Excelsior the book

(Chris, for heaven's sake, I'm both an author and an editor in the small press. We aren't going to have an argue about the innate essence of bookness. You can feel free to alone.)

'Webboard comments have ranged from anti-European ("More tastelessness and idiocy from across the Atlantic") to mildly amused ("Somebody had to say it") to vehement agreement ("George W. Bush should die in a hotel fire in Birmingham, wrapped in sheets gritty with Mr Kipling crumbs") since the incident.'

All three comments, unattributed, came from one ILM thread, and the third is mine... But it's a parody paraphrase of a comment Morrissey himself made about Brett Anderson. So, if the lawyers had their way, we could sue Pitchfork, Morrissey could sue me, Bush could join him in a class action, Brett Anderson could sue Morrissey, Bush could invade Highgate, Ned could lock every thread on ILM, and so on and so on. Only the lawyers would benefit, and in the end only three vultures would be left alive on earth. (Cue TAFKAJD to say 'Momus, don't be disrespecting vultures. They are noble animals.')

*This is not to say I don't think some of you have very valid arguments - it IS, rather, to say that he said if people said no that he'd get rid of it, people have said no, and now he'll get rid of it. Why waste the time and energy on something which has practically already been solved?

Thread's done, make way for the people to comment on the thread now.

Jess, the key part of your sentence = "on ILX." We are all of us aware that loads of people can read what we write on ILX. Some of us would prefer to state very clearly, right now and for future reference, that we do not necessarily wish that material to be reproduced outside the place where we originally put it. Especially for sale.

(I've just remembered something that saddens me: J0hn actually did this same thing once, didn't he? Posting an ILX thread over to LP2J and then coming back to ask if anyone minded.)

(xpost w/ nabisco)

He is merely one of my 83 identities.

$1 gets you all of the "I despair for humanity" posts.
$1 gets you all of the "Matos probably thinks this" posts.
$1 gets you all of the "OH! MY POOR EYES!" posts.
$1.99 gets you the photo with the Teddy bear.
A penny for your thoughts.

(x-post)

"(if anybody's interested, I really will finish this tomorrow, will probably both post it here & to LPTJ - warning, it'll probably also include why "The World's Greatest" is also quite triffic)

-- J0hn Darn1elle, June 15th, 2003."

I really, really don't want to get into a legality discussion. Let me make that clear up front. It's mostly because my understanding of copyright law is very case-specific, in the "please can you call legal and ask them before you make me change this" sense of "case" and very much not in the "Sparkwood vs Twenty-One" sense of "case." Slightly more than half of what I've published has sparked a fair use discussion with editorial; I think I know less about it now than I did before I ever dealt with it.

It's partly because one of the things I've been told in times like that is that the relevant rulings tend not to be as clear as either side would like, once you try to generalize away from the specifics of a prior case.

I don't like talking out of my hat, and I don't like huge discussions where hats are all anyone has to talk out of, which is the kind of thing "the internet and fair use" easily leads to.

But with all that in mind -- in other words, if you disagree, all I'm going to do is say "Okay" -- my short answer is that I think just about anything can be fudged at least a little, when it comes to copyright law.