How I Had To Give Permission To Quote And Paraphrase Myself

from the permission-culture dept

Wed, Jun 1st 2011 1:36pm — Bill Benzon

It's all just so bleepin' INSANE.

Here's the deal. Two, no three, years ago a buddy of mine, who shall be nameless so he�s not associated with this mini-quagmire, asked me to contribute a chapter to a book he's editing on a subject near and dear to me. Fine. Glad to. So, over a year ago I put some of my work-in-progress online at The Valve, a group blog where I have privileges, in order to get feedback on my ideas.

Which I did. Thank you very much, interwebs.

Time goes by, I turn in my final chapter. My buddy likes it, his editor likes it. And then the publisher sends some bots out on the web to compare text in their book-in-progress to whatever's on the web. What happens? My chapter gets flagged because, hey! some of my prose is out there on the web.

And you know why some of the prose in my chapter is out on the web you clueless bot-masters? Because I put it there! That's why.

Anyhow, my buddy sends me a note explaining the situation and asking me to send him a note explaining that, yes, I put that stuff out there on The Valve. Here�s my exact message: �Some of the prose in my [name redacted to protect the innocent] chapter first appeared online at The Valve � where, for example, I�m quoting [some worthy authority]. So I�m just re-using my own prose.�

My buddy passed that on to his handlers and we figured that was the end of it. But, no, not good enough. His handlers got back to him, this time with the very passages the bots had snooped from the web.

Now I had to read those very passages and swear on a stack of virtual Non-denominational Multi-cultural Sacred Books that each and every one of those words was mine and I wrote them both on The Valve and in my book chapter. Really and truly in the names of a Supreme Force in the Universe Including Intelligent Quantum Fluctuations and Digital Devices, yes, the prose is mine.

Thus I swore. So it is.

And, you know what? They accepted my word. This time. But next time, who knows?

What I�d like to know is just why it even got back to me. After all, my name is on my posts. But, I suppose the Bill Benzon on those posts could be some other Bill Benzon, you know, the one from alternative universe sigma epsilon 37,901 delta delta. When my editor buddy sent me the suspicious passages there was no name attached. Maybe the bot didn�t return with names, just prose.

Well, why the BLEEP! not? Is it so hard to program a bot to do that? Would it be so hard for someone to check the name of the passages delivered up by their bot? Maybe someone checked and they didn�t believe their eyes. Maybe they did believe their eyes, but just had to make sure that we�re all in the same universe, the one where the land of the free and the home of Tang (a benefit of the Apollo moon shots dontcha know) has insane copyright laws.

Maybe they�re under orders to do meaningless ritual acts so as to appease the restless spirit of Sonny Bono that�s wandering around in the ether just waiting for an opportunity to materialize and tell someone that it wasn�t his idea, it was the diminutive rodent with the cheeky attitude and the greedy corporate daddy (who�s a person, dontcha know) that did it.

Crossposted from QuestionCopyright.

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: bill benzon, culture, permission

35 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2011 @ 1:52pm

Wells fargo sued itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2011 @ 1:52pm

So?

Was it that difficult to affirm that you had written it?

Doesn't seem worthy of drama-queen level complaining...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joshua Lyle, 1 Jun 2011 @ 1:57pm
  
  Well, yes, it was "that hard", that is, it was as hard as it was described as being, which was too hard, being as the original affirmation was totally ignored. That would put some sandpaper up my rear.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Persephone (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 9:10pm
  
  Re:
  Doesn't seem worthy of drama-queen level complaining...
  
  My feelings exactly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:56am
  
  Re:
  Seriously.
  
  OMG someone wanted some ASSURANCES before investing time and effort into something. What has the world COME TO!!!???
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
mermaldad, 1 Jun 2011 @ 1:52pm

suspicious activity flagged by the mermalbot
Hey Bill, the same text is posted on the Question Copyright blog. Did you get permission from the author to post it here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jon B. (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 1:53pm

Bill, I'm not sure you're aware, but Mike Masnick, or one of his partners, has reposted this story on techdirt.com. Can you verify, on a stack of Hitchhiker's Guides, that you are in fact, Bill Benzon of ΣE37901ΔΓ and that you give permission for this story to be reposted?

There appears to be some guy from over in ΣE37901ΔΔ posting stuff without your permission, plagiarizing you in books and such, and we just want to make sure everything is on the up and up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marvin, 1 Jun 2011 @ 5:02pm
  
  Re:
  Here I am, brain the size of a planet and they ask me to look for matching text on the intenet. Call that job satisfaction? 'Cos I don't."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2011 @ 1:54pm

How hard is it to understand? You are a victim of what many on this site consider the greatest feature of the internet, the anonymous factor.

There is no simple way to know that the posts online are in fact yours. Explain how you would prove it. Your name? Not enough, there are always more people in the world with the same name. Your email address? Is it yours, or did you hack it away from someone else? Was it used and then recycled later by an ISP or mail provider? Your IP? Sorry, but if it isn't good enough to prosecute copyright violations, it isn't good enough to prove anything positively.

When you posted it online, you gave up any hope of proving it is really yours.

Of course, your story is one that sort of shows why the anonymous internet won't last.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jon B. (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 1:57pm
  
  Re:
  So, when strict IP control and ownership comes at odds with the free, anonymous flow of information, you assume that it's the free, anonymous flow of information that's the problem?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DogBreath, 1 Jun 2011 @ 2:08pm
  
  Re:
  So, without absolute and unimpeachable proof that those posts were his, they are now subject to being called "Orphaned Comments". Since copyright (currently) lasts 70 years after the death of the original author, and "after his death", it would be meaningless considering he never proved they were his "comments", they are effectively copyrighted forever?
  
  Thanks Sonny Bono, thanks a lot.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Raphael (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 2:12pm
  
  Re:
  Of course, your story is one that sort of shows why the anonymous internet won't last.
  -Anonymous Coward
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2011 @ 2:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    That's quote of the day material. I approve of this comment.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 3:33pm
  
  Re:
  > There is no simple way to know that the posts
  > online are in fact yours.
  
  Technology can figure it out!
  
  At least that's what the IP Maxis always say when someone points out that there's no simple way to determine if content is infringing or not.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 7:01am
    
    Re: Re:
    You get the point. Either it works or it doesn't. If he feels that what information exists is enough to prove that the comments and posts online are his, then should it also not be enough legally to support copyright violation lawsuits?
    
    You cannot have the best of both worlds. being able to use the technology to prove what you like, while at the same time claiming it cannot prove what you don't like.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 1 Jun 2011 @ 4:01pm
  
  Re: When you posted it online, you gave up any hope of proving it is really yours.
  So what was the point of the affirmation, then?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2011 @ 1:55pm

Yes, copyright can sometimes be labyrinthine.

No, this isn't an example of that excessive convolution.

No, I can't slag editors for just doing their due diligence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jon B. (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 1:59pm
  
  Re:
  I have to agree with this.
  
  This isn't really that big of deal in comparison to more common situations. What's worse is when Walmart refuses to print a family photo because the photo LOOKS too professional and therefore *must* be owned by some photographer, and not you, you damned dirty criminal.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rose M. Welch (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 4:49pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I have totally had this happen to me. Because no one has digital cameras and can use the autosettings with Gimp. Really.
    
    I went home and ordered ten more 8x10s of the same photos over the Internet for one-hour service. They won't let me pay for them? Their loss.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joshua Lyle, 1 Jun 2011 @ 1:55pm

What's amazing is that the handlers do not appear to grasp the irony of making a copy of the passages in question without first obtaining the permission of the blog author.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2011 @ 2:49pm
  
  Re:
  What's good for the goose ain't so great for the gander. I hope this sentence hasn't been written down somewhere or else I could get into copyright trouble.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
btboyes (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 1:55pm

I'm sorry, but it seems like you're blowing this out of proportion.

You submitted a chapter
Their automated crawlers got some hits and they asked for confirmation that you wrote it, and you gave it.
They gave you the exact hits and asked you to confirm that it was all you, you did.
The end.

Sounds like a company taking some pretty simple precautions. They could edit their code to check for names too, but there's enough people out there with the same names that it's likely not worth the effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Raphael (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 2:08pm

You think THAT'S complicated
Try explaining to Youtube why a DMCA takedown notice from your doppelganger in universe sigma epsilon 37,901 delta delta is invalid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DogBreath, 1 Jun 2011 @ 2:11pm
  
  Re: You think THAT'S complicated
  Or become now and forever branded as an "Alternate Universe Plagiarizer"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DCL, 1 Jun 2011 @ 4:35pm
    
    Re: Re: You think THAT'S complicated
    I hear being branded an "Alternate Universe Plagiarizer" means:
    
    - you can't live within 12 parsecs of a inter-dimensional replicator,
    
    - be in possession of quantum carbon paper.
    
    - stand within a light year of the event horizon a black hole (when plotted on a mimeographic scale)
    
    - purchase a pencil
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DogBreath, 1 Jun 2011 @ 5:14pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: You think THAT'S complicated
      You left out the most important one:
      
      - if you don't already have a goatee, you must now grow one (because you're obviously from the Evil Alternate Universe).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steven (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 2:36pm

It's simple CYA
They've successfully (or to the best of their ability) passed any liability over to you. That's their job. You whine too much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Helpful Jones, 1 Jun 2011 @ 3:42pm

You really want to know *why*?
...

You want to know why? Do you?

Because frackin *Lawyers*, that's why!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hugh Mann (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 4:29pm

Geez, why the hissy fit?
They're getting ready to publish a book. They do some due diligence, and find something online that matches up with what they've got in the book-to-be. Doesn't seem over-the-top at all that they'd basically want a release from the author of the material on the web - i.e., you. And it doesn't seem over-the-top that a casual email statement was not quite enough for their needs. They wanted something more formal.

Unless I'm missing something here, it seems like much ado about nothing much. I just don't see the rant-worthiness here.

HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 11:58pm
  
  Re: Geez, why the hissy fit?
  I like to think of it as going against the "My Word is My Bond" principle.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DogBreath, 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:02am
    
    Re: Re: Geez, why the hissy fit?
    Unfortunately in the world we live in today, "your word" means nothing to the legal department, unless it's actionable against you. Then they'll sue you till the cows come home and leave again.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2011 @ 9:14pm

"And you know why some of the prose in my chapter is out on the web you clueless bot-masters? Because I put it there! That's why."

I don't blame them. If it turned out that you copied someone else and they published it in their publication, some IP maximist can then turn around and sue them for a huge sum of imaginary damages. Sure, they can probably turn around and sue you for those imaginary damages, but the whole thing would be a legal nightmare for everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill Benzon, 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:04am

Jesus Christ, you people who doubt the over-arching veracity of my singular existence! Don't you know that there can only be one William Benzon, master of cognition?! Seriously, as if anyone besides me in possession of such puny intellect could possibly string together the arcane symbols (that only I can properly perceive!) that identify me, SINGULARLY. All other William Benzon's are rank amateur impostors! Even my grandfather, William Benzon, knew this!

Now, I must get back to stroking Nina Paley's ego!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill Benzon, 4 Jun 2011 @ 5:35am

contract
FWIW, shortly after agreeing to submit an essay to the book I signed a standard contributors agreement in which, among other things, that "the essay does not infringe upon any copyright or proprietary rights of others." So, this little dance is in addition to a signed agreement they already had.

@Bill Benzon #32: 3 points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hugh Mann (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 12:24pm
  
  Re: contract
  Yeah, well, I can see how being asked to sign one more piece of paper might be an annoyance, but "insane"? I still don't see how it rates a rant as some sort of incredibly ironic "tail wagging the dog" story that demonstrates how copyright has evolved into some sort of Frankenstein's monster who is now turning on us and destroying our villages of creativity.
  
  HM
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]