Excelsior the book

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (832 of them)

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.

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

Do you not see that CafePress would be making money from the words of ILXers? I don't see how it could be any more clear.

― Andrew (enneff), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:18 (nineteen years ago) link

there is no land totally above water here.

SAIL! SAIL! SAIL!

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:20 (nineteen years ago) link

Momus, you should write a song about this book and put it on your new album. (obv titled 'EXCELSIOR!')

― Andrew (enneff), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:21 (nineteen years ago) link

I've already done it, but I changed the names to protect the guilty. It's called ROSEBUD!

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

haha erm xpost Excelsior the album

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:25 (nineteen years ago) link

Should we sue him if he tries to get away with it? Meta-lawsuit.

― Kim (Kim), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:26 (nineteen years ago) link

Dan, you need to quit this board too.

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:37 (nineteen years ago) link

You mean like you did?

― oops (Oops), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:38 (nineteen years ago) link

Do you not see that CafePress would be making money from the words of ILXers? I don't see how it could be any more clear.

Andrew, this has been covered, and while I don't defend the book, that's positively ridiculous. They'd be making money from the sale of binding glue, labor, and paper.

You can disagree, and you do, but the bullshit like "I don't see how it could be any more clear" is exactly why I started posting: because we had a gaggle of geese running around thinking everyone saw it in crystal-clear terms exactly like theirs, and no one in fact did.

― Tep (ktepi), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:41 (nineteen years ago) link

(If you really think there's no substantial difference between "making money off of ilxors' words" and "making money off the material their words are printed on," you have a very low opinion of those words.)

― Tep (ktepi), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:42 (nineteen years ago) link

This is bizarre. Do people really view their posts to ILX (esp., but also ILF/ILB/ILM) as 'works'? It would never occur to me to assert the copyright to (or ever worry about) something I wrote on an Internet forum or to worry about it all.

This isn't material (in the sense of a work of art, or a magazine article) and it was never published. Internet forums are the equivalent of talking with friends.

I understand why it's bad form to not float the idea at all or ask for input, but for the life of me, I don't understand why anyone would be upset about this thing's existence. There's no harm done. ILX posts aren't something anyone does in the course of business, so it hurts no one on the money end. ILX posts are available to many more people every day, so privacy concerns are out.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:45 (nineteen years ago) link

(x-post)

Subtract those words and they'd be selling blank books, and while there are companies who do that, I don't think that's what CafePress had in mind.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 00:46 (nineteen years ago) link

Skipping 732 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

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