Excelsior the book

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

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

Anthony, what have the mods stepped on that we shouldn't have? This book thing hasn't been anything to do with moderation, and I'm not sure what you have in mind.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 24 June 2004 18:38 (nineteen years ago) link

I share Anthony's views on both copyright and immoderate moderation.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 18:43 (nineteen years ago) link

Aside from concerns about privacy or precedent/legalities/etc. (which have been done) can Matos or JD (if he comes back) or anyone who's strenuously opposed to their posts being included explain why? (assuming they have reasons outside of privacy and precedent)

I'm still trying to understand why inclusion would concern some people.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Thursday, 24 June 2004 18:57 (nineteen years ago) link

anthony, get your head out the clouds man.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:15 (nineteen years ago) link

To me there are two components to a love of copyright: ego and greed. These are two of the things I despise most in humanity. I think I must be missing some other components which would bring about a need to have your thoughts copywritten.

― oops (Oops), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:16 (nineteen years ago) link

needing to eat.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:17 (nineteen years ago) link

The thing is, there are good pragmatic reasons, strategic reasons, for supporting Anthony's position. Information doesn't just want to be free, it is free, whether we like it or not. This is the reality of the time we live in. And consider also that immoderate moderation may actually create the trolling it thinks it's preventing.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:18 (nineteen years ago) link

the other component you're missing is 'consent'

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:18 (nineteen years ago) link

it seems to me that anthony has his feet planted firmly in the ground.

― Sir Chaki McBeer III (chaki), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:20 (nineteen years ago) link

philosophically, it makes sense to be against copyright, though I'm not sure if information's salient characteristic is that it is free. If this is your view, you should work to change copyright laws in an effective manner (ie. not by flouting them).

Momus, do you own the copyrights on your records?

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:20 (nineteen years ago) link

also, I'm starting to think that this particular thread should be locked for posterity (ha!) and we should continue the philosophic and legalistic discussion elsewhere, without much reference to this incident. Though maybe that's a bad idea, too.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:22 (nineteen years ago) link

I own and then sell the copyrights to my records. I also 'sell' the right of illegal copy by controlling the mp3ing process myself, or rather, by giving 'pirates' the chance to redeem themselves by donating. (Parallel with trolls: I would give them the same chance, and keep giving it.)

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:23 (nineteen years ago) link

All of the bullshit about ILX ever being "special" or "different" from any other online forum is basically a bunch of old-timers blowing smoke up each other's asses about how wonderful they are. FWIW.

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:24 (nineteen years ago) link

okay, thanks Momus, I was just curious.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:24 (nineteen years ago) link

I responded to something written about ten posts ago, not 564, if you'll bother looking.

I don't want to argue about this, but you said "please delete me from the book" after it was clear that Mark no longer has ANY intention of publishing the book at all.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:25 (nineteen years ago) link

the other component you're missing is 'consent'

but someone would only require consent due to the influence of their greed and/or ego. imo, obv.

― oops (Oops), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:27 (nineteen years ago) link

we should continue the philosophic and legalistic discussion elsewhere

I just went looking for an old copyright thread to revive, but there are too many old ones to choose from.

I wasn't around for most of them. Maybe one of you longstanders remembers a goodie to revive.

― Maria D. (Maria D.), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:28 (nineteen years ago) link

(I have decided I want to have the last word on this thread.)

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:29 (nineteen years ago) link

sorry for erupting but this "everything should be free, here have a hug and a daisy" shit really annoys me.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:29 (nineteen years ago) link

you'd prefer 'here, have a face full of glass and a kick in the nads', maybe?

― luna (luna.c), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:30 (nineteen years ago) link

It's not 'should be', it's 'is'. Faced with that, we can either hug, or huff.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:31 (nineteen years ago) link

(Last word!)

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:31 (nineteen years ago) link

there was another recent internet copyright thread started yesterday, although it dealt mainly with images.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:32 (nineteen years ago) link

(Das letzte Wort!)

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:32 (nineteen years ago) link

Dan is sexxxxxy.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:34 (nineteen years ago) link

(Aw.)

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:34 (nineteen years ago) link

Do you guys really really not see any difference between things like sampling and recontextualization and things like flat-out wholesale reprinting of other shit? What people would like to protect themselves against is the latter (e.g. your twelve-paragraph essay on The Smiths showing up unattributed in Spin), not the latter (e.g. a "haha oops is funny" getting quoted on some dude's blog). This is why you bother taking a stand about it even when it doesn't affect anyone -- because next time, it might.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:34 (nineteen years ago) link

people are just overreacting to one person's would-be gaffe which has since been humbly retracted before it even started, and people are letting their aggression out over something that never even really occurred. I see why people don't want to have the stuff published but since it's not going to be published by the completely repentant single person who was going to do it, why not try to make things cheery again? IT'S OVER

― Gear! (Gear!), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:35 (nineteen years ago) link

dammit broke my promise

― Gear! (Gear!), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:35 (nineteen years ago) link

(That was my x-posted last word.)

Gear, if you don't like the discussion, go read another thread, for Christ's sake. Nobody's talking about Mark's book anymore; we're just talking about copyrights.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:37 (nineteen years ago) link

ok i give in.

keep in mind i don't give a shit about this book and am flabbergasted/not at all surprised by the responses here.

in my experience, people who completely cannot see the point behind being offended by copyright infringement and are wandering around going information is free! free like a baby deer! or some shit are people whose thoughts aren't worth stealing to begin with.

also, like elvis telecom said, those threads were all utterly shit, wtf? THAT is more an indicator of "ILX's demise" than this infight ever will be.

i'm thinking of making a compilation of everything dan, andrew farrell, and john d. ever said on ilx though and flyering the entirety of columbia university with it, i think they're ok. and gear! otm! hstence to the izzo is also correct in that this should just be a separate thread cos i kind of feel bad for mark at this point?

― allyzay, Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:37 (nineteen years ago) link

http://www.piercegleeson.com/photos/daisy.jpg
http://www.clarkson.edu/~barnetja/images/c-h-hug.jpg

― Gear! (Gear!), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:37 (nineteen years ago) link

Gear's right, which is why I suggest limiting it to philosophical/legal instead of recriminations.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:38 (nineteen years ago) link

Nabisco, do you not see any difference between 99% of the posts to ILX and 12-paragraph essays that would be of interest to Spin?

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:38 (nineteen years ago) link

ya'll not just talking about copyrights, people are getting angry and defensive and bitching at one another and leaving ILX foreva, and it's really silly that it's over this. it's done and it won't happen in the future obviously, because of the major waves caused by this minor infraction. I don't want to get into an argument about it, I'd rather argue about stuff like war and Saint Etienne and roommates, so I apologize to you Nabisco sir.

― Gear! (Gear!), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:43 (nineteen years ago) link

Hi Ally. You never emailed me your email address.

― St. Nicholas (Nick A.), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:44 (nineteen years ago) link

Nabisco, I'd say 'betrayal' and 'loss of ownership' is all over writing and speech. The moment we speak we're betraying ourselves by pouring our fluidity into the ice-mould of language, and 'losing ownership' of our thoughts because language is a common good, not something we own. It thinks us as much as we think it, it owns us as much as we own it. Why even bother with this mania for ownership of non-tangible goods? Is thought really best served by ownership? Are you that vested in the private property system? And why defend the current boundaries, the places people (mostly lawyers and entrepreneurs) mark what they think are the boundaries of 'the self' and 'property' just at the moment when they're in their deepest crisis?

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:45 (nineteen years ago) link

Momus, do you vote? If you ever drive, do you obey the speed limit? Do you pay taxes?

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:49 (nineteen years ago) link

(LAST WORD WOW!)

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:49 (nineteen years ago) link

Information wants to be useless

― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:50 (nineteen years ago) link

it got its wish then

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:51 (nineteen years ago) link

Rethinking the ownership of non-tangible goods (at at time when their use is almost impossible to police) is not the same as 'never following any laws ever', hstencil.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:53 (nineteen years ago) link

(El wordo finito! ARRIBA!)

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:55 (nineteen years ago) link

Listen! Can you hear that? It's the sound of people trading mp3s over on ILM. And that? It's the sound of links from this thread to somebody's flower photo. And that? It's the sound of servers all over the world reproducing the bits and atoms I'm assembling right now with my keyboard. I betray myself 60 times a minute.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:58 (nineteen years ago) link

Rethinking the ownership of non-tangible goods (at at time when their use is almost impossible to police) is not the same as 'never following any laws ever', hstencil.

Possession is 9/10ths of the law, Momus.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:58 (nineteen years ago) link

what does that even mean?

― cozen (Cozen), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:59 (nineteen years ago) link

That's the law's problem, not ours.

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

By the way, you can use 'I betray myself 60 times a second' in your poem without asking me. It couldn't exist without Godard's definition of cinema -- 'the truth 24 times a second' -- just as his thought couldn't exist without someone else's definition of something else.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:03 (nineteen years ago) link

yknow someone who disagreed with momus here (which isn't really me - fuck a copyright) could dare him to put his money (or the heritage foundation's money i guess really) where his mouth is and go all illegal art on his next album, but i think we all know that even the whisper of 'lawsuit' is enough to make momus blink and cut bait with his principles like it was going out of fashion (which with momus you can be pretty sure it already has). actions speak louder than words and in this arena a million others like jason forrest, danger mouse, even kanye west (who anthony seems to be a bit confused about)(what else is new) are speaking up while momus continues to confuse 'putting up' with 'not shutting up' and hoping noone will notice the difference.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:05 (nineteen years ago) link

Momus paraphrasing is not quoting is not infringing on copyright.

also, this:

That's the law's problem, not ours.

sounds a lot like what George Bush would say regarding Abu Grahib, imo.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:08 (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.