there's probably going to be little, if any, social pressure on the "borrowers" to give any credit or acknowledgments unless they are part of a culture where it is taboo to do that sort of thing and they risk their reputations in the process. And I think as "borrowing" becomes the norm in some groups, the issue of giving credit won't even occur to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Small communities versus the entire world
Big deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
My point exactly. What social mores?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
The gaming world has a lot of companies, but imagine if someone made a game without the permission of the gaming company (of course, they can sue)
What I believe happens is that the social norms can still impact a company's decisions just as a blogger can decide to run a story but not give credit. If it happens, the community will call the person out on what they perceive is wrong.
It's just like on this site when we have a few trolls, you'll have a lot more people laying out their argument and the inaccuracies, where the ones that are more accepted will have less replies to their posts because their words are trusted more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
The gaming world has a lot of companies, but imagine if someone made a game without the permission of the gaming company (of course, they can sue)
I would consider them both small communities because it is likely that the degrees of separation from one end to the other isn't all that great. In other words, there's probably a pretty good chance that someone would spot uncredited usage.
But the Internet as a whole is hard to monitor if something doesn't happen to turn up on a search engine or you aren't looking. I know writers who have found their articles used in their entirety on other websites as if they were written by those website owners. I know photographers and graphic artists who discover their works are being used for commercial purposes in countries halfway around the world.
But if no one knows that the secondary user didn't originate the content, social mores aren't likely to factor in. And even if someone does figure out that the secondary user lifted the material, if no one in that social circle cares, then there is no pressure to give credit.
Bloggers and traditional news outlets have always raced to be first with a story, but in time people sometimes forget who broke the story first and then they just give credit to whomever is the bigger entity or whomever claims credit the loudest.
I think depending on social mores is great, but I can think of many cases where it won't apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
Suzanne you have a gift to give a long historical round up. It seems from this perspective that the ball falls out of your hand before just as you get to your last line.
My curiosity piqued I must know. What cases?
smores are great
Come with us to candy mountain Suzanne?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
1) got the reference
and uber kudos
2) Relive the relevance to the Headline to this article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
I'm writing a series on gift economies, and that has led me into quite a few examinations of monetary transactions/capitalism.
One of the big differences between the two economic systems is personal interaction. Gift economies, by their nature, involve personal interaction. Monetary transactions facilitate commerce without any interpersonal interaction.
So I'm in the middle of all of this reading on free culture, communities, exchanges, and so on. The idea of social mores works when there is some sort of community with an accepted form of behavior. But when you get beyond the community, then you can't necessarily count on accepted forms of behavior other than some fairly broad universally accepted norms (e.g., "I won't shoot you, if you won't shoot me.").
So to assume that if someone claims credit for what you wrote or a joke you told, your friends will come to your defense seems to depend on these ideas:
1. That your friends know someone is claiming your stuff.
2. That your friends want to come to your defense.
3. That the people claiming your stuff will respond to your friends' complaints.
When you have a fairly tight-knit community where a person's reputation matters to the group, then you have some leverage. You can just shun the rules-breakers. But when you are dealing with an entire world where one community doesn't necessarily engage at any level with another, you may have no significant influence over what gets done outside your own community.
Here's some food for thought:
Plagiarism Is Not a Big Moral Deal - NYTimes.com
The Ontology of Plagiarism: Part Two - NYTimes.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
There's plenty of information abounding, from updates on Mike's story about bad math used by TorrentFreak, to comments made here by others that get a lot of attention.
I'm really confused as to what you're trying to argue. First, you're saying "Oh hey, social mores don't seem to work." Then you're saying "It doesn't have enough effect on the internet as does copyright issues"
I'll just point out a few things. First, regarding copyright litigation:
Streisand effect takes care of most secrecy. Second, the internet will usually correct that small smudge of data really quickly. It's like a child in a class room that copies a paper online. Eventually it gets them caught by doing something so blatantly.
So, to answer another question, social mores do a lot more to pressure people into better acts. It's one type of pressure that works far better than inefficient litigation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
Who are you talking to? If you mean me, I said nothing about copyright. Saying that social mores won't always result in credit being given doesn't mean I feel copyright is or isn't the answer. I don't really care about copyright one way or the other. Most of the theorists I've been been reading lately say "Switch to a gift or P2P economy and give everyone a basic guaranteed income." The rationale: As long as everyone has their basic needs met and it doesn't matter who owns what (or you put much of it in a commons overseen by a trust which benefits everyone), then copyright becomes increasingly irrelevant. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
Capitalism 3.0: A Guide to Reclaiming the Commons. This link will take you to the entire book which you can download for free.
http://capitalism3.com/files/Capitalism_3.0_Peter_Barnes.pdf
Chapter 2 A Short History of Capitalism is particularly relevant. Peter Barnes says that corporations act like corporations, which is to maximize profit for stockholders. "It externalizes as many costs as it possibly can, not because it wants to, but because it has to."
He talks about increasing power of corporations, the widening gap of wealth distribution, corporate influence of government, etc. Here's another quote:
___
"There’s even an economic theory explaining this: Mancur Olson’s logic of collective action. Olson, a Harvard economist, argued that unless the number of players in a group is very small, people won’t combine to pursue their common interests. For example, if the CEOs of five major airlines decide they want a $500 million government bailout, they pool their resources and hire a lobbying firm. Together they tell Congress that without the $500 million, their companies won’t survive, and the consequences of their collapse will be dire.
Who lobbies against them? No one. The reason is that, while the five airlines will gain about $100 million each, the average taxpayer will lose only $5 each. It’s thus not worth it for ordinary citizens to get off their duffs and fight."
___
As I have suggested before, I don't think copyright laws are going to change anytime soon because lawmakers don't really have much incentive. I think many of the current copyright holders (major labels, book publishers) are going to disappear, so I doubt if as many entities will be around to file lawsuits and therefore those problems will take care of themselves.
But I don't think the world economy will suddenly be transformed when IP protection becomes less important because I think a lot of other things will remain the same. The fact that you can have free access to all intellectual property does not necessarily mean that you have the wherewithal to do anything with it (which has been said lots of times here on Techdirt).
At any rate, if you guys want to expand the conversation, read the book. It's quite interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
I'm still not saying anything about copyright.
I am reading about how commons work. After the group gets to about 1000 people (if I recall correctly -- I can look it up), the ability of everyone to keep track of everyone else starts to fall down. There's a definite link between social behavior and the size of the group. If social mores operated in all situations, I think we'd see more civil behavior in political discussions. Instead, it sometimes gets to be a free-for-all; a person will say something rude or untrue but gets backed up by his/her group of supporters. Then the other side counters and gets back up by his supporters. It becomes tribal behavior.
Social mores may operate within a group, but get discarded in regard to those outside the group. By all accounts someone who says something that is factually untrue should lose respect, but we're seeing that people can make untrue comments and get MORE respect WITHIN their group of followers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
Tragedy of the Commons: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty: "The scale of the commons (the number of people using it) also is important, as an examination of Hutterite communities reveals. These devoutly religious people in the northwestern United States live by Marx’s formula: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.' (They give no credit to Marx, however; similar language can be found several places in the Bible.) At first glance Hutterite colonies appear to be truly unmanaged commons. But appearances are deceiving. The number of people included in the decision unit is crucial. As the size of a colony approaches 150, individual Hutterites begin to undercontribute from their abilities and overdemand for their needs. The experience of Hutterite communities indicates that below 150 people, the distribution system can be managed by shame; above that approximate number, shame loses its effectiveness."
Punishing Free-Riders: How Group Size Affects Mutual Monitoring and the Provision of Public Goods
http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/20606/1/dp1337.pdf
"... our simulations and experiments suggest that the logistics of large groups may hinder the ability of mutual monitoring to discipline free riders."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
It is not true that Coca-Cola had to clean up its act after being denounced in public for letting its workers in America live in abject poverty and inhumane conditions?
Was it a 150 people that made Coca-Cola change their attitude?
Those studies seems to be old, they don't count on the capabilities we have today to transform anyone into a celebrity, that is the power to shame people.
CNN even have a opinion piece asking if the internet is ruining society, that debates the case of Mrs. Shirley Sherrod who was victim of wrong publicity, by the hands of a blogger, if that was not social more at work what was it?
Further all the ones who participated on that are suffering the consequences being vilified in public, you think they will do it again in public anytime soon?
http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/23/is-internet-culture-ruining-society/
Further why is that in the U.S. in some places the Justice department is putting up big displays of offenders if not to shame them?
Why is that so many people try to stop others from making negative statements about them?
Surely you have researched this didn't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
I have less faith than you do that the Internet is going to give us what we need in the upcoming elections.
How facts backfire - The Boston Globe: "In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
One of the big issues about commons is whether they will function for large groups.
Somewhat related, I think group behavior in terms of politics is particularly interesting because I'm seeing that some patterns of intentional misinformation are working quite well. Now, how do we stop that?
_____
In Politics, Sometimes The Facts Don't Matter : NPR: "Mr. NYHAN: Well, the problem is, you know, as human beings, we want to believe, you know, the things that we already believe. And so when you hear some information that contradicts your pre-existing views, unfortunately, what we tend to do is think of why we believed those things in the first place.
And, you know, so when, you know, we get these corrections, we tend to say I'm right, and I'm going to stick with my view. And the thing that my research, which is with Jason Reifler at Georgia State University, found is that in some cases, that corrective information can actually make the problem worse."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
On Facebook, Google, and Our Evolving Social Mores Online - John Battelle's Searchblog: "It's rather like attempting to design an industrialized city while living in 1200 AD. Not only has the technology not evolved (power grids, modern plumbing, automobiles, communications networks etc.), but equally importantly, the social mores have not developed as well.
... we are in the midst of a significant shift in our cultural history, one similar as our move, as a species, from a largely agrarian culture to one based on the modern city. That shift took roughly 1000 years to occur. And as it did, we renegotiated nearly every aspect of our social mores - the values that we hold as community standards. You need a new set of shared and respected rules to move from a village of 150 or so farmers, who knew each other very well, to a city of 1.5 million inhabitants, most of whom don't know each other, but live packed together in multi-story apartment buildings. ...
As we move online, we're once again making a great migration of social mores, and this time it's one not entirely tethered to physicality, location, or regional constraints....
Formation of new cultures like cities, or online communities, require that a process be, in the phrase of Kevin Kelly, a bit out of control....
This is uncharted territory, and we're very early in the instrumentation process. We're not certain, in advance of a given interaction, what's right and what's wrong, but we seem to know it when we see it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
The social mores will expand and we will see a consolidation of behaviors, like villages in the 1800's that had their own laws and rules so do countries today and we all will create new rules that we all can agree upon and those rules that can't find common ground will just be enforced locally by people who believe in those but not in a grand scale and other rules that made sense before will be thrown out like copyrights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
How much time it took to record labels to become the evil in the world today?
1 year? 10 years?
In 2003 or 5 they started suing everyone at the end of 2008 you got everyone unified in one voice and sentiment.
How much time it would have taken in 1900's to turn everybody on the planet against a group of people?
Social mores influenced that so much that the music industry had to abandon their litigation campaign because it was so unpopular it affected sales, they have the law on their side and are afraid to use it against people, that is why they are so desperate to find proxies, so the blame will fall onto others, that is the power of social mores.
What happened to every single artist that tried to go against the grain on this one?
They got shutdown by people, they got swamped by enraged people, maybe that is why only the older ones that got nothing to loose anymore are the ones speaking out about what they don't like, because in society today to defend that industry is just evil and people defending it will get treated accordingly.
Give it time and the people who are growing up right now hating those punks will grow to become the leadership and will go after those people, it may not happen tomorrow or the next year but change is coming. The "can artists survive" is just not the focus of the entire debate, people don't care about that, when those same artists are feeding organizations that are hurting them and affecting their lives in negative ways perceived or otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
I will point out how social mores influence behavior and do in fact exist and are powerful and you will claim you are not debating that to which I will point you to your own post telling the other guy "exactly my point, which social mores" that states in no uncertain terms that what you was trying to say is that social mores don't affect anything and suddenly you will suffer from cognitive dissonance and try to backtrack just like your studies show one would, then you will try to distance yourself from that notion.
What you have shown is that those not serious studies made not by psychologists notice the power of the human ability to be stubborn but it says nothing about social mores unless you count the fact that those people seem alarmed at how ingrained perceived notions can affect society which is what social mores are all about.
I do believe you need to expand the scope of your research to include psychological effects and social dynamics, hackers learned that a long time ago they even have a name for it is called "social engineering".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/09/fight-right-drink-bottled-water-video.php
http://www .newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer
Instead they managed the impossible, they consolidate a hate so ingrained that it will be difficult to change things in the near future; they destroyed all their bridges and are standing alone in the cold. They brought the whole world against the industry, not one corner on this world likes the entertainment industry right now, everyone hates their guts, maybe that is why you are so skeptical about social mores because in your case it won't help you at all.
But rest assured you don't need to research how people will get paid in the future, this is not in doubt, with or without laws people will find a way to get money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
But rest assured you don't need to research how people will get paid in the future, this is not in doubt, with or without laws people will find a way to get money.
I'm not talking about the entertainment industry. I'm talking about craftsmen and painters and street corner musicians who aren't making any money.
And I am very concerned because I'm not optimistic about the world economy. I don't think the average person is going to have any leftover money to buy a t-shirt or support any of the other "scarce goods" which are suggested in Techdirt as ways to make money for artists. I'm actually wondering if it is possible for people to give musicians vegetables they have grown in their gardens in exchange for entry into a concert. And I am also looking into installations that we can put into parks so that people can gather together to make music for each other for free.
I'm concerned about what was in that New Yorker article, too. That's why I have stressed that if you want copyright laws dropped, then you better pay attention to politics. The money going into the Tea Party sure as hell doesn't have dropping copyright laws as a priority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
Copyright isn't really a factor in the world I envision because everyone is going to be giving it all away for free anyway. So I'm more concerned with how to generate an income, not necessarily directly from arts, for everyone. I want more money invested in infrastructure, in education, in health care, in environmental protection, low cost non-polluting energy solutions, and hopefully the jobs will follow.
The fact that some of you seem to try to paint me into a copyright corner makes me think you guys are so myopic that you see anyone who has a different viewpoint as "the enemy." As I keep saying, copyright is a non-issue to me because I think the big guys are disappearing and people at the individual level don't really care all that much. These individual creators may want credit for their creations, but they aren't going to sue you if you use them. They don't have the money to sue you. They'd much rather you come up with affordable health care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
When your arguments fall, mock others and keep running.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
Don't worry, people always find a way; besides those craftsman are already making money without any help from you dear, the only people really pissed is big content no surprise there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
People will enforce what they believe in, is there any surprise there? really?
So what are you trying to say, that social mores don't exist?
Your 2 studies proves they do, is just the outcome is not what you would expect, some people are just not swayed by facts, like the UFO crowd, is that surprising? not at all.
About those studies, I want to know if they have identified the mechanism that make people change their minds because that exists or else we would have slavery today. They found out that facts alone will not influence some people you need the other part and that is trust, so those studies are inconclusive for me, they didn't explore all aspects of social interactions and their dynamics and every psychology student call will point out the same things us I'm doing right now.
This study is not even done by psychologists, it was done by health policy research(or whatever that means).
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128490874
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
...they didn't explore all aspects of social interactions and their dynamics. Any psychology student can point that out and probably will point to the same things I'm doing noting now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
Social more is a proven concept, the outcome can be argued endlessly, but the fact that it changes how people behave inside society is not in question is it?
Can you say social mores don't influence policy and social interactions?
What relevance to that does it have wether people are dumb or not, biased or not, what does it changes it? Social norms become irrelevant, people will disregard them?
I doubt it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
Personally, I don't know why you have to reply to every last link of your own with more research. It just makes the thread incredibly hard to follow. If you have more to say on a specific subject, why not just use the same reply button twice? Then, it's a lot neater if someone is using the same thread for it all rather than a pyramid.
The mores I can think of are all around but you seem not to notice them for whatever reason. In gaming, those that cheat are usually ridiculed or banned from places almost instantly.
In athletics, the same goes for those trying to get that "extra edge".
If you're online and trolling, the community will either A) taunt you mercilessly or B) ban you.
It's the same as when the social conscience goes against business sense. As I was alluding to with copyright, it goes against common sense in a lot of ways. This is why the RIAA is still hated even though they've stopped their sue-em-all campaign. Their basic strategy is what is being destroyed, just on a larger scale. While people don't have a direct influence, their responses (form in groups against the RIAA, ignore them, discuss, etc) is the same as if it were a smaller community. Whether the RIAA listens or not, the society's influence will touch on others (namely who the RIAA listens to - the Big Four).
If I have to pull another example, then you should look into the Pastor that wanted to burn the Quran. Everyone pressured him to stand down from something intolerant. So saying that social pressure doesn't work on a large scale is ignoring the fact that it indeed does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
Why do I add the references? Because I think some people might find them of interest. Sometimes I see some holes in these discussions and think the topics aren't quite as clearly defined as presented. Social mores, for example, is a huge topic. And it's very reasonable for me to point out that they don't hold across all groups, or across anything as big as the Internet. Even within discussion groups, what is accepted behavior in one group is not accepted behavior in others.
For example, there are people who believe that once music is played, essentially it enters into public domain and there is no need to give credit to the songwriter or the creator of the recording if they happen to use it. There are people who feel they can use graphic artwork or photos without crediting the creator. I see it done all the time, so whatever social mores are out there don't hold across all websites. In some cases people don't know they are supposed to credit the creator; in other cases they don't care; and in other cases, like with a video, they don't necessarily see a convenient place to post credits so they don't.
I've been reading about commons for three or four weeks now and how they are governed differs from group to group. Elinor Ostron won a Nobel prize in economics for her work on commons and one of her principles is that each group needs to design its own rules and ways to monitor activity. I won't bother with a citation, but I can find it if anyone wants to go that deeply into the discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
Seems throwing accusations around fits you well. What else am I guilty of? Do you see yourself as judge, jury and executioner?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Small communities versus the entire world
And, at that point, they can make a big stink about it, draw lots of attention to the offending party, and voila, social mores still work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
But based on the responses I've seen in Techdirt, the reaction is likely to be, "Big deal. Once you put it online, it isn't yours anyway and we can do whatever we want with it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
However-- Plagiarism is very unprofessional, and if a journalist/website *that matters* is found to be plagiarising others' work wholesale, their reputation will likely be hurt -- their competition will jump at the opportunity to use this, of course.
Makes no difference if it's on the internet or not. If no-one notices an article was copied, then the copier is either very obscure, or doesn't cater to the same people as the original author. In both cases, the original author is not affected.
Regarding the copying incident Mike mentions in the article, imagine if instead of keeping it quiet, he posted an angry comment in the copier's comments section, with a link to the article that was copied...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
I don't believe in plagiarism, but Techdirt has gone to bat in defense of people who use content created by others and there's no credit given. If it is 100% the same as the original, is that plagiarism, but if it is only 95% the same is it creative license? Is there a percentage where it crosses over the line?
If you upload something on your site and don't say it is yours but also don't give anyone else credit, is that plagiarism or just lack of professional courtesy? I'm just asking because I've seen justifications for using whatever you find as part of your own work; no one has said that a song or a short video needs to include a list of credits. And there have been books where the author didn't credit her sources and it hasn't bothered people here. Seems like there have been advocates of wanting all books, music, art, etc., to enter the public domain immediately.
Let me ask, if it weren't Mike being the one not receiving credit, and it was someone you didn't like not receiving credit, would you be saying the same thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
The rules that apply to fair use may also apply to plagiarism. Imho, the right answer is, there's no right answer -- what constitutes plagiarism is a mixture of culture, social norms and common sense.
But, I believe plagiarism is more important that copyright infringement. If the value of intellectual work is to draw attention to tangible products and services (and, most importantly, the creator), then plagiarism *is* depriving someone of the benefits of their work, and it is therefore unethical.
Copyright infringement may deprive the creator of his legally-granted copying privilege, however as long as the work remains unchanged, it will strengthen the *brand* of the creator. If said creator's work is any good and he picks up the opportunities that arise, he can still find ways to make lots of money.
"If you upload something on your site and don't say it is yours but also don't give anyone else credit, is that plagiarism or just lack of professional courtesy?"
Isn't it both? Also, isn't plagiarism lack of professional courtesy, amongst other things?
"I'm just asking because I've seen justifications for using whatever you find as part of your own work; no one has said that a song or a short video needs to include a list of credits."
CC-BY.
"Let me ask, if it weren't Mike being the one not receiving credit, and it was someone you didn't like not receiving credit, would you be saying the same thing?"
Absolutely. I work in academia, and publish lots of papers, books, code etc. I'm happy to put those up on the internet for everyone to copy freely, as long as they give me credit. They are free to use and build on all my ideas, as long as they properly cite my work.
Why, you ask? In the long-term, my reputation and social standing within my field are more important than any short-term benefits IP could give me. The more people learn about my work, the better, and the more opportunities I will get to further my career.
If I catch anyone taking my papers, putting their name on them and publishing them as their own (i.e., to further their own career, at my expense), you can be certain I'll have a word with them. But, will I care if someone copies a few paragraphs from the literature review of a paper of mine? No. Will a teacher care if one of her students copies a few paragraphs from the literature review of a paper of mine? She should, because the student needs to learn to do it on his own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
I feel the same way, and I think a lot of writers, artists, musicians, etc. feel the same way. Often the copyright debate gets lumped in with this. What I hear a lot of people saying is that all they want is credit. They aren't concerned about getting paid or stopping usage of their content.
But on the opposite side I have read many defenses of people wanting to use whatever they want to use. The concept of cultural commons implies that once it is put out there, it is available for everyone to use.
Here's a common example. Someone makes a video and uses a song as background music in the video. How many people bother to credit the music somewhere in the video? Many people don't. Similarly, lets say someone performs or plays a song but doesn't bother to mention who wrote it. The audience may think the person covering the song wrote it unless told otherwise. It happens all the time.
Photographers often complain that they have seen photos they have taken turning up without credit. That's why some of them try to include their names on the photos, although those do get removed.
At any rate, if there is strong agreement here that every creator should get credit, I think you'll get a lot of support for that idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
Seems completely within the realm of possibility that someone lifts an image or article to share and sees absolutely nothing wrong with doing so. Calculations of possible 'harm' to the originators of the material aren't at the forefront of their minds when they're using those materials to speak them. In such situations it's likely that, once brought to their attention, those kinds of folks would have no problem adhering to social mores. They'd want to conform, do things right, and properly credit or link back.
Then they'd get sued by something like Righthaven. D:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
So, post copyright-abolition people are once again proud to copy, proud to credit their sources without fear that their fundamentally innocent act of cultural exchange will enable a corporation's psychopathic lawyers to bankrupt them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
The social pressure I feel is exactly the opposite: go away and quit caring about the rights of the original artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
Besides no artist is "original", we all use life as scaffolding for creating anything, it seems to me that it is improper to take what you got for free and try to make it your own.
Show me a man claiming to be original and I will show you a liar.
Just the other day I was reading about A Christmas Carol and how it was pirated to no end and became the biggest story ever written in recent times to this day, now I don't think anyone forgot the author did they?
You seem to think that without absolute control over everything you are nothing, I believe that is not true and with minimal control one can accomplish great things, and that minimal control doesn't need copyrights to exist.
Copyrights and IP laws destroy the environment that creativity needs to flourish, it impedes progress and only harms society and for that people like you deserve to be sodomized by the common people who will ignore you and your false victim cries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
And I don't think you're getting the general point: it's not about someone who uses a small part of another's work in building a larger work, it's all about the people who do no real work at all and pretty much repeat another's work.
So I'm not complaining about posts that involve active research, I'm complaining about posts that are 99% the work of someone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
In which world quoting someone and pointing to them is plagiarism? Bobland?
Your only valid point was the photo, but you don't know if it was paid for or not do you?
So you create a fantasy story to illustrate the supposed bad behavior and keep yapping about it.
I can only say this "you are a fool".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
Or you are liar or you are stupid.
You pointed people to articles that quoted pieces of stories and is now saying they copied everything, are you mentally slow to think others will somehow believe your stretched truth?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Small communities versus the entire world
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plagiarism vs Copying
Plagiarism is to present another's work as one's own.
There's nothing morally wrong in copying another's work (it's only a commercial privilege that requires permission), the wrong is in falsehood, in the deceit of misrepresentation or misattribution, which can be implicit, e.g. through context.
Even when copyright is abolished there will still need to be law that enables cases of plagiarism to be arbitrated and remedied.
It's not that one must credit one's sources per se, but that one should not claim (even implicitly) that another's work is one's own. Whether one credits one's sources is a reputational issue (for publisher and source), deceit is a different matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it plagiarism, fair use, or remixing?
For quite some time a publication (that will remain nameless) that is larger and more well known than us had a habit of "rewriting" stories that were found on Techdirt, as well as a few other moderately popular blogs, without any credit.
How many words are we talking about here are that are original to Techdirt and how much rewriting has been done? If it has been rewritten or even altered a little bit, does that fall into transforming it into something new? Or is the site perhaps doing people a favor by condensing it? Or by adding to it?
Does it actually fall under plagiarism, or is it merely failing to credit the original source, or what? I know that with some stories, I see it mentioned in various places. Sometimes the story originates in one place and then spreads. Other times everyone picks up on it at roughly the same time, and they didn't copy each other even if they didn't all publish it at the same time.
All I really know is that Techdirt hasn't gotten credit for something and some people have noticed; I've said that process doesn't always work that way because people don't always notice. If someone in China copies something from the US, we may not notice, so there are no social mores to shame them into stopping. It's a pretty straight forward statement if you stop and think about it. And even if people do notice, if their readers aren't your readers, then they may not care what your readers think of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it plagiarism, fair use, or remixing?
Mike's work here is copyrighted, but instead of opening a messy can of legal ballyhoo as too many other organizations do, it was left to readers to remind the other site of common courtesy, and the situation basically took care of itself.
Valuing your rep over pulling a legal trigger that could and likely will misfire even if you win. Helluvalot cheaper!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i must be more evil than Mike...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"and voila, social mores still work"... well no.. it doesn't.
And, at that point, they can make a big stink about it, draw lots of attention to the offending party, and voila, social mores still work.
Ok, then explain how that is an example of the "social mores" working?
What is the difference between that situation, and the same situation if his work was copyrighted ?
What if he does not discover his work being used? what if the photo is used internally in a company, or does not get on the net ?
Social moores failes, At least with copyright, if you "kick up a stink" you have some legal backing to support your case. What backing do you have with the social moores, a whole bunch of people who do no give a stuff about you and your picture. Good one..
Now, I can already hear critics of Techdirt furiously writing their "you hypocrite..." comments,..
No Mike we did not need this argument to be convinced you are a hypocrite, we allready know that from past posts, and opinions. This just confirms it, if that was necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "and voila, social mores still work"... well no.. it doesn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "and voila, social mores still work"... well no.. it doesn't.
"Som'un check thar social moores for they be faileen! Yarrgh!!"
Laughed so hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "and voila, social mores still work"... well no.. it doesn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "and voila, social mores still work"... well no.. it doesn't.
What if he does not discover his work being used? what if the photo is used internally in a company, or does not get on the net ?
Well, then he wouldn't know to file a copyright infringement suit. So, copyright law wouldn't protect him either. Any way you slice it, the infringement would go unpunished.
And the terrorists will have won!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But what if they don't share social mores with you?
For instance, consider this posting that probably took all of twenty seconds to cut and paste:
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/09/09/allen-dale-june-an-o.html
And where did the long quote come from? The f*&#&rs don't even include a link to the AP story:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/09/ap/national/main6851540.shtml
I don't know who took the picture but I'll bet it wasn't Xeni Jardin. There's no credit for the photographer.
I would be more hopeful for the power of social mores if I thought that there was some general agreement about these things. But clearly BoingBoing has a different set of mores than you've got and they think they're the coolest people on earth. They don't need to give out hat tips or even acknowledge their source.
And as another comment astutely pointed out, the power of social mores tends to disappear when people aren't in contact with each other. People are polite in a small town because they know they'll bump into each other again and again. But Xeni is probably never going to meet the AP writer who helped her make her daily quota of postings. She can just hang out with the BoingBoing crowd and live in their own echo chamber where they keep patting themselves on the back for being so incredibly cool. Then they sneer at their competitors for not "getting it" and complaining about how the major media folks are all evil for not letting folks take their stuff for free.
So that's why we have a court system and laws. Sometimes there are disagreements. Sometimes social mores don't work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But what if they don't share social mores with you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But what if they don't share social mores with you?
And where did the long quote come from? The f*&#&rs don't even include a link to the AP story:
Instead, they provided a link to a different story on the same topic. This is almost certainly just a slip-up. I just now posted a comment about it.
So that's why we have a court system and laws. Sometimes there are disagreements. Sometimes social mores don't work.
In this case, the court system wouldn't work either, since what they're doing clearly falls under fair use. If you sued them, you'd likely face an anti-SLAPP suit for your trouble.
I have no idea why any of this upsets you. They've never re-posted a story in its entirety. Their coverage is minimal (usually a one paragraph summary), and - barring screw-ups - they provide a link to the source. There's no way they could be said to "steal business" away from the original source.
They're basically acting as human RSS feeds. Nothing wrong with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But what if they don't share social mores with you?
The AP paid $100-200 to send that photographer. The newspapers who play by the rules are at a disadvantage competing for eyeballs with someone who doesn't pay photographers. Fair competition is fine, but this is the kind of competition that destroys the information ecology.
Oh, and it's much different from a human RSS feed. They often reprint more than just one paragraph. Here are a few recent examples:
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/09/10/what-happens-when-yo-4.html
http://www.boingboi ng.net/2010/09/09/child-in-the-road-il.html
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/09/08/missed-connectio ns-p.html
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/09/08/secret-copyright-tre-7.html
http://www.boingboi ng.net/2010/09/08/bombing-guam-with-de.html
Need I go on? Reprinting the core part of the article may be legally okay because fair use is a rather amorphous concept, but it's not really fair to the original author. Many of the readers don't click through when they get the meat of the story. Furthermore, they may skip the story if they happen to visit the original creator's site because, well, they know what happened.
This is very different from, say, the Drudgereport where he writes entirely new headlines that tend to lure people into the articles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But what if they don't share social mores with you?
It's a shame you could not find such an example for any of the six you posted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: But what if they don't share social mores with you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: But what if they don't share social mores with you?
Where did this photo come from?
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/09/09/allen-dale-june-an-o.html
It's almost certainly from a paid photographer who isn't getting paid by BoingBoing. There's no attribution what-so-ever. There's no Creative Commons licensing noted.
Get a clue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But what if they don't share social mores with you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what social mores?
I'm afraid that social mores will take some time to do their work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what social mores?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what social mores?
You mean those people behave just like you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But what if they don't share social mores with you?
http://www.seattlepi.com/national/1110ap_us_last_code_talkers.html?source=rss
Happy now?
Now you can contact the AP and say Xeni Jardin stole their property and while you are at also denounce the AP for taking the photos from the wife's of the code talkers and not paying them, also denounce the AP and every media that took all those photos from the U.S. archives without paying;
tonnes of photos of the code talkers there.
http://search.usa.gov/search/images
Now go annoy people elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But what if they don't share social mores with you?
And go elsewhere? Why? So you and your chums can sit around looking for justification for downloading whatever you want and not pulling your weight?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But what if they don't share social mores with you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But what if they don't share social mores with you?
More likely, however, it's being used under license, in which case they don't need to give credit explicitly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But what if they don't share social mores with you?
But they always only print a small portion of the story. In fact, the longest quote among the ones you posted was part of a blog, not a newspaper story, and even there it was much less than a third of the total.
Many of the readers don't click through when they get the meat of the story.
Those are the readers that are not really interested in the story. What do you want to do, force people to read articles they don't care about?
But in the meantime, readers who are interested in the story will almost always click through.
I'll bet you dollars to donuts that if you compare similar stories from the same source, one linked from Boing Boing and one not, the one that is linked will always get more hits.
Reprinting the core part of the article may be legally okay because fair use is a rather amorphous concept
You've just admitted that neither copyright law nor social mores would find anything wrong with Boing Boing.
So, you admit that you're not here to discuss the subject of this article. You're just here to trash Boing Boing because you're holding some sort of grudge against them.
What is it? Did Boing Boing kill your dad and rape your mom? Do you have some sort of psychotic reaction to dorky hipster glasses? Are you allergic to science fiction?
Or are you just a pro-copyright troll?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: But what if they don't share social mores with you?
Ah, I did no such thing. My main point is that there's not one set of social mores. I think they're lazy and happy to coast along snarfing the work of others. You just seem to be willing to defend their lazy work. So there are two different views here. Perhaps the social mores will converge but that won't be for some time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: But what if they don't share social mores with you?
There are several parts to the issue of fair use. One of the most important tests is how much extra interpretation and explication the supposedly fair user wraps around the quote. If there's little extra added, it's not fair use even if it's just a small part of the original work.
I don't think it's plagiarism if someone gathers 30 quotes from 30 different sources and glues them together with plenty of their own work. But I do think it's plagiarism if the person takes only one quote from one source and adds nothing of their own.
The real question is how much they add and in many cases, the kind folks at BoingBoing add little except perhaps a name or two and some very simple introduction. It's all about meeting their quota so they can sell enough ads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But what if they don't share social mores with you?
How is that websites go to number one if nobody follow links?
Care to explain that Mr. smart pants?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But what if they don't share social mores with you?
http://www.ap.org/pages/about/pressreleases/pr_090110a.html
That statement implies people have not been giving all the credits where credit is due. Doesn't?
The Source Cycle
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/1320417708-8810375/content~db=all~content=a792545145
Sour ce:
http://thenextweb.com/socialmedia/2010/09/07/ap-begins-crediting-bloggers-as-news-sources/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But what if they don't share social mores with you?
The original author came to my blog and asked me if it was cool, I answer yes it was very cool that is why I made an article out of it and posted a link to the original study, he was a bit surprise from all the traffic he was getting from this one post and came to see what the fuzz was all about and I was surprise that he noted my little blog.
That is when I learned that all content managers today log traffic and where they come from and that thousands of people read my blog and clicked on the source links I offered. I don't write anymore but I always link to what I read because I know it drives traffic specially because I know that in my days writing at least 20% of the readers fallowed those links and I could see that, you obviously don't have a blog or don't check those things because otherwise you wouldn't be stating such nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Serious? Think Wall Street cares about that, how about HP or BP?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The CEO cares when they're being tailed by the media 24/7, and suddenly they're facing down an inquiry that forces them to give up their million dollar bonuses.
The basic idea is simply this: professional and social stigma will hurt the bottom line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why can't there be community banking?
Why can't there be fuel alternatives?
What if every house in America produce hydrogen and send it to local fuel stations to fuel mass transit transport?
Crazy I know but I see every house acting like bacteria producing something that alone would be insignificant but combined would make up something big.
Distributed fuel production, distributed plastic production, every house would produce some raw material.
You see when they abuse those social norms that is the time to get creative, that is what gave us open source, we can change things changing how we act inside and they will have no alternative but to give up.
They need us more than we need them, don't ever believe otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing day
(I`m adding this comment on the most recent post to maximize the odds that someone who knows something useful will see it and reply.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lessig discussed this a long time ago
This is the most brilliant insight that Lessig has ever made. It's one that I use as a frame of reference in some of my own writings.
I don't have the book in front of me so I forget exactly what he says, but I believe he says that the four forces have to rebalance themselves for cyberspace to be a reasonable place, and they hadn't yet as of his writing 11 years ago. I'd say they are still a long way off from finding that balance; perhaps they never will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HAHAH,,, its BOINGBOING,, what a loser !!
boingboing bigger than TD, now that is saying something, (many things actually).
Perhaps you might want to take a look at "techrights" one day, if you want to see a real master of taking your, and everyone elses content, putting it in a diffent context and using that to make some false claim.
You're are not bad at it either, but you have a ways to go.
And Mike, if there was no one for you to take WHAT YOU WANT, and interpret it how you want, and there was no such thing as "cut and paste" you would be screwed, its sloppy and unprofessional to rely on the good ol cut and paste, throw in some comments and publish. job done.. And you did not even have to work very hard.
Certainly you did not have to do any leg work or find any original news, you just steal if from everyone else.
But I know that most of the 'stories' there are here will also be posted on techrights, and usually word for word.
Yes, its easy to cut and paste,
So it appears you troll the internet looking for juicy tid bits of dirt for you site, you cut and paste the meat of the article (or the bits that fit your bias), and you throw in a few comments of your own,, and your dont..
can I get a job like that? you dont have to do any work, think and you get paid.. great scam...
but Mike, at least now I understand why you wanted to keep the site in question a bit quite. I guess you reputation is shot anyway, so it does not matter what you say or do from now on.
You will always be the one who whinned about BOINGBOING takeing your precious works.. (that you took so much effort in lifting from someone else in the first place,, how dare they, do what you do !!!)..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lying and dishonesty
Indeed it doesn't matter if that something is copyrighted or not, if you didn't make it, you didn't make it. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something to have fun with
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something to add to the conversation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]