Disqus - Friends of JamesFerguson

Re: drew olanoff dot com. - YOU are my social network.

Mark Trapp — Sat, 10 May 2008 23:46:50 -0000

Drew, this is exactly it. People get caught up in the idea of x social network being better than y, but it's not about that at all. Alienating people by forcing them to choose a piece of software over friends and ideas due to how you react to their method of conversation is insane.

I think everyone needs to ask themselves, what would Gary Vaynerchuk do? That guy has the right idea. He goes where his audience is, no matter what. If we all had a little Gary in us, we would live in a better society.

Re: O’Reilly vs. Olbermann Through Thursday, May 15

Mark Trapp — Fri, 16 May 2008 18:48:48 -0000

Sticking purely to the ratings issue and avoiding your personal politics, it's most likely due to the advertisement that there would be a special comment that night, and people tune in to see what Olbermann has to say. Since there was no special comment the next day, Olbermann's ratings went back to normal. He tends to always get a ratings bump when he does a special comment, as most programming does when they air a "special."

Re: Offline for 11 hours at the worst time

Mark Trapp — Sat, 17 May 2008 22:59:33 -0000

Loic,

If it was going to be a huge problem for Seesmic (and I doubt it will), it'll be a huge problem 11 hours from now anyway. Don't worry about it, just have a good trip: the angry masses of bloggers will be waiting when you return.

Re: Blogging 2.0 and Advertising

Mark Trapp — Sat, 24 May 2008 23:40:42 -0000

Whenever I explain Twitter, Disqus, Friendfeed, et al to clients or corporate people, the first question is: "yeah, but how do they make money?" I think we all want to know how you monetize your content if you are no longer in control of the distribution.

Re: Friendfeed Is Going To Kill Google Reader, Not Twitter

Mark Trapp — Mon, 26 May 2008 14:07:38 -0000

I definitely have noticed the share of Google Reader shared items on the pie chart for "Friends' top sites" shrink over the past few months. It's much easier and more interesting to comment on a story someone else aready shared on GReader (or even on Friendfeed native) than it is to see the story on Friendfeed, find it in GReader, share it, and wait for it to show up on Friendfeed.

Hopefully GReader advocates don't come out of the woodwork and make this post this week's bitchmeme :-P

Re: Friendfeed Is Going To Kill Google Reader, Not Twitter

Mark Trapp — Mon, 26 May 2008 14:26:33 -0000

brandon, if you link your Disqus account to Friendfeed, what you say here will show up on your feed.

Re: louisgray.com: FriendFeed and Google Reader Are One. Sort Of.

Mark Trapp — Tue, 27 May 2008 01:13:52 -0000

I was also able to make a few mashups for other services, as well (currently Twitter and Digg, but it should be pretty easy to make more), rather than risk messing them up, you can find them here: http://itafroma.tumblr.com/...

Very neat trick from Matt.

Re: louisgray.com: FriendFeed and Google Reader Are One. Sort Of.

Mark Trapp — Tue, 27 May 2008 01:22:41 -0000

J. Phil, it's a nice quick way to access your account to check something or add something without having to leave Friendfeed. It's not meant to be paradigm changing.

Re: Considering Shyftr

Mark Trapp — Tue, 27 May 2008 23:18:16 -0000

This was a great video that really made the Blog 1.0 viewpoint more palatable for those of us who think moving away from the blog is an inevitable (and ultimately good) thing. If Shyftr provided an API to create a widget like the Friendfeed widgets that are around, do you think that'd be enough for the sort of the giveback that's required in the social contract between services and content creators?

I couldn't help but note the choice of format for this post: a clever way to get around Shyftr's "scaping?" :-)

Re: Considering Shyftr

Mark Trapp — Wed, 28 May 2008 07:57:26 -0000

For what it's worth Matt, I was being tongue-in-cheek: I don't think what you do is scraping at all, and I really have no problem with what Shyftr does (and nice about the video: I'll have to take a look at Shyftr again).

I think you're right: it's kind of silly that blogs now maintain two sets of comments: their Friendfeed comments and their regular (or Disqus, as the case may be) comments. What about something like OpenSocial for Comments? Being able to declare an instance of comments for a blog post (or any content type), and having Friendfeed, Shyftr, and Disqus be all aware of that instance, and be all able to read and edit/add/etc. to those comments as necessary.

Re: Friendfeed is leveling the playing field

Mark Trapp — Wed, 28 May 2008 10:18:05 -0000

I think the difference with Friendfeed and things like Friendfeed is that it becomes much easier for so-called "A-listers" to follow everyone else. Scoble complains about the limitations of Twitter and Facebook in ways that seem to suggest this. I may never be an A-lister, but to be able to converse with the A-listers and have them talk to me and react to my ideas equalizes the playing field much much more than any previous technology.

Re: Friendfeed is leveling the playing field

Mark Trapp — Wed, 28 May 2008 10:47:07 -0000

This is not to defeat what you're saying, as I think it may be too early to tell, but I'm pretty sure Scoble does, in fact, have close to that many subscriptions in Friendfeed already.

Re: Web Discussions: Leaving The Instigator Out

Mark Trapp — Wed, 28 May 2008 17:09:42 -0000

It's not about blogs.

Let me repeat that: it's not about blogs.

Every week it becomes fashionable to discuss how Friendfeed is setting out to destroy every mom-and-pop-good-american way of interacting online, when that's not the case.

Companies aren't setting out to make a buck with your content, there isn't some conspiracy to destroy blogging (or Twitter or Google Reader or whatever the vogue Friendfeed is Killing X service is). Friendfeed and services like it are doing one thing: making it easier to communicate with like minded people. People who would normally never even hear about your blog (like me, just found it on Friendfeed), much less comment on it, are being exposed to it via their friends on Friendfeed, Shyftr, and the like.

Do bloggers complain when they hear someone mention an idea they had on their blog at a party or a conference? Do you see other media get annoyed when American Idol isn't discussed on the official American Idol message boards? What's the big deal?

Re: Itafroma - Friendfeed Like Factor and the Gender Divide

Mark Trapp — Thu, 29 May 2008 13:16:35 -0000

I wonder what the mean ratio is for early adopters, though: Friendfeed might be right on target there. As technology becomes mainstream, the gender gap diminishes.

Re: Itafroma - Friendfeed Like Factor and the Gender Divide

Mark Trapp — Thu, 29 May 2008 13:44:07 -0000

Very cool, thanks Yuvi. I was wondering where some of the people were.

Re: Itafroma - Friendfeed Like Factor and the Gender Divide

Mark Trapp — Thu, 29 May 2008 13:45:26 -0000

Yeah, if you can, email it to me: my email address is mark@marktrapp.com. I may want to take a look at it in detail. Is it possible to get their full name instead/in addition to their username?

Re: Comments are not creative content - Get over it!

Mark Trapp — Thu, 29 May 2008 21:48:36 -0000

Steven, you misunderstand the law and the core issue of the (many times absurd) ongoing discussion: Title 17 of the US Code defines copyright law, and what's granted an immediate copyright. At no point does it define a "creative work" (I'm not sure what that would be), but it does define an "original work" and a "derivative work," both of which are protected in the scope of copyright law:

§ 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general

(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.

(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

Beyond that, section 106, 106A, and 107 defines the exclusive rights to a copyright holder, and the limitation of those rights via fair use. The executive summary of this is, the original author of a work has exclusive rights to publish and republish his or her content AND the right "to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right" EXCEPT when his or her work is being presented for the purposes of conversation or discussion.

Now for comments, the fact that they are about something else does not change their copyright protection status. They are publicly available written literary works that contain original thought (my analysis of your work is an original thought; if you need an analogue, take a look at movie reviews. They're copyrighted, too.)

You can take a look at the entire law here: http://www.copyright.gov/ti...

What does this all mean? If you want to get legal about it, bloggers are going to lose. Every single time. But that's not the issue here. It's not about defining things like "creative work" or "original work." It's about what's the social obligation content producers, content distributors, content aggregators, and readers have with each other. What rights do I need to give up to you and what rights do you need to give up to me in order for this to work?

Re: Do comments qualify as “content”?

Mark Trapp — Thu, 29 May 2008 23:01:26 -0000

Thanks for the mention, Matthew! To your question, whether Rob La Gesse's deletion of Scoble's comments is actionable: I don't think it is. Copyright protects means of distribution and reproduction, not deletion: it's up to Robert Scoble to ensure he has backups, not Rob La Gesse.

Re: Do comments qualify as “content”?

Mark Trapp — Thu, 29 May 2008 23:35:27 -0000

Friendfeed, in its ToS, makes a blanket "we don't own anything here, we merely aggregate and republish and link to content" statement:

You are solely responsible for your use of the Site and Services. Because FriendFeed merely serves as a repository of information, user-posted content does not represent the advice, views, opinions or beliefs of FriendFeed, and FriendFeed makes no claim of accuracy of any user-posted material. FriendFeed archives links to third-party websites. The linked websites' content, business practices and privacy policies are not under our control, and we are not responsible for the content of any linked website or any link contained in a linked website. The inclusion of a link on the Site or Services does not imply any endorsement by or any affiliation with FriendFeed. In accessing the Site and Services or following links to third-party websites you may be exposed to content that you consider offensive or inappropriate. You agree that your only recourse is to stop using the Site and Services.

The main reason for doing this is for legal immunity from section 230 of the Communications Decency Act: in order for an internet provider to be immune from legal problems with the content of its users, it must waive its right to ownership. I think a lot of bloggers, when they force their ownership on everything on their site, are being myopic. What happens if one of their users posts child pornography? Or incites a riot? Or any number of other worst-case scenarios?

Re: Do comments qualify as “content”?

Mark Trapp — Thu, 29 May 2008 23:46:01 -0000

I see; since it was posted at Friendfeed, it technically "originated" at Friendfeed. That could be a possible way to interpret it in court, should someone want to hold Friendfeed liable. I wonder if there is precedent for that approach.

Re: And Now . . . The Backlash

Mark Trapp — Sat, 31 May 2008 00:46:21 -0000

To invest so much into something through evangelizing and usage adds a huge amount of expectation. When it doesn't live up to your expectations, you're upset: you feel like you've been betrayed or cheated. Think about it in the offline world: what upsets you more, when someone you don't know does something you don't like, or when someone you really like and admire and look up to does something you don't like?

I think it speaks to the value of Twitter that so many people get this upset when Twitter has problems. People are going to be vocal about their displeasure with Twitter, but they are definitely invested in it more so than many other services. The trick is for Twitter not to squander that by repeatedly abusing that investment from its users.

Re: I really want my readers opinion on this

Mark Trapp — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:45:18 -0000

Same window, for a few reasons: 1) you don't break the back button. 2) You let me control how I want to view your content, and 3) what Jakob Nielsen says about it (url: http://www.useit.com/alertb...

"Opening up new browser windows is like a vacuum cleaner sales person who starts a visit by emptying an ash tray on the customer's carpet. Don't pollute my screen with any more windows, thanks (particularly since current operating systems have miserable window management).

"Designers open new browser windows on the theory that it keeps users on their site. But even disregarding the user-hostile message implied in taking over the user's machine, the strategy is self-defeating since it disables the Back button which is the normal way users return to previous sites. Users often don't notice that a new window has opened, especially if they are using a small monitor where the windows are maximized to fill up the screen. So a user who tries to return to the origin will be confused by a grayed out Back button.

"Links that don't behave as expected undermine users' understanding of their own system. A link should be a simple hypertext reference that replaces the current page with new content. Users hate unwarranted pop-up windows. When they want the destination to appear in a new page, they can use their browser's "open in new window" command -- assuming, of course, that the link is not a piece of code that interferes with the browser’s standard behavior."

Re: I really want my readers opinion on this

Mark Trapp — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:51:15 -0000

acedanger, looks like disqus handled the URL poorly, should be: http://www.useit.com/alertb...

Re: When Did Splogging Become a Business Model? Fav.or.it

Mark Trapp — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:16:11 -0000

Duncan, it's unfortunate that Nick Halstead and fav.or.it's lawyers don't see the importance of copyright. You do have a legal avenue, however: while he is not in the United States, the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement, signed into law in 2004, requires Australia to honor all American IP claims, including most of the provisions in the DMCA. A google search for Australia DMCA provides a bunch of resources on the topic.

Re: When Did Splogging Become a Business Model? Fav.or.it

Mark Trapp — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:28:38 -0000

Ah, I misread: I thought he was in Australia. If he's in the United Kingdom, there are several provisions that make it a criminal act to knowingly violate someone's copyright.