Jason

November 21, 2000 6:44 AM

Jason put up a link to the New Yorker article that mentions himself, Meg, Pyra, EV, etc. It also mentions MetaFilter and myself. I find this funny in a way, all of of these people that never would have known anything about each other are all interconnected. Why? Because Ev and Meg started Pyra. Because I read an article about the original Pyra app. Which led me to Blogger. Which led to Ev, Meg, Pb, MetaFilter... whcih led to Kottke, Haughey, etc. Ahhh the good old days
posted by monkeyboy (36 comments total)

How many threads are really necessary re: this topic?

posted by chartres at 7:26 AM on November 21, 2000

Lots. Many many many more.
posted by barbelith at 7:55 AM on November 21, 2000

As many as possible. You can't talk about the A-List too much.
posted by daveadams at 8:25 AM on November 21, 2000

'Course not... we need posts like these to keep the 'blogger gods happy. =P

At least once a day!
posted by PWA_BadBoy at 8:29 AM on November 21, 2000

Yeah, and the A-List Fan Club hasn't changed a bit since Friday. I'm getting the DT's!!
posted by ethmar at 9:03 AM on November 21, 2000

Suuure, there isn't.
posted by waxpancake at 10:05 AM on November 21, 2000

Whoever put up that New Yorker article is seriously mentally ill. And going to the pokey for copyright violations.
posted by dhartung at 10:19 AM on November 21, 2000

I think you fail, to see what this is all really about. It's good press for Pyra, which in turn means they do well, which means they keep making cool web apps all you cry babies use. Where did all this A-list shit come from and who gives a rats ass?
posted by monkeyboy at 11:15 AM on November 21, 2000

And going to the pokey for copyright violations

Huh?
posted by ethmar at 11:37 AM on November 21, 2000

ethmar: I think dhartung means that if you infringe on copyright too much, your sense of identity starts to break down as you absorb ideas that aren't your own, and eventually all coherence and logic break down as you turn into a cartoon penguin.
posted by grimmelm at 12:04 PM on November 21, 2000

It dawned on me what dhartung meant. Indeed, that's pretty lame lifting an entire article and sticking it on another site.

I was tempted to do this today when I read the 60-Second Novel of the day over at Dan Hurley's site. Powerful stuff. It's like reading a masterpiece written in the sand at low tide.

Maybe not quite that good, but I liked it.
posted by ethmar at 12:18 PM on November 21, 2000

It's probably just me, but have you noticed how shortly after jkottke arrived in EssEff, Blogger decided to help all the Pyrates practice sleep deprivation; he says tongue planted firmly in cheek.
posted by netbros at 12:23 PM on November 21, 2000

who gives a rat's ass?
Excuse me, mokeyboy, but wasn't it you who posted the link in the first place? Apparently someone does.
posted by parvati at 12:25 PM on November 21, 2000

monkeyboy, it's not like you're the first to do any rah-rah-rah for Pyra around here, it was done all the time before any of this a-list stuff, and you wouldn't have to call anyone a crybaby if your post had had more of a succinct point: the post seems more about interconnectivity on the web [duh] than noting what great press the article gave Pyra.

ps, mentions of the a-list are largely in jest. where were you for all the other ultra-long threads on this topic?
posted by chartres at 12:31 PM on November 21, 2000

so what's the original link to the new yorker article?
posted by sudama at 12:57 PM on November 21, 2000

there is no original link to the new yorker article. As was mentioned in the previous threads about this article, the new yorker doesn't currently have a web site, and therefore cannot post their articles online.

whomever it was that posted this probably typed it in by hand.
posted by cCranium at 1:22 PM on November 21, 2000

then it seems to me that whoever posted the new yorker article is providing a public service.
posted by sudama at 1:53 PM on November 21, 2000

"The people at Pyra, having generated a blog explosion with their Blogger software, aren't entirely happy about the way blogs have developed."

Wow. Suddenly, I feel the need to write to these people and apologize for using their product.
posted by kristin at 2:12 PM on November 21, 2000

I think that. You think that. I bet the New Yorker legal department doesn't think that.
posted by snarkout at 2:12 PM on November 21, 2000

A public service they weren't authorized to provide, technically.

The article was probably OCR'd, I noticed a couple errors in it that are characteristic of OCR misrecognition.
posted by kindall at 2:13 PM on November 21, 2000

"The people at Pyra, having generated a blog explosion with their Blogger software, aren't entirely happy about the way blogs have developed"

I think that was the writer's interpretation of something said, that was probably taken out of context.
posted by mathowie at 2:32 PM on November 21, 2000

Pffft. Sure.
posted by sylloge at 2:47 PM on November 21, 2000

And yet, Kindall, I had the strangest sense that the article was carefully proofread from beginning to end.

By a mentally-unstable jail-avoiding software-company-worshipper.

If I'm not entirely mistaken.
posted by dhartung at 2:56 PM on November 21, 2000

Putting the aricle online probably is not a copyright infringement because it constitutes fair use.
posted by lagado at 3:25 PM on November 21, 2000

From the aforementioned link:

for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In this case, this was used for none of the above. The article was posted in its entirety on another website, and no critisicm, comments, or otherwise scholarly intentions accompanied the copy.

At least the person who duplicated the article gave credit to its original author.
posted by ethmar at 3:30 PM on November 21, 2000

Dan, I don't think you're being clear enough:

Dan Hartung posted the New Yorker article without permission and is going straight to Hell for it. Pray for his soul.

Also, (I'm no lawyer, but) the copy of the article on Geocities is not covered under fair use because the publisher isn't using it for critical or educational purposes. He posted it because (correct me if I'm wrong, Dan) so that everyone online could read it for free instead of spending the $3.75 to buy the magazine. The fact that it's being used by other people engaged in critical discussion doesn't really matter.

Joe Clark might have been able to use it on his site as a reference to his essay, but even that is stretching it. Hardly anyone in any media reproduces the object of their criticism in entirety; I don't think Ebert has permission under fair use to run all 122 minutes of American Beauty on his show.

Kristin's above use of a quote from the article is fair use because she's commenting on it.
posted by jkottke at 3:49 PM on November 21, 2000

But what about the fact that the issue sold out (not because of the article, but because it's the cartoon edition)? And is no longer being printed? And cannot be purchased, and the New Yorker doesn't put archives online? I guess it's still illegal, but...

Also, didn't the scanned article appear after that issue was off the shelves?
posted by megnut at 5:59 PM on November 21, 2000

You could call the publisher and ask for permission to reprint the article on your own site. That would provide an indication of their feeling in the matter.
posted by netbros at 7:55 PM on November 21, 2000

Finishing the thought, I had a similar situation in 1999. My brother and I were featured in a magazine that was print only. We asked the publisher for permission to include the article on our web site and were graciously granted our request. There were also photographs included, these rights were granted as well by the professional photographer.
posted by netbros at 8:29 PM on November 21, 2000

With the New Yorker, it's the author whose permission is important, not the magazine. At least until now, their policy has been not to have their own web site, but to let authors do with their own web sites what they will. Malcolm Gladwell puts all his pieces online, for example.

And as for the issue being off the shelves, I just got my copy of the November 13 issue in the mail today. Which is funny, in that I got the November 20 issue last week.
posted by grimmelm at 9:44 PM on November 21, 2000

Jason, I'm hurt. At best, I intend to arrive in hell after a short detour through the Motel 6 in limbo overlooking the vista of the upper circles. They serve a continental breakfast.

Meg has a good handle on the practical ethics I strongly suspect were involved.

I found the several days' of discussion on weblogs of an article on weblogs that was not itself on the web, either for commentary purposes, or to properly link weblog-style to all its appropriate referents, to say the least, ironic. As they say, like dancing about architecture.
posted by dhartung at 10:02 PM on November 21, 2000

i'm standing here offering.. nay, giving you a perfectly fine rat's ass, and you won't take it. just don't come to me in a few months trying to claim that the a-list never did anything for you.
posted by jacksaturn at 11:38 AM on November 22, 2000

I found that article via frantic.org, and I found it quite interesting... and I had no idea previously that something like that had been published in the New Yorker, so how would I have known to pick up a copy so I could read that article?

This aside, I live in Melbourne, Australia - where to the best of my knowledge, the New Yorker isn't available in your run-of-the-mill local newsagent, and that to get a copy of said magazine, I'd have to go to a large bookstore or a specialty newsagent in the city, and as I live on the outskirts of Melbourne and can't afford much travel, other than that to my workplace... well, I suppose I'm going to have to get one of my American friends to pick up a copy of the New Yorker, post it to me, and read it there to atone for the sin of reading the article online?

I'm just saying. ;-)
posted by sammy at 12:46 AM on November 23, 2000

Fair use in the UK means an excerpt of no more than a certain number of words (200 I think), as long as it is not the greatest proportion of the work, or the most substantial part of it, and which is used for the purposes of quoting, commentary or analysis. Or something like that. Clearly, quoting an entire article is not fair use.

Having said that, it is debatable how often magazines care about stuff like this on a day to day basis, and pretty much all of us have played with copyrighted materials at one time or another, haven't we Jason?
posted by barbelith at 1:06 AM on November 23, 2000

Why the f**k should anyone care is beyond me.
posted by Mr. skullhead at 2:03 PM on November 25, 2000

It's now over here if anybody cares. The author, who retains the copyright, has it on her personal site. It's okay if you care. It's okay if you don't.

It's all good.

"I was especially struck by the number of people who thought it was a big prank pulled by the `popular' kids to make fun of the uncool kids."

Oh that's just cuz some of us are paranoid and think you're out to get us. It's pathetic. Pay it no mind. Just remember the little people when you win Big Awards and we'll be satiated. My life will not be complete until Jason Kottke gets on Late Night With Conan O'Brien. Someone say we can make this happen. If that guy from The Onion can get on there, we can make this happen.

This is lovingly meant in jest so please don't have a cow.

"I will do what I can to remember the people behind the web pages and to promote contructive thinking rather than destructive attacks." - Dink

Good words. It's all good. Even the injokes and the infighting and the cringe factors and when some of the puzzle pieces don't fit. It's all good. It's a dead man's party and you invite yourself. Just leave your body behind.

Believe in your own press, or don't. Believe when others tell you if you're bad or good. Or don't. Care if you want. Care not if that's your choice. Just please remember: there are no nobodies. You. Whoever you are. If you think you are one, you are wrong. Everybody is on somebody's A-List. Some are just on more lists than others. Really.

It's all good.
posted by ZachsMind at 6:53 AM on November 11, 2001