Excelsior the book

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (832 of them)
the subtitle is Can I Borrow A Feeling? of course. and your face is on the cover.

CeCe Peniston (Anthony Miccio), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 21:40 (nineteen years ago) link

for only $5 american, you can inherit my entire ilx "legacy"

$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.

Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 21:41 (nineteen years ago) link

Oh, that's right, Causistry, that's how he got all those posts: the whole thing started out all "I am going to copy this over" and then we all began vying for inclusion.

nabiscothingy, Wednesday, 23 June 2004 21:41 (nineteen years ago) link

all proceeds go to Dizzee's Kids

(x-post)

CeCe Peniston (Anthony Miccio), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 21:41 (nineteen years ago) link

J0hn gave advanced warning. And didn't actually post it on LPTJ until two months after the thread.

"(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."

jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 21:45 (nineteen years ago) link

Out of curiosity, how does anyone (like, umm, Tep) think there's any way to fudge this, legality-wise? Reprinting, without permission, any substantive portion of a copyrighted work just isn't allowed; especially when it's then made available for sale.

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.

Tep (ktepi), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 21:48 (nineteen years ago) link

(I kind of left out the how, after I erased the medium-length answer and replaced it with the short one. Grumble. Well, I guess the "how" is simply because "this example is a subset of 'copyright law in general,' and I've come to see 'copyright law in general' as extremely flexible and hazy once you leave the extremes." At which point it's still debatable whether this thing really isn't one of those extremes.)

Tep (ktepi), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 21:52 (nineteen years ago) link

i take it this is what happened the last time Mark did this then?

i wonder what will happen the next time Mark does this

charltonlido (gareth), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 21:55 (nineteen years ago) link

have any of jon williams's picture posts been preserved in the book? animated .gifs, flip-book style?

Ian c=====8 (orion), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 22:09 (nineteen years ago) link

J0hn, I wish you wouldn't leave just because of what one poster---with no bad intentions---did.

oops (Oops), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 22:12 (nineteen years ago) link

so! wot's all this, then? did i miss anything?

Kingfish of Burma (Kingfish), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 22:19 (nineteen years ago) link

I'm quite surprised by Tep, this thread. I agree with Tep, this thread. Every step, Tep, correct.

Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 22:19 (nineteen years ago) link

jwilliams really needs to make a coffee table book

artdamages (artdamages), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 22:20 (nineteen years ago) link

Momus-as-J0hn: 'Thanks, oops, but I've been waiting for a chance to 'cultivate my garden' (as Voltaire put it) for a while. I'm going to plant some runner beans and write some new songs.'

Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 22:20 (nineteen years ago) link

Momus-as-J0hn: 'I'm also thinking of doing a little volunteer work on the election campaign. Er, you might be surprised by which ticket.'

(Momus-as-J0hn: 'Momus, you're skating on very thin ice at this point. What are you going to make me say here?')

Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 22:26 (nineteen years ago) link

This will explain things, Jeremy.

oops (Oops), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 22:27 (nineteen years ago) link

...i don't get it.

Kingfish of Burma (Kingfish), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 22:28 (nineteen years ago) link

What I violently object to is that a half-dozen or so mediocre threads would be published before a Dave Q compilation.

Also, since I have copyright over my posts please remove any of mine before continuing with this scheme. k thx bye

Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 22:48 (nineteen years ago) link

Mandee-as-Mandee: cut it out, momus.

Homosexual II, Wednesday, 23 June 2004 22:53 (nineteen years ago) link

Too late, suckers, I just bought the film rights. 'Excelsior: The Movie' is already in pre-production. You are each being played by the actor you hate the most.

Steven Spielberg (Momus), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 22:53 (nineteen years ago) link

When come bring royalties k thx bye

Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 22:54 (nineteen years ago) link

Sorta glad I'll be on vacation for a few days away from a computer starting tomorrow night.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 22:57 (nineteen years ago) link

That's okay, we have Robin Williams to cover for you.

Steven Spielberg (Momus), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 22:58 (nineteen years ago) link

Everyone on this thread is OTM in one way or another. Me, I'm indifferent, but at this point I think it'd be in Mark's best interest to pull the book from CafePress and apologize to anyone here he's pissed off. Then it'd be in ILX's best interest to gently rap him on the wrist with a hypothetical ruler, let him go, and suggest that anyone who wants to do something like this again would be behooved to ASK FIRST.

stockholm cindy (Jody Beth Rosen), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:04 (nineteen years ago) link

The ILX book is not sanctioned by anybody in any position of power or control over ILX. I am presently filing a complaint with CafePress on behalf of the ILXers whose Copyright is being violated through the publication of the book. (including my own)

Andrew (enneff), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:08 (nineteen years ago) link

(Note: I mention that it is "not sanctioned by anybody in any position of power or control" not to imply that were it sanctioned by me or some other moderator, it would be okay. Unless given explicit written permission, nobody may republish anybody else's ILX posts.)

Andrew (enneff), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:09 (nineteen years ago) link

Can I quote you on that?

Steven Spielberg (Momus), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:13 (nineteen years ago) link

Love, love, love.
Love, love, love.
Love, love, love.

There’s nothing you can do that can’t be done.
Nothing you can sing that can’t be sung.
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game.
It’s easy.

Nothing you can make that can’t be made.
No one you can save that can’t be saved.
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be you in time.
It’s easy.

All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.

All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.

Nothing you can know that isn’t known.
Nothing you can see that isn’t shown.
Nowhere you can be that isn’t where you’re meant to be.
It’s easy.

All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.

All you need is love (all together, now!)
All you need is love. (everybody!)
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need (love is all you need).

Yee-hai!
Oh yeah!
She loves you, yeah yeah yeah.
She loves you, yeah yeah yeah.

Can't we all just get along?, Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:15 (nineteen years ago) link

name some ILXers.

RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:21 (nineteen years ago) link

Can I quote you on that?

Of course.

Andrew (enneff), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:21 (nineteen years ago) link

Thanks. And in exchange, you have permission to republish my question 'Can I quote you on that?' But I wish you'd asked first.

Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:34 (nineteen years ago) link

ha ha

nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:34 (nineteen years ago) link

You are making me laugh a lot today Momus.

nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:35 (nineteen years ago) link

I think Momus has been taking hits from the bong.

oops (Oops), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:36 (nineteen years ago) link

There's a difference between quotation and republication. I'm sorry, Momus, I didn't get your joke at first. (although I do appreciate your humour) I find this kind of thing a very unfunny matter.

Andrew (enneff), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:43 (nineteen years ago) link

some people.

RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:48 (nineteen years ago) link

RJG, I'm really not interested in copping this shit from you.

Andrew (enneff), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:55 (nineteen years ago) link

I think people are taking this way too seriously. But then, I think that about almost everything.

oops (Oops), Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:58 (nineteen years ago) link

I don't know, I'm a bit torn on this. I know the FAQ says we have copyright over our own material, but that's never meant that we have control over it (past the moment we hit submit anyway) so it implies ownership only. I agree that "repackaging" the content here without permission does cross a line, but I don't see a massive difference between this and the image linking and content messing about WE do with stuff from everywhere else on the web. I just kind of accept it as a genral term of use - I expect my ownership to be fundamentally respected, but you know, if someone here takes the liberty of surprise photoshopping raccoons into my personal photos etc. which is technically a violation (note - not an invitation Mr. Carruthers) I probably wouldn't freak out. It's not a black and white issue in any case.

Kim (Kim), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:00 (nineteen years ago) link

No, I agree with you oops. It hardly seems worth filing a complaint about. As someone said up thread, Mark had an error of judgement and is probably feeling quite ganged up on right now. Can't people just let it go?

E.S.P (ipsofacto), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:00 (nineteen years ago) link

andrew is definitely taking things way too seriously.

I wonder which shit he thinks he is copping.

probably ILX.

RJG (RJG), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:01 (nineteen years ago) link

ilx actually comes out of rjg's bum

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:06 (nineteen years ago) link

I can't accept that.

RJG (RJG), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:07 (nineteen years ago) link

I don't see a massive difference between this and the image linking and content messing about WE do with stuff from everywhere else on the web.

The difference lies in the sale of the repackaged material. Nobody could successfully argue that photoshopping a giant penis onto Crudders' head isn't fair use. Embedding images is a grey area, as the content itself is still being supplied by the original publisher.

Republishing material unchanged without consent (as is the case here) is obviously not simply 'fair use'.

Andrew (enneff), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:07 (nineteen years ago) link

I'm just imaginging the whole thing filmed in Orson Welles style: the presses roaring, the books being stacked in boxes, a dissolve shot to people picking up newspapers with the gigantic headline 'EXCELSIOR!', another dissolve shot to 'Citizen' Grout lighting up a cigar and puffing his elbows out and gazing upwards, an insert of dollar bills fluttering from the sky, shots of people hurrying home with the book, reading it, taking out their M0untain G0ats records and throwing them on the fire, then a scene of a man wearing a trucker hat chiselling some names off a plaque in the Pantheon. Finally, two inscrutable images: an insert of a four-eared kitten, followed by a shot of an old man on his deathbed, leaning up towards the camera and croaking 'Excelsior!' before falling back, lifeless.

Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:08 (nineteen years ago) link

erm....excelsior?

..., Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:10 (nineteen years ago) link

Right now I'm imagining a steel spike being driven through my eardrum and into my brain. It's a good image.

VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:13 (nineteen years ago) link

It's still a little grey to me - cafe press is a printing service that costs money to directly repackage stuff. ilx is website that also costs money and we repackage a lot too. It's just more diffuse. I'm not defending the idea of a book, just saying that there is no land totally above water here.

Kim (Kim), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:13 (nineteen years ago) link

SALE. SALE. SALE.

Andrew (enneff), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:17 (nineteen years ago) link

Right now I'm imagining a steel spike being driven through my eardrum and into my brain. It's a good image.

Just the one spike?

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:18 (nineteen years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.