Disqus - Latest Comments for Shelley

Re: Bandwagon Blog - Wow, thanks!

Shelley — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:06:38 -0000

Question: is the material encrypted when it's uploaded?

Re: AP and the Media Bloggers Assoc.

Shelley — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:21:10 -0000

How far will you go Matthew, in order to spin yourself into the "right" on this one? Journalist? You make mockery of that word.

Re: Drop that compact disc, music thief

Shelley — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:20:35 -0000

Mathew, no, I'd say either the comments were out of context, or someone was being a cowboy.

The RIAA knows that if they tried to go after people for just ripping CDs to their computer for loading into iPod, they'd effectively slit their own throats, while at the same time turning the might of Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, and various other giants against them.

The point of my comment isn't necessarily related to RIAAs nefarious plans, but that you wrote, and linked to others who also wrote, that in this filing the RIAA tried to go after the person purely because he ripped CDs to his computer. Curious: are you going to post some kind of correction?

Re: Drop that compact disc, music thief

Shelley — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 03:01:36 -0000

Guys, the brief spent five pages defining what shared meant in this case -- KaZaA shared folders, meant to have files publicly accessible for files to be copied across the internet.

They didn't define 'shared' to be your little home network, where files from one Mac can be accessed by your PC or whatever. The brief talks about shared, in this case to mean a version of public distribution.

Why must we go to such extraordinary means to overly vilify that which we don't agree with?

The RIAA can't be 'bad' -- it must be indulging in the ultimate of infamies...the lawyers will appear at our windows late one night, with police ready to take us away.

Or must I remind you both of the risk of believing everything you read. Something about this is familiar.

Thanks for the space to comment Mathew, but if I continue I'll just be branded a troll.

Happy tarring.

Re: A Flickr-powered screensaver? Incredible

Shelley — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:58:41 -0000

This is like watching history come alive again, as we're taken back in time to when Netscape was the king of browsers and introduced this thing called 'RSS'. Dave Winer gets a hold of it, adds a few tweaks and introduces The Next Great Thing. It worked, too--no one can deny that Dave's breathless promotion doesn't aid and abet the spread of RSS.

Of course, over the years Dave gradually moves from being promoter to creator and inventor or RSS. The only thing is, RSS is now ubiquitous that no one cares who claims 'ownership' of the concept.

Then there's OPML, which is really not a great XML vocabulary, but it is simple and has the benefit of being one of being real easy for XML parsers to process, and is effective for listing stuff, such as aggregator subscriptions and sidebar links. It won't go beyond this, and didn't revolutionize the world, as was claimed when _it_ was rolled out, but handy, and had the advantage of Dave's popularity to push it out to startups and others Who Need Good Will.

Now, we're seeing the same thing with this, well whatever it is, if it isn't a screensaver, Flickr slideshow, RSS media reader. You listen to the hyperbole of Dave and friends, and you have to look at the application six or seven times because you know you must be missing something for it to generate the hype --but you just don't see it.

It is something and it's cool Dave is giving it away free, but it doesn't rate up there with, well, renting movies on iTunes when it comes to being a 'story'. The app won't revolutionize a thing, other than for people who have enough money to go out and buy hardware just to run it. I don't know about you Mathew, but I'm not one of those with the extra bucks to toss away like that.

However, after some tweaking, I did get it to work on my computer, only to have the first picture that shows up is a dead body with a bomb attached, being looked at by a bunch of soldiers. Huh. I didn't realize this was in my Flickr stream. I'm sure the kiddies would get a kick out of it.

It is more than just pictures from Flickr and a screensaver, because Dave has integrated his OPML editing into a live media feed, which is cool. Presented as such, I think you would find that people would be less wary of the hype and more interested in the technology. The release is way premature, and the write up is confusing and there's a lot of links you push that cause 500 errors.

But something to completely redefine your front page and make such predictions? I don't know if Dave can pull off another RSS. I rather doubt it.

I realize now that when I quietly roll out this tech and that for people to use that I've made a horrid mistake: I provide a link, and description of what it is and how to use it. What I should be doing is telling people that I've single handedly redefined networking as we know it, and then brow beat the other popular people I know into helping me promote it.

You know, steak, not sizzle?

I knew I was doing something wrong--I always assumed it was about the technology, and the application.

Re: Rip Your CDs; Go to Jail? Or Bankruptcy Court.

Shelley — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:53:48 -0000

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, but not the burden of defense. I read all of the court filings for this case, including the ones not posted by anyone, accessed through PACER. The point of RIAAs claim is that these files were made available for public access, which amounts to unlawful distribution according to copyright laws. The issue of whether the copies made available were lawful or not arose from the fact that the original claim by RIAA is that the person both downloaded these files and made them available for further distribution. Howell's defense was pictures of the CD cases for the music. The defense for these being in Kazaa were, first of all they weren't. Then about half way through he reminded the courts he had kids, somehow implying that he wasn't responsible for their actions, and then eventually he came out with some 'agent' or malfunction made these files available for Kazaa.

In the original court filing, Howell was also warned to not touch his computer or this installation, in very clear non-legal text. He immediately deleted all of Kazaa. Under law, that is enough to provide proof for the RIAA. Howell's response then was, I didn't do anything, I have no money to pay anything.

The only defense he brought out was a court case that had to do with a manufacturing company, nothing to do with his situation (probably under advice from some idiot on the internet). He basically provided absolutely no proof for his defense.

Though the courts give great leniency when it comes to a person representing themselves pro se, at some point in time, the defendant has to mount a defense. Howell has not, though from what I can see, the court has bent over backwards to help this person stop shooting himself in the foot. The RIAA is only required to provide proof of their complaint, not provide the defense for Howell.

The danger with something like this, and this is the second time this has happened, is the person representing themselves pro se introduces broad arguments that force courts into asking questions: were these unauthorized copies. Yes, it was Howell that introduced this question, not the RIAA.

At that point, it's been the RIAA who has been actually trying to back away from this issue, and focus purely on the distribution angle.

The Washington Post should have read all of these court papers before writing what they did. To misconstrue this as the RIAA going after Howell just because he ripped the music from the CDs was grossly inaccurate.

The RIAA has never gone after anyone other than the fire sharing sites. This case is absolutely no different than any other the organization has brought. There is no increased harassment -- just a complete disregard to fact checking.

Frankly, I'm surprised that Kazaa isn't getting the same level of vilification based on this event. What you're saying is that the software put this person at risk of being sued.

Re: Rip Your CDs; Go to Jail? Or Bankruptcy Court.

Shelley — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 15:42:57 -0000

Actually, he admitted that the sound recordings were in his kazaa folder, and that some nefarious and unknown 'third' party must have moved them there. Since he couldn't provide any evidence of a break in or other act of malfeasance, it only becomes his word that he didn't intentionally move these to the kazaa folder. Because the courts have established that having items in a kazaa folder is equivalent to an intent to distribute the items, this was enough to lose him the case.

"This argument is at the heart of today’s controversy; specifically, the last two sentences. Unlike other RIAA assertions, this brief asserts that the mere “conversion to MP3 format” and placement in a “shared folder” is an act of unauthorized distribution."

Shared folder, as in a P2P shared folder. But this was an established precedent from long ago. This isn't new to this case. The court documents reference several cases where an intent to publish and distribute is associated with having files within a P2P shared folder.

He didn't lose the case because the music was in My Music. He lost the case because the music was in Kazaa.

It's there in black and white in the legal documents:

"Howell also objects to liability on grounds that he owns compact discs ("CDs") containing the disputed sound recordings and that he "translated" them to his computer for personal use. In support of this argument, Howell attached photographs of CDs and cases to his Response. However, the question is not whether Howell owned legitimate copies of some of the sound recordings on CD, but instead whether he distributed copies of the recordings without authorization. Howell's right to use for personal enjoyment copyrighted words on CDs he purchased does not confer a right to distribute those works to others without Plaintiffs' authorization...As he admitted that the sound recordings were "being shared by [his] Kazaa account", Howell is liable for distributing them in violation of the recording companies' exclusive right. Even if Howell believed that ownership of the CDs conferred a right to distribute their contents freely via Kazaa, that mistaken impression is no defense to liability...Howell's final contention is that a computer malfunction or a third party put his personal files into his shared folder. However, no evidence has been presented in support of this scenario."

Common sense dictates that the RIAA is never going to say that any copy is legal. However, they have carefully not said that copying for use in an MP3 is illegal. The RIAA knows that if the organization were ever to push the envelope and attempt to sue people who copy their purchased CDs to their MP3 players they would have Congress, and all MP3 player manufacturers on their case. It's a lose-lose.

Besides the RIAA does not care about this use of the files. What it cares about is distribution of music through P2P systems.

Now, purchasing non-RIAA music, only, is an effective solution and more power to the people who do so. But as regards this event, let's argue with the events, not misunderstandings and unchecked facts. To do so weakens, rather than strengthens the argument against the RIAA. Like the boy who called Wolf too many times.

Re: A Flickr-powered screensaver? Incredible

Shelley — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:09:25 -0000

No offense, Franky, but nowadays a person could present Pong to their development teams and a third could see potential.

The problem is that people get caught up in the hype, but when you scrape away the blather, what you're left with is an application that a) isn't new, b) isn't ready for even an alpha release, and c) isn't all that revolutionary.

If it hadn't been Dave Winer that released the app, it wouldn't have gotten any press. That's rather sad, because there are a lot of great apps that are ignored because they're not released by one of the Insiders.

We're losing the ability to differentiate the hype from the innovation, and that's not necessarily a healthy state to be in.

Re: Rip Your CDs; Go to Jail? Or Bankruptcy Court.

Shelley — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 17:50:49 -0000

Karoli, Howell also made a mistake by wiping his machine, especially in regards to the legal notice stipulating that he was forbidden from doing so because of ongoing litigation. The RIAA provided their proof.

The burden of proof was then on Howell to bring in a forensic expert to stipulate that malware moved his music tunes to Kazaa. He didn't and couldn't prove it. The court systems work on proof not hypothesis or assertions of confusion or reference to some unknown and nefarious entity.

This is the law. This is the way law works.

If there was forensic proof that a malware program moved his music files to the kazaa directory, Howell should have provided this. He did not. If there is proof that Media Sentry is typically in error, he should have provided proof. He didn't. All he did was testify that some unknown person or software moved his files to the kazaa directory. His argument, sans proof or expert testimony, was invalid in the eyes of the court.

This is the law.

I didn't once say he was or was not saying the truth. I said this is the way the law works.

Tell me: what should have the courts done differently?

"My iTunes library is shared with my kids. RIAA says (today) that iTunes is a permitted music download site but will they turn around and say the ability for me to share files has somehow caused me to violate the copyright?"

Tell me: is this related to this incident? Is this related in any way to this particular incident?

Re: I’m glad Louis Gray called out Mashable

Shelley — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:41:00 -0000

Wanting attribution for your work...attribution for you work,,,that rings a bell. In fact, if I remember correctly, that wasn't something that bothered you overmuch at the time.

Re: A Flickr-powered screensaver? Incredible

Shelley — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:24:55 -0000

"It is obvious that engineers and reporters read feature lists, platforms options differently. And here I have to agree with Dave."

I'm a software engineer, and have been for 25 years. I agree with Mathew in that I haven't seen anything released with this product deserving of the hype. In fact, most of the hype has come from non-techs. Marketing folks, in fact.

A responsible engineer controls user expectations. You don't release obviously alpha software as the next great coming.

Re: To Lori Drew: Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa

Shelley — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 02:31:09 -0000

You shouldn't feel silly. You were not the only one who believed that weblog belonged to Lori Drew. At least you corrected your post, which took guts.

Frankly, I hope this cools down the whole event. This should be resolved directly between the two families.

Re: More RIAA Abuse

Shelley — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:25:37 -0000

All I can say after reading comments by Ray Beckerman, as well as how he handles a deposition in the case you link, I would not have him for a lawyer.

Re: Why Lane Hartwell is wrong

Shelley — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:11:50 -0000

"Shelly Mike Arrington is a Lawyer and also runs Techcrunch a popluar Web 2.0 blog that profiles the space .

As for Lane and her IP Lawyer not understanding the Fair Use provisions is another story ."

I have to ask: what makes you think I don't know Arrington, and leaving that aside, that he's more proficient in IP law than a practicing lawyer who specializes in IP?

"These days if you put something on the internet or publicly in any form expect it to be ripped ,sliced and diced within hours of it being released with or without your authorization"

I think this attitude will eventually harm more than help. If we have people hesitate to put their work online because it will be sliced, diced, and used any which way, we may end up losing the ability to see works of art, photos, even writing.

The internet has not done away with courtesy and respect, has it? Or has this all become nothing more than a den of thieves?

Re: Why Lane Hartwell is wrong

Shelley — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:15:23 -0000

She approached them, first, and asked that they remove her photo. They responded in a manner she found to be both offhand and disregarding of her wishes.

As Owen Thomas has said, there were many other photos of him online the site could have used -- they just grabbed the first one that shows up in a Google search. Used another photo, and rebuilt the video. After first going through the stack, getting the other photo creators and putting up a page with credit at their site. At a minimum.

This parody was not created for the common good. It was to generate publicity and attention for the group. I'm not going to cut them slack because they made me laugh.

Re: Why Lane Hartwell is wrong

Shelley — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:19:04 -0000

Not wanting to overcome Mathew's comments on unrelated topics, may I quote this comment of yours in a post of mine?

Re: Why Lane Hartwell is wrong

Shelley — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:58:17 -0000

Mathew, I don't you or I understand enough about copyright law to say whether it was or was not a violation. Do we?

What we should be addressing instead, is perhaps our own opinion of the act, not the law. In my opinion, no matter how hard it was to find all of the photos, the creators of the video should have asked permission of the photographers. Then, they should have given credit, in a web page somewhere if nothing else. Barring that, they lost a lot of my sympathy by not even making the attempt, and then when they were contacted, not being very sympathetic to the photographer.

Re: Why Lane Hartwell is wrong

Shelley — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 21:02:02 -0000

"Making video is such a huge pain in the butt. Taking a one-second clip out and re-rendering it while keeping the timing intact is a huge job and one I wouldn't want to undertake. This is why I absolutely loathe video -- I don't have the patience to make one change and have it take six hours to re-render. Not offering that as an excuse as much as an explanation for why they were unlikely to go back and re-cut it."

This one doesn't make a lot of sense, Karoli. Every application I know of that creates videos from stills has a way of re-building the application with a click of a button. You can move, add, delete still images.

I don't know what they used...but exchanging one still picture for another doesn't strike me as being that difficult. And I have used video creation tools, and even dinked around with Flash a couple of times.

As for guidelines, we have those. We have copyright laws, we also have known rules about plagiarism. Barring that, we have our ethics.

Re: Why Lane Hartwell is wrong

Shelley — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:57:51 -0000

So, it's OK to condone plagiarism, as long as we commit acts of plagiarism in the name of art?

If you're a lawyer familiar with copyright law, and copyright law doesn't doesn't require giving photo credit, I have to assume you're right on the legality. However, it doesn't make it ethically or morally right. Especially as Hartwell did contact the group, first, before bringing in a lawyer, and they blew her off.

As for the woman crack, what a crock. Does this mean that you're siding with Mathew because he's a guy, and I'm a woman who dares disagree with him?

I wrote on this, including your comment, Michael. But unlike some people, I actually linked to Mathew's post, and gave him credit for the writing. And you, for yours.

Re: Why Lane Hartwell is wrong

Shelley — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 17:44:25 -0000

Thomas, you're a lawyer? It's alright, then, for someone to use another person's work without giving them credit?

Re: Why Lane Hartwell is wrong

Shelley — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:19:43 -0000

Mathew, the lawyer was Terry Gross, a leading IP lawyer. Do you still want to say her lawyer was wrong?

His comment is that the video wasn't parodying Hartwell's work, and therefore claiming fair use under parody is invalid.

Re: Why Lane Hartwell is wrong

Shelley — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 21:47:01 -0000

"Not to be arrogant, but I think I understand enough about copyright law to say whether it was a violation or not -- that's why I wrote the post."

Really? On this issue, it sounds even the lawyers don't agree. It must be comforting to have the strength of your convictions. So...I disagree and feel that the use of the photo was not fair use.

Re: Why Lane Hartwell is wrong

Shelley — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 04:58:19 -0000

The guy in the picture, Owen Thomas from ValleyWag, pointed out other photos that could have been used, instead. Lane's was used because it was the first to show up in Google image search.

One would assume, then, that, unless he hired the photographer to take the picture, he would provide another to be used if he wanted his visage in the video. He might have even provided one to use if the video creators had just contacted him, first.

The 'contact first', seems to me, would have been the smart thing to do.

Alas, musicians don't have to be smart, only in key.

Re: Why Lane Hartwell is wrong

Shelley — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:20:57 -0000

Can I have your iPhone?

Re: Why Lane Hartwell is wrong

Shelley — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:24:29 -0000

Not without checking with the photographer, and not without giving credit, no.

I'm having a hard time figuring out where your comments are going. Are you trying to imply that Hartwell doesn't own the image because it's of Thomas? Or that in certain circumstances, this action would be OK?

Perhaps we should just stick with the existing circumstances and debate them.

Re: Why Lane Hartwell is wrong

Shelley — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:37:23 -0000

The problem with threaded comments, sometimes, is you never know where to attach a new thought...

Another issue on just arbitrarily using a photo, especially a professional's photo in a work is contractual obligations. I'm don't consider myself a professional, but I have had photos published in a magazine. One stipulation at one time was that this was the first time--other than the photographer's own gallery--that the photo was 'published'.

For my writing, I've had to sign contracts that I will take said writing and re-publish it elsewhere--it is the exclusive domain of the publisher until such time as they release their copyright claims.

There is more to a professional photograph than the ownership of the photographer and the individual or group that uses it. If the photo was used in a publication, as the one in this video was, this could put the photographer into a difficult situation if the company that hired the photographer (or bought the photograph) suddenly sees their supposedly unique property being played in a video on computers across the world.

Not all contracts have these stipulations, and Lane Hartwell may not be under contractual obligations--but how would the people know, without asking first?

So there is more at stake than a second of viewing, and even issues of copyright law. There is also contractual law, laws about model release (ie the model may have signed a release for the photo to be used in such and such, but not in a video blowing bubbles) and putting the photographer into a difficult legal situation because of your own irresponsibility for not doing the decent thing _and checking about use first_.

This video was nothing more than entertainment and a way for this group to promote themselves. It will be forgotten with the next meme. It is not a significant cultural offering, nor unique research. It does not benefit the common good. Yet the actors behind the video are defended, almost universally. Yet they didn't ask first, and they didn't credit and when the photographer protested, she's been vilified.

I find this all very confusing. As if our ethics have somehow become twisted with too much social networking juice.

Re: Why Lane Hartwell is wrong

Shelley — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:39:03 -0000

Typos...wish you had editing.

"For my writing, I've had to sign contracts that I will take said writing and re-publish it elsewhere--it is the exclusive domain of the publisher until such time as they release their copyright claims."

should be

"For my writing, I've had to sign contracts that I will _not_ take said writing and re-publish it elsewhere--it is the exclusive domain of the publisher until such time as they release their copyright claims."

Re: Why Lane Hartwell is wrong

Shelley — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 16:39:45 -0000

Regardless of copyright, they did violate YouTube rules, which state that each photo in a slideshow has to have permission from the copyright holder of the photo. She, as a copyright holder, filed a complaint.

Or is it only Sony and Disney that can file copyright complaints?

Re: Why Lane Hartwell is wrong

Shelley — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 16:41:51 -0000

So, you want to teach your kids that it's ok to steal but not protect your property?

What first amendment rights were violated?

Who was tortured?

What social good was curtailed by this action?

Perhaps you need to get a sense of perspective on this.

Re: Why Lane Hartwell is wrong

Shelley — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 18:31:47 -0000

Mathew, I keep coming back, because this to be very disquieting.

It's almost as if people asserting any form of ownership in their craft are seen as somehow stealing from the common good by doing so. I can't help thinking this will, eventually, discourage more than it will encourage people to put their craft online.

Richter Scales are not heroes in this story. They were sloppy at best, indifferent to the concerns of others at worst.

Tell me something: shouldn't Richter Scales have released this video without giving themselves credit, if they deemed this was OK for others work they included? What's good for others, is also good for themselves?

I liked the video. I liked several statements made in the video. Got a giggle. But it doesn't change the fact that they really should have asked first, and Lane is not 'evil' for getting pissed.

I think you and I will have to disagree on this one. I was wrong on the copyright/credit thing, but I still don't think this was fair use (or at, least not as clearly defined). And I don't think Lane deserves to 'not get hired' because she got pissed.

It sounds like the video will live again and they worked out an amicable resolution. Just another weekend memeblast.

Re: Why Lane Hartwell is wrong

Shelley — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:59:18 -0000

Leigh, have you ever thought about how good you would make the photographer feel by asking if you could use it? Such a small thing to do, isn't it?

Or is it that creators of art aren't allowed such?

Re: Why Lane Hartwell is wrong

Shelley — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 02:51:15 -0000

I agree on not putting photos on Flickr if you're a pro. It's not really the place.

I don't think anyone is talking about ruin. I think what we're talking about is standing up for what we believe if right, especially in regards to our creations.

What Lane has done has adversely impacted on Richter Scales and they could have easily avoided all of this.

Amie Gillingham made some excellent points in this thread. And though I dislike sending buzz to the weblog, her points are worth a look.

One point she made was, if the Richter Scales group was a neo-Nazi organization who used the photo to create an anti-Semetic piece, how would people feel then about her reaction, and the people's use of the photo without permission? How much of this is based on the fact that the use is 'popular'?

A very interesting point I thought.

As for the pros/amateurs thing, I'm not sure what that has to do with this issue?

Re: Why Lane Hartwell is wrong

Shelley — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 02:52:30 -0000

Typos, I can't type in these little boxes.

Should be:

"What Lane has done has _not_ adversely impacted on Richter Scales and they could have easily avoided all of this. "

Re: Why Lane Hartwell is wrong

Shelley — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:34:44 -0000

You're right and the lawyer is wrong? I didn't know you were a lawyer. Fancy that.

Using the photo and _not giving credit_ violates copyright law. There's not ifs ands or buts about that.

Only a slime would grab another person's work and not give them credit for it.

Re: Lane Hartwell: Still wrong on fair use

Shelley — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 03:15:32 -0000

Both, really.

Your arguments are good, as is your lawyer friends. Of course, we know that Lane's lawyer disagrees. In a court of law, where this won't end up, of course, another issue that will most likely come up is how important was Lane's photo to the whole?

Could the satire have been created without it? Would it have been irreparably damaged if the photo was removed and replaced?

As for damaging Lane's financial state with the use of the photo, without understanding her contract with the employer who purchased the photo, we don't know for sure. If the video people had actually used the photo in place within the publication, then it would be more between the publication and the video folks.

But by using it directly, they could have put her into a difficult position with her customer.

I am not a lawyer, but one thing I know is that law is not black & white. For every argument you could provide, chances are Lane's lawyer could provide another, equally good or better. Then a lot of this will boil down to: how important is the photo to the whole? I think in this case, a judge hearing that the photo was grabbed randomly, and could be easily replaced would probably say, don't waste my time, change the picture.

It would be interesting to read Lane's lawyer's response, but I don't think he's a weblogger.

Re: Lane Hartwell: Still wrong on fair use

Shelley — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 05:46:58 -0000

"We're both right, but I'm righter :-)"

Is that because you don't have two Ts in your name?

Re: Lane Hartwell: Still wrong on fair use

Shelley — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 02:48:29 -0000

I don't think you're reading what we wrote, Mathew. We're not saying you're not getting the point. For me, at least, I'm saying I disagree with you.

Re: Drop that compact disc, music thief

Shelley — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:20:41 -0000

Actually, Mathew, you read this one wrong. I can't stand the RIAA, but what they said in court documents is that it's a violation of copyright law to rip a legally purchased CD and place the music in a P2P file sharing folder. By doing so, the RIAA implies, they're making that music available for illegal access.

This is a big difference from you ripping your CDs to your computer so you can play on your MP3 player or iPod.

Re: Drop that compact disc, music thief

Shelley — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:46:59 -0000

Not in this case, the court documents are very clear. You can read the plaintiff filing yourself. In fact, the document even specifically states:

"Once defendant converted Plaintiff's recording into compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by plaintiffs."

My biggest concern when I see people misinterpreting events such as this, is that this could end up generate an accidental court decision that could be interpreted as ripping MP3s for personal use from legally purchased CDs is illegal.

Right now, the copyright issue is related to 'publication' of the ripped music, not the actual conversion of the music. The person putting the music into the shared folder is 'publishing' the music, whether the music is actually distributed or not.

It's actually a rather fascinating brief to read. Too bad the Washington Post article writer didn't bother reading it.

Re: Lane Hartwell update: Still wrong

Shelley — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:53:41 -0000

My last comment:

Go ask your lawyer friend, but you realize that they just gave Lane Hartwell her 'case' by this video. They showed that a) credit could have been given originally without hardship, b) the photo could have been easily replaced without hardship, and c) the photo was shown a million times.

They also neglected to mention that Lane Hartwell felt she had to hire a lawyer, because they had, which forced her into unreasonable and unexpected expense.

My favorite is the band's take on what is a 'not for profit' -- that they hadn't made any yet. Yep, puts them right up there with Cameras for Kids.

But hey! Don't let me stop you from defending your own sense of rightness, to the death. Goodness knows, empathy or openness is not rewarded in weblogging.

Re: Lane Hartwell update: Still wrong

Shelley — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:00:26 -0000

Frankly, I'm quitting, which is why this is it for me.

This could have been an interesting discussion on Fair Use, but it quickly degenerated into Lane is a bitch who doesn't deserve to work again, because she spoiled our fun. It became petty at best, rather pathetic at worst. Disagreeing with Lane is one thing, but I've seen people advocate her never working again, destroying her business, even 'beating the bitch up' in comments at another weblog.Tell me: is any of this a reasonable response?

How this can be seen as a triumph, in any form, for 'fair use' boggles my mind. I found this event disillusioning about this entire environment.

LawGeek had the most reasonable take on this, and it was delightful to read the post and comments, primarily because it really did become a discussion on the law, not personalities. One thing we talked about in comments was how TRS found the photo, and how important it was too the work. In addition, how much of a hardship would have been to give credit. Well, we can see, none really.

Ultimately, whether TRS had fair use on their side or not, their ethics were and continue to be, in my opinion, dubious, at best. I wouldn't necessarily use this as a poster child for a fight for fair use. And I certainly don't think Lane Hartwell has deserved, or continues to deserve the vilification leveled at her. I would have to ask--what other factors are at play? It couldn't just be because people couldn't see this one video. There have been, and continue to be worse challenges to 'fair use' than this one act.

As for the lawyer, frankly I believe Lane Hartwell does have a decent case to sue in court for her costs associated with this event. But that's between her and her lawyer. What I admire about Hartwell is her consistency. Regardless of the vilification, she's never wavered in her response or her assertions. TRS, on the other hand, are all over the board--saying whatever seems to please the masses the most.

If we were talking about who represented the best of weblogging--that ability to stand firm on one's principles and have one's say, regardless of popular opinion, of the two--TRS or Lane Hartwell--I would choose Hartwell.

What astonishes me, though, is how TRS asserts themselves as a not for profit organization, when the reality is, they just haven't made a profit yet. And how no one question their assertion. In fact, I've seen two publications actually repeat it.

Re: Lane Hartwell update: Still wrong

Shelley — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:04:46 -0000

"But I'm not sure why you think Lane's response displays the best about blogging -- it's true that she stood firm on her principles, but she also didn't write anything about it until after she had gotten a lawyer to hit YouTube with a DMCA takedown notice. Wouldn't the best response have been to write about it and get others to join her cause?"

Oh, god no. That is the worst of this environment, don't you see? We have become not a celebration of the individual, but a validation of the many--we have become Mob, personified. We willing, gleefully destroy lives, vilify, move en masse based on the popularity of the ringleaders, not the justification of their cause.

People don't check the validity of a claim, they don't seek to play fair, they don't even care about the true rightness of a movement--they just follow whoever can generate the most noise.

I have to clarify, not all of weblogging, but certainly in many parts of the tech weblogging world. One can see evidence in Techmeme. We no longer seek to highlight good writing, thought, or reason--just whoever has the best marketing strategy. Right now, I see a bunch of guys, five handing each other in triumph for having outwitted Hartwell, yet nary a mention of that sticky point that GeekLaw brought up: ethics. Why? It's not fun. It won't get you links. The mob, frankly, finds such to be too much work. So much more interesting to just react.

Ever heard the term "groupthink". Congratulations, because at some point in time, weblogging became less a celebration of the individual being heard, without having to go through some authority or have the weight of a group behind them, and became, instead, the mass mind where the individual is ruthlessly suppressed.

You and I have gone somewhat off topic, but I hope you won't mind if I followed the new topic thread. Regardless, it is only between you and I -- this topic is so 'yesterday'.

What new fun do you have for us today, Mathew?

(Thanks for letting me comment here, and not automatically slamming me down.)

Re: I’m glad Louis Gray called out Mashable

Shelley — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:30:56 -0000

You're right, the only reason I'm commenting here is because I'm being difficult.

Re: Duncan Riley: Lessons in diplomacy

Shelley — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 20:07:51 -0000

I'm indifferent to this weekend's hate-me/love-me/link-me fest, but I'm curious as to why people thought that Duncan Riley's use of "cunt" is demeaning to women? Especially since you, yourself, Mathew, used "bitchfest" and "bitchmeme"? If the one is demeaning, wouldn't the other be equally demeaning?

I find that the only time women are demeaned by these words is if they're used directly against us. I don't believe any player in this cat fight is a woman. Thank goodness for small favors.

(PS I apologize if anyone is offended by the word being spelled out, but I can't stand these coy, playful uses of characters to re-created a word, which we all know anyway. Call the word the word and damn the consequences.)

Re: Duncan Riley: Lessons in diplomacy

Shelley — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 20:23:34 -0000

I was mainly curious as to why others in this thread considered the use of "cunt" to be derogatory to women.

As for the point, you can use the sweetest words in the world and not advance a rational argument. I look at it this way: Louis Gray's words, though they be coached in gentle terms, had enough of a negative impact on Duncan Riley that he reacted as he did. Maybe Duncan is in a bad mood; maybe, though, Gray pushed the right buttons in this circumstance.

Regardless, this struck me as a personal issue between the two that perhaps should have been resolved between the two. Or is saying that an irrational argument?

Re: Duncan Riley: Lessons in diplomacy

Shelley — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 01:26:58 -0000

Thank goodness, a rational argument.

I would suggest perhaps new glasses? Maybe?

Re: Google: Why not make the cloud free?

Shelley — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 04:30:20 -0000

April fool!

Good one. Almost had me going.

Re: You Don’t Own ANY Conversation

Shelley — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 01:45:09 -0000

"This is the internet and quite frankly, EVERYTHING is for the taking, whether you wish it to be or not."

Wrong. Not only wrong, but harmful because this is the same as saying, "Remove everything you care about from the internet, because some scuzzbucket who wants to make money from your stuff will." All that will be left then, is content from people who really can give a sh*t about it. Which says a lot about the quality of the content, doesn't it?

Re: Twitter-storm: Blaine leaves, blame flies

Shelley — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:47:03 -0000

Arrington's post is frankly obscene, as well as nothing more than cheap link bait. He wouldn't know technology if it bit him in the butt.

I don't know Blaine, but he left a couple of weeks ago. The Twitter folks also came out and said they tried a new caching scheme that sounded like it failed. Considering how much use this application is getting, I'm rather amazed it doesn't fail more often. Even Google's apps, as well as Amazon's have been known to fail, and no one accuses these two companies of not knowing how to scale.

Don't you guys ever write about anything useful anymore? All I read now is whining, blame games, petty bickering -- good lord, you guys are a piece of work.

I'm not going to write at Techcrunch, because frankly, that site has become a dead bore. But you know Matthew, you used to write about decent stuff once upon a time. Now it seems like all you're doing is going for the attention points.

PS I was an architect at a start up once. I bet there isn't one true tech person who is playing this same blame game. No, it's all of you who haven't a clue.

Re: Twitter: A community or a utility?

Shelley — Fri, 23 May 2008 23:43:33 -0000

comment by Ev Williams on this issue at a post by Jeffrey Zeldman.

People have to ask themselves: do they want the Twitter folks to focus on fixing the service? Or catering to the sensitive needs of the dear, little community.

"Oh no, precious dear. Were thou feelings hurt? Let me kiss them, make them better."

Because lord knows, the rest of the internet is such a polite, and safe place to be.

Re: BoingBoing: It’s our blog, and our rules

Shelley — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:42:27 -0000

"Thank you Matt for this important reminder. I sure hope I don't confuse these two bastions of journalistic integrity ever again."

+1 to the Duck

Re: Google’s subsidized child day care not as good as it used to be?

Shelley — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 19:49:07 -0000

I can't help thinking if the company wants to save money, seems like they have an unusual number of jumbo jets they could consider dumping.

I think the article had it right: this isn't free M&Ms and a massage--this is a mandatory item for anyone with kids, and a big area of concern for parents who are also employees. Keeping the gourmet lunches, but forcing the employees to pay for day care (overpriced day care), demonstrates that Google is only interested in the young and single, who can be burned out and then trashed.

Re: I Requested That Verizon Drop Their Deal With 1938media

Shelley — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:34:51 -0000

There is no "freedom of speech" among corporations. The only way Feldman would be denied freedom of speech is if the government intervened and he was no longer able to publish his material.

You pressured a corporate entity. Chances are, that entity wasn't overly enthusiastic about Feldman in the first place, and you gave the company the excuse to pull his material.

In addition, it was the other organizations that protested his inclusion also helped get his videos pulled.

Re: Protests over Verizon deal with 1938media

Shelley — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:48:02 -0000

I doubt Feldman was dropped based on a one day protest by small groups yesterday. I imagine that Verizon is finding that outside of the small sphere of webloggers, Feldman really doesn't have much of a following. Certainly not enough to justify keeping his material when seeing the racist video he created.

As for freedom of speech, Feldman still has the same forum the rest of us have. If Verizon does not carry my text, does that mean my freedom of speech has been abrogated? No, and neither has Feldman's. Frankly, I'm amazed that anyone watches any of his stuff, he really isn't very good.

But he has gotten some publicity from this event. So have others. Again.

Re: Protests over Verizon deal with 1938media

Shelley — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 12:37:31 -0000

Please don't compare what happened with Feldman to Lenny Bruce. There is a difference between losing a corporate contract, and being arrested every time you appear on stage.

Re: I need a job! - RussellBeattie.com

Shelley — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:38:29 -0000

Russ, Salon is looking for a tech reporter.

Re: Firefox Tablet — I would like one too

Shelley — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:07:47 -0000

"That said, however, I can understand Mike’s frustration; I’ve been waiting for that kind of tablet ever since I saw them using one on Star Trek. Put me down for one :-)"

Why? What need would this device fill? Where when you use it, and when? No keyboard, limited caching, no AIR or Silverlight, or Flash...why do you _need_ this device?

Re: Firefox Tablet — I would like one too

Shelley — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:49:53 -0000

I'm not adverse to innovation, and lord knows I like my specialty boxes like the Roku. At the same time, though, we have to look at the environment every time a new plastic "must have" comes along. Something like an iPhone has the capability you mention, but it's also a phone, which means it serves a specific purpose. You couldn't do real work with this device, it's going to be hot to the touch (because it won't be big enough to have much of a fan system), and it will most likely burn out within a year. You'd then have to buy another as you "throw" this one away, because it's too integrated and cheap to fix.

You really couldn't answer email because there is no keyboard, other than what gets overlayed on the device. You couldn't do work with the device, and like I said, most web-based applications wouldn't work with it, because it doesn't have enough to power the apps.

If people can afford to spend money on a limited use device, more power to them. But this device has a carbon footprint. Anytime we see a device with a carbon footprint, we should ask ourselves, do we really need it, or does it just touch our "cool" and is cheap, so what the heck?

It would be nice if we could indulge our need for cool without being destructive on the environment, not to mention using dwindling resources like oil.

Re: louisgray.com: Techmeme and TechCrunch's Detractors Prove It's Hard to be On Top

Shelley — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:06:31 -0000

Techmeme uses weighted factors when determining who gets air time. Unless you're linked by one of the biggies, and continue to be linked by at least moderate or big sites, you won't show up. Who are the biggies? Well, Techcrunch is one, and with Techcrunch spawing other sites, the empire can basically guarantee that will always be top dog in Techmeme. CyndyA has a very good point about Techcrunch pointing to TechcrunchIT, which points to Crunchgear, which points back to Techcrunch. Talk about rigged.

We won't even go into how few women are on the list, until someone makes a stink and then, wonder of wonders, women actually start showing up (golly). We also won't talk about how insular the environment is, or how the news really is rarely about "technology" and more about marketing. At least posts like this aren't about the Yahoo Board and is Steve going to die tomorrow.

As for Michael Arrington, he's made an art form of how to throw a hissy fit and end up benefiting from the resulting noise. He, and other princes of the meme boards are also not above deliberately stifling sites run by people they don't like, in order to choke off any potential attention.

Lastly, most of the people in the Techmeme lists won't link unless it will do them some good. It perpetuates the myth about equality. It harms more than helps.

You don't see this because you're an insider. You're acceptable to the big boys and therefore you got the attention and now you're part of the club.

Re: louisgray.com: Techmeme and TechCrunch's Detractors Prove It's Hard to be On Top

Shelley — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:16:59 -0000

PS Oh, and poor Michael Arrington and having to deal with the hate? This is my own brush with having to deal with Arrington's gentle ways.

I closed my weblog down specifically because of him. Now, I don't even know why I bother to comment at a post like yours. You're all part of a clan, and we're nothing but noise.

Re: louisgray.com: Techmeme and TechCrunch's Detractors Prove It's Hard to be On Top

Shelley — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 03:38:46 -0000

"As for the TechCrunchIT vs. TechCrunch vs. CrunchGear argument, Gabe said on FriendFeed that this was not impacting Techmeme. "

That makes no sense, unless Gabe is specifically filtering out these partnered weblogs when they link to each other. In either case, yes, it impacts on Techmeme.

Re: Let’s all grow up a little, shall we?

Shelley — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 01:46:25 -0000

Wow. We, uh, agree.

Re: Highschool 2.0

Shelley — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 23:47:00 -0000

Anil, you were tossing wrenches just to be cute and coy. If it was high school, how does it feel to be one of the kids?

I'm devasted you didn't think I was funny, Mike. Really, I mean I may give all this up, I'm so devastated.

Re: Is DRM all or nothing? (updated)

Shelley — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 21:30:16 -0000

Well, we're seeing what Google is releasing, and I think we should consider having input into DRMs rather than ignoring them until they 'go away'.

BTW, did you mean Doc Searls instead of Dave Winer?

Re: Will the real Dave Winer please stand up?

Shelley — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 00:24:02 -0000

This is so bloody petty and embarrassing to even watch. Techmeme was a crap in the first place. Now, it's like taking crap, gold plating it, and calling it genius.

How much do you think it would cost us all if we all chipped in and paid these people to go away?

Re: Reminder: Think before you blog

Shelley — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:34:44 -0000

PS Much of the 'hate-a-thon' (really, can we leave such phrases on the cutting room floor) was somewhat inspired my Arrington's own pugnaciousness in responding to people. My heart does not bleed for him.

Re: Reminder: Think before you blog

Shelley — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:32:25 -0000

The question I asked is, if Arrington was being comped for airline tickets and hotel room, were the tickets bought and sent to him, and room booked.

If they were, then Michael should apologize to the organizer. Pretending that this was lost in the shuffle doesn't quite wash when you have people making travel arrangements, or sending tickets.

If tickets were not purchased, travel arrangements not made, hotels not booked, then obviously this wasn't a real commitment, and yes, people should lay off. Additionally, the conference organizer should, next time, hire someone more capable of managing speaker confirmations and travel arrangements.

Re: A Picture of Homer Simpson Every Day of His Life

Shelley — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:52:02 -0000

"People need to remember that the goal of IP laws is to â€œfurther the progress of science and the useful arts.â€ Fair use doesnâ€™t require attribute (despite what your high school teacher might tell you, plagiarism is not illegal), and it doesnâ€™t matter if it hurts your feelings."

My, aren't we feeling privileged. And feeling all lawyerly, too. Didn't know there were so many lawyers about.

There speaks the attitude that will eventually lead to a mass exodus of art from the internet.

Re: Anti-abortion protest at DNC (Scripting News)

Shelley — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 01:56:13 -0000

According to other sites, the pamphlets these people were handing out had the following:

"Which is a worse crime: slavery or murder? The correct answer: murder. A slave can get free, but a murder victim cannot get ‘undead'."

These are the type of people who will control our court systems if McCain wins. Scary, eh?