Comments on: Comments on 4387

Post number 4387

monkeyboy — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 06:44:50 -0800

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

By: chartres

chartres — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 07:26:39 -0800

How many threads are really necessary re: this topic?

By: barbelith

barbelith — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 07:55:38 -0800

Lots. Many many many more.

By: daveadams

daveadams — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 08:25:57 -0800

As many as possible. You can't talk about the A-List too much.

By: PWA_BadBoy

PWA_BadBoy — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 08:29:55 -0800

'Course not... we need posts like these to keep the 'blogger gods happy. =P At least once a day!

By: ethmar

ethmar — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 09:03:47 -0800

Yeah, and the A-List Fan Club hasn't changed a bit since Friday. I'm getting the DT's!!

By: waxpancake

waxpancake — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:05:01 -0800

Suuure, there isn't.

By: dhartung

dhartung — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:19:36 -0800

Whoever put up that New Yorker article is seriously mentally ill. And going to the pokey for copyright violations.

By: monkeyboy

monkeyboy — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 11:15:37 -0800

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?

By: ethmar

ethmar — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 11:37:31 -0800

And going to the pokey for copyright violations Huh?

By: grimmelm

grimmelm — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 12:04:56 -0800

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.

By: ethmar

ethmar — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 12:18:13 -0800

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.

By: netbros

netbros — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 12:23:51 -0800

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.

By: parvati

parvati — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 12:25:59 -0800

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.

By: chartres

chartres — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 12:31:49 -0800

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?

By: sudama

sudama — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 12:57:32 -0800

so what's the original link to the new yorker article?

By: cCranium

cCranium — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 13:22:00 -0800

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.

By: sudama

sudama — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 13:53:49 -0800

then it seems to me that whoever posted the new yorker article is providing a public service.

By: kristin

kristin — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 14:12:18 -0800

"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.

By: snarkout

snarkout — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 14:12:51 -0800

I think that. You think that. I bet the New Yorker legal department doesn't think that.

By: kindall

kindall — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 14:13:03 -0800

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.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 14:32:21 -0800

"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.

By: sylloge

sylloge — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 14:47:26 -0800

Pffft. Sure.

By: dhartung

dhartung — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 14:56:10 -0800

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.

By: lagado

lagado — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 15:25:00 -0800

Putting the aricle online probably is not a copyright infringement because it constitutes fair use.

By: ethmar

ethmar — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 15:30:44 -0800

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.

By: jkottke

jkottke — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 15:49:08 -0800

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.

By: megnut

megnut — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:59:24 -0800

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?

By: netbros

netbros — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 19:55:53 -0800

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.

By: netbros

netbros — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 20:29:25 -0800

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.

By: grimmelm

grimmelm — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 21:44:28 -0800

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.

By: dhartung

dhartung — Tue, 21 Nov 2000 22:02:32 -0800

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.

By: jacksaturn

jacksaturn — Wed, 22 Nov 2000 11:38:00 -0800

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.

By: sammy

sammy — Thu, 23 Nov 2000 00:46:14 -0800

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. ;-)

By: barbelith

barbelith — Thu, 23 Nov 2000 01:06:31 -0800

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?

By: Mr. skullhead

Mr. skullhead — Sat, 25 Nov 2000 14:03:36 -0800

Why the f**k should anyone care is beyond me.

By: ZachsMind

ZachsMind — Sun, 11 Nov 2001 06:53:12 -0800

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.