Slashdot Log In
Voices from the Hellmouth Released in Paperback
from the stuff-to-read dept.
Yes, comments from Slashdot are used. They are short, terse quotes that provide in /no/ way indentification. That would cross privacy boundaries I'm not wiling to cross. We choose to use them to try and express to the rest of the world who will read this book the sort of things that happen to real people.
I tried to contact some of the commenters originally, but ran into dismal success. As well, many people were posting anonymously. Obviously, they were impossible to reach.
So - summary: Yes, comments were used. They were posted in a public forum, which means that anyone can quote from them - but we've removed any sort of identifying marks, to protect people. This was down to impress upon those reading the gravity of the situation.
Re:Reader Contributions?
(Score:4)(http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=322 | Last Journal: Tuesday March 28, @12:35PM)
*sigh*
I'm an idiot - NOT through Amazon
(Score:4)(http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=322 | Last Journal: Tuesday March 28, @12:35PM)
Re:Respones
(Score:4)(http://cellar.org/)
Slashdot. Where we hate intellectual property laws, but when someone takes ONE SENTENCE of our stuff, we scream bloody murder.
Format suitable for intended audience
(Score:4)(http://slashdot.org/)
As a kid I used to stay in the library to dodge bullies, jocks and other wild animals - they didn't fit in there.
Re:HELLO???????????!!!!!!!!???!???????????????
(Score:4)(http://homestarrunner.com/)
So even though Harris and Klebold were not in that group you speak of, that group has taken a lot of abuse because of the precieved connection.
Finkployd
Re:QUestions
(Score:4)(http://assembler.org/)
Simple...Slashdot Poll!!! Have Rob, Hemos, et al, select the top 7 charities, and then let us all decide where we want the money to go. Everyone wins then.
Re:Reader Contributions?
(Score:4)uh-huh. What are you going to sue for? Not Getting A Piece Of The Action?
I suggest you and all your pointy headed allies take a look at http://www.etext.org/Politics/Conspiracy/AJTeel/U
HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476
for more information. You can, of course, start looking elsewhere (online, even) to see what actual rights you have, rather than relying on your weak "Wah, wah, I've been victimized and I have no coping skills and despite the fact that I don't know the law from the flaming baby Jesus I'm going to sue" logic.
Someone needs a lesson in fair use...
(Score:4)"Comments were used. They were posted in a public forum, which means that anyone can quote from them - but we've removed any sort of identifying marks, to protect people. This was down to impress upon those reading the gravity of the situation."
Although I must confess that the last sentence of the above quote seems incoherent to me, it seems that Jon Katz's understanding of fair use law is flawed and incomplete. Asserting that the publishing of a copyrighted work into a public forum nullifies the right of the copyright owner to restrict distribution and benefit from the publishing of the work is utterly ludicrious and goes against centries of precedent for the reasons that I will summarize briefly. I don't have the inclination or time to put together a detailed point by point rebuttal of the arguments put forward by Katz and Hemos (given their faulty interpretation of copyright law, my comment could be reused in a context different than that which permission for use is granted), but what I say should be materially accurate. Now, I must preface my comment with the note that the information presented here is only general information. If you want true legal advice, you must obtain this from an attorney-client relationship with a specific understanding of all the facts in a particular situation. This information should not be relied on as a substitute for obtaining legal advice.
First, some definitions
"Willful infringement":the party distributing copyrighted material was aware of infringment and went on despite this
"Good faith fair use defense": Ignorance of the law is not normally exculpatory, however, demonstrating that one reasonably believed that what one did was fair use may be cause for a court to refuse to award damages.
What is considered to be copyrighted?: The presence or absence of an explicit copyright notice means essentially nothing after 1989. Posters do not place their comments into the public domain unless they give explicit notification that they do so; the notice at the bottom of every Slashdot page "All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster" lends additional credence to this concept.
When does copyright law come into effect?: If someone other than the copyright owner wants to exercise rights that exclusively belong to the owner (including reproduction, redistribution, creation of derivative works, performance, archival, or display). Some uses are, however, exempt from liability from infringement (including fair use, libraries, and certain educational purposes).
What constitutes fair use?: Traditionally, a four pronged test has applied to determine whether a specific usage falls under fair use or not. These are:
1) The nature and character of the use: nonprofit, educational, artistic, and personal uses tend to be looked upon more kindly than for-profit or commercial uses. Closer on the continium to preserving the rights of the copyright owner include criticism, newsreporting, and commentary. Note that receiving profits from the sale of a derivative work and than donating these profits to a charity does NOT fall under the category of nonprofit use; the user of the copyrighted material gains a benefit from the sell of the derivative work.
2) The nature of the copyrighted work that is being used: Works that are published and factual in character may be used more freely than creative or imaginative works. Judging from most Slashdot comments, it would appear as if many posters reflect on how incidents have affected their personal lives and emotional state. This is not neccesarily of a factual nature.
3) Amount of work used: needless to say, taking a copyrighted work in its entirety would severely diminish any plausible claim of fair use. I don't know how much of each comment Katz reproduces in his book.
4) Effect of use on status of original work: The situation in this case leans against fair use for the following four reasons.
-The original comments are still available and can be accessed freely.
-The copyright owner/s is/are identifiable, but, by Hemos' own admission no substantial effort was made to locate them beyond a token effort and then a comment to the effect that it was too difficult.
-Avoids payment for permission in an established market, where the owner of the comment has the reasonable expectation of being compensated for the use of his or her work (witness Janes' effort to locate the people quoted in their article)
-It is the specific intention of Katz and Hemos to delete all identifying information such that no credit is given to the owner of the copyrighted work, an enormous no-no in copyright law.
Considering these facts, especially the fourth prong of the test (interpreted via Princeton University Press vs. Michigan Document Services wherein the concept that the potential for economic damage caused by use of a copyrighted work negates fair use, even without regard to the first three prongs of the test), it seems beyond question that Jon Katz has made a severe mistake in publishing what is essentially a derivative work blatantly drawing on the creative works of others, with a deliberate effort to suppress the identities of those who contributed materially to it.
This comment may NOT be published or otherwise redistributed except as part of the Slashdot web page. This comment is NOT released to the public domain and is copyrighted by the poster.
Re:Reader Contributions?
(Score:4)Amazon.com patents are bad - they shouldn't be able to protect their ideas...but...Slashdot readers' post's copyrights are good - they should be able to protect every word.
Open Source / Open access to info is good - access to software and information should be free...but...Taking public posts and putting them into a book is bad - Slashdot posters should be paid for their comments.
This is the problem I have with the anti-patent / open source everything mentality - it only is supported when you are on the getting end, not the giving end.
How about instead we talk about the actual book and the potential good it might do for kids dealing with the shit in it?
I resent this.
(Score:5)"Look! Look!" he says, pointing to us, the geeks, in our glass cages. "Observe the things they eat, their mating habits..."
Doesn't he realize that we're human beings too? And maybe, just maybe, we just want to be left alone to do our thing?
--
(PS: Moderators: Please, moderate this up. This is not a troll. I am speaking truly from the bottom of my heart here. I am genuinely offended by the way Jon Katz treats us as objects to be exploited.)
Re:Reader Contributions?
(Score:5)(http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=322 | Last Journal: Tuesday March 28, @12:35PM)
2. For those who posted in a public forum, they were not consulted. We had considered tracking down people, but my inital test run of trying to track down people went so terribly, we gave up. You'd be amazed how many people change e-mail addresses in a year.
3. Fair amount of new material, but a lot of is edited material that draws all the columns together. The text, when printed, should be about 200, I think, although we don't have the final number back yet. We tried to go cheaper for the book, but the cost of paper is
4. The reality, in terms, of paying people is that the book wouldn't happen at that point. The amount of time that would have added to things would have made the book impossible. Besides, the amount of actual quoting from people, once the rest is considered is
5. We tried to deal with the Amazon thing, but you can't stop them from ordering for a resaler. Once something has entered the ISBN system, anyone can order it. However, at this time, we're only selling it through Amazon. As far as funds collected at this time, Katz is not taking money, I'm not taking any - we have to pay for the cost of making the book and the editor, but besides that, nada.
A question...
(Score:5)(http://slashdot.org/)
Frankly, that's enough that I can now say I have a grievance with the moderation system. And as an ardent believer in the system otherwise that's no small feat. But post archives should be complete archives, even if that means including the trolls. Otherwise, too many "good" posts (as defined even by moderation) are cut out.
And to the trolls reading this: don't think this means I'm joining your immature ranks anytime soon. I have better things to do then meet in the big UCTAM treehouse for milk and cookies. But I do agree with you on one small and easily-fixed aspect of the moderation system now.
Respones
(Score:5)(http://Slashdot.org)
This book isn't being published by me, so I'm not taking anybody's comments and publishing them. It's being published by Andover. I didn't select the postings in it.
But as a matter of law, comments posting in public for public dissemination can be reprinted, since they were posted for public discussion. The comments in this book are excerpts from among the many thousands of e-mails, and people are not identified by e-mail or name, so their privacy is protected. It's also a non-profit book, so there is no question of anybody's getting money. Nothing is paraphrased, though, as I understand it.
There were thousands of pots, both to
Re:Reader Contributions?
(Score:5)(http://www.evilsoft.org/)
Public forum - anything said in a public forum can be quoted by ANYBODY without ANY permission.
You own the comments, but that doesn't give you some magical right to roll back 200 years of law.
The fact that they even tried is admirable, considering that they have absolutly NO legal obligation to do so.
Re:The Real Victims.
(Score:5)I for one, do not agree with you, in any way whatsoever that the shooters are victims of anything but their own hatred and psychotic dissillusionment.
Yes, people get picked on, and yes it hurts. I've been picked on plenty, and I never had a supportive roll-model to explain to me the real issues of the abuse. I've also never killed anyone or wanted to kill anyone. Whats the difference between Klebold, Harris and me? I have a conscience, while they never did. For whatever reasons and influences that brought them to that cold uncaring state, they are still psychopathic killers who are on the scale of Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dalmer, etc., and I do not and never ever will care a fleeting fuck about their nurishment, their rights or their suffering which may have influenced their actions.
One of the fundamental properties which separates humans from animals is the fact that humans can determine right from wrong, good from bad. Klebold and Harris knew that what they were doing was wrong. They knew that what they were doing was killing. They knew that they were willing to spare nobody for their own self-gain and revenge. They are not victims; they're cold-blooded killers.
When you say "the killers were victims of a different sort", you're simply filling in the void of cause and justifying their actions. You're declaring victims like an accident attorney. Regardless of whether someone truely is a victim of some form of abuse, you never ever encourage vengence by justifying their violence. This is the primary reason why I hate your writing and have you filtered.
As for proceeds for this crap, I'd say donate it to the families of the half-dozen or so disabled kids from the Collumbine incident. Help put one of them through college.
HELLO???????????!!!!!!!!???!???????????????
(Score:5)(http://www.thehungersite.com/)
Sure, there's no reason we can't talk about the horrible treatment of Geeks (and others) in today
s high schools, but you know what? I don't see any justification for linking that debate with Columbine.
The Columbine killers were just crazy. Remember the Trench Coat Mafia? That group of outsiders that had an ongoing feud with the jocks, and talked about getting picked on constantly, and about how high school was hell for them? Yeah, well, Harris and Klebold were not in that group.
Harris and Klebold turned out to be, well... crazy. Two guys who just had it in for everyone else for no particular reason at all. Hard as it may be for you to believe, that is what a thorough investigation of their diary and videotaped rants has concluded.
There it is.
--
grappler
We are remembering the real victims up in Canada
(Score:5)Reena was a 14 year old of Indian decent (that's from India not aboriginal) who was a little overwieght and a visible minority. Three years or so ago she was kicked to death and then thrown in a river and drowned by a group of teenagers who thought she was a 'goof' and 'weird'. They were the 'cool' kids and she was the outsider. Another group of teens has already been sentenced to jail in the case.
Reena's case is the extreme but it demonstrates that there is more than just 'a little bit of extra hassling by school administrators' and peers going on. How many other children take their own lives after the cruel harassment and torture of their so-called friends has become too much - what number is bigger, the number of school death by shooting or the number of teen suicides?
We can pay homage to the 15 (yes 15) vicims of Columbine not by stiffling discussion about the issues surrounding the tragedy but by shouting it from the roof tops so every kid will hear. We will never stop the Columbine's of the world from happening if we pretend they were madmen about which we could have done nothing. On the contrary, maybe this tragedy could have been avoided if only one teacher or one other student had spoken out against the kind of treatment the two killers (and many others) recieved on a daily basis, some time in the past before the two snapped.
I'm willing to bet some of the victim's families wish someone had.
The real tragedy of Columbine is that it was entirely avoidable and some of the victims must share a little responsibility for what happend to them (though, to be clear, not as much as the two killers - NOBODY deserves the the treatment they got but NOBODY deserves to die because of it).
You want to remember the victims? Teach you children tolerance, manners and respect for others so there are never any other victims to remember.
Don't poke your head in the sand and pretend nothing is wrong.
Re:Comments and Posters
(Score:5)(http://slashdot.org/)
Lest you get disturbed, I'll clarify some points for you about YOUR comments.
All comments posted to Slashdot are copyright of the poster. Posting them essentially constitutes publishing. Now, by fair use provisions anybody, even Jon Katz, can take excepts from these posts and use them -- this is called quoting. Nobody needs any permission to quote any published material. Nothing happens to copyright -- it still resides with the original poster.
If quotes from your comments being used in Katz's book disturbes you highly, I'd recommend to try and get a life. I understand this is a hard problem, but I've heard it's fun...
Kaa
Looking out for Numero Uno
(Score:5)A book has been compiled to reflect your opinions regarding Columbine and its aftermath. It'll be something in hard copy. Something at a bookstore that your average Joe can pick up and think about. Maybe Joe is an alcoholic who beats his kid, and the book will make him think twice about the consequences. Or maybe Joe is the leader of a local PTA who thinks that her son's school "would be just fine if it weren't for those few creepy kids who dress in black all the time and spend all their time on that Internet-thing."
Being in print legitimizes what you have to say--far more than many of you realize. The countless posts you've poured your hearts and souls into here don't amount to a hill of dingo's kidneys while they're just sitting on Slashdot's servers, because 99.999% of the world is *never* going to hear what you have to say. But getting it in print, getting those words an ISBN and a place on a bookstore shelf--*that* act can drop that percentage of people who aren't hearing you.
BUT... what is the overwhelming response to this chance for the message to be heard? A great Wave of whining idiots who are more concerned with looking out for number one. "What about crediting ME for MY words?" "How could Slashdot have the gall to snip a couple dozen words from MY post and violate MY rights guaranteed by God and the Internet and the message at the bottom of this page?" "Exactly who is getting rich off of the sweat of MY brow?"
Andover is *actually doing something* about the bad rap that geeks and others have been receiving from the mainstream media for years--they're doing something more than just typing little words into a little box on a little website--and you want to jump all over their backs because your little words might actually have an impact beyond the Slashdot community, and you don't have full creative control over it.
"And, for Pete's sake, make sure they don't sell it on Amazon.com!" Sure... God forbid that the book be sold somewhere prominent where people who *aren't* geeks might find out about it. Let's make sure we're only preaching to the choir, here.
The message in the book is a powerful one, and it *has* power because so many individuals have something to say. Not one person--thousands of people--make this book important. Your one little post didn't mean anything until there were another hundred posts just like it, so quit puffing yourself up with self-importance and righteous indignation.
Will some people make money from this book? Yes. UPS will probably make a killing on shipping charges, if it turns out this book is a success. Andover will make money--but then, it's their money that they're putting on the line to get this thing published and out to everyone. Booksellers will make some money, too. But the money that CmdrTaco and Hemos and company make--the only money that they really have control over--will go to causes that they hope this community believes in.
The message is bigger than you are. Have the decency to be big enough, yourselves, to let it be heard.
-----------------------------------------------
In other news
(Score:5)(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday December 03, @07:03PM)
Table of Contents:
Chapter I:
"First Post!"
Chapter II:
"The Glorious MEEPT -- Early Slashdot"
Chapter III;
"Futility -- GPL vs. BSD, KDE vs. GNOME, Emacs vs. vi"
Chapter IV:
"Nudity and Petrification -- From Segfault to Slashdot"
Chapter V:
"Hot Grits -- Not Just For Breakfast Anymore"
Chapter VI:
"The Final Option -- CmdrTaco/Hemos/CowboyNeal Sucks"
Reader Contributions?
(Score:5)If so, a few questions:
1.) Are the posters of those comments listed by name and/or handle?
2.) Have they been consulted about have their comments published?
3.) How much "new material" is in this book? How many pages is the text? $15 for a paperback seems like a bit much.
4.) As noted at the disclaimer on the bottom of each page of slashdot, "Comments are owned by the Poster." I think that giving the proceeds to charity is a worthy cause, but what if someone desired a cut of the profits for the portion of the content they provided? I sure hope no one here would be so selfish and arrogant, but it does happen. . .
5.) Has anyone at slashdot made an effort to keep this from going on Amazon? Put your money where your mouth is and support that boycott - and I'm sure that someone is making money through the sale from Think Geek, which is, of course, owned by the same people who are donating the rest of the proceeds - is it just the slashdot staffs' portion of the proceeds that go to charity, or everything andover and its employees get from this?
The Columbine Murderers...
(Score:5)(Last Journal: Thursday July 01, @04:20PM)
The impression we get of them from the media are not real, they are cardboard cut outs meant to represent "the teenaged menace" and allow for a crackdown the like of which America has never seen.
Jon Katz Hellmouth stories weren't about two sociopaths who went on a killing spree, they were about people who were victimized in its aftermath. They aren't about a town Littleton or a school called Columbine, they are about media generated illusions designed to push a repressive political agenda.
It is irrelevant that today is the anniversary of Columbine save to those directly affected by the tragedy. Did anyone notice the anniversary of Jonesborough, Arkansas or Paducah, Kentuky? Not in the mainstream media, at any rate, they've decided the most useful instrument for their statist agenda is the illusion they created around Columbine.
Perhaps Jon Katz is not the best person to write a book and expose this agenda, but at least he is doing something. I've seen very few people elsewhere tackling the spectre created by the media who used the victims of the Columbine tragedy for their own ends. I have watched the TeeVee news this week, and you know what I hear, "This just in, the anniversary of the Columbine Tragedy (a trademark of Time/Warner Inc.) is set to come up, are your children safe. We now go to a drill being conducted by the Lutz PD, in case a similar event happens here." (Cut to scenes of kids being walked out of a school with their hands over their heads, looking like criminals. I'm not sure it was actually Lutz, but it was one of the schools around here. Oh, and of course I satirically paraphrased the newsreader's words, but that was the gist of them.)
It shouldn't shock me that so many people posting to Slashdot these days are completely duped by the media, or hate Jon Katz so much, that they'll go on and on about how this announcement is "poor taste" but I doubt have written to their local News stations to express the same sentiments. However, it is important that these people are not the only voices heard or posts read.
Someday, maybe soon, I'm going to have kids. I do not want them thrust into some Orwellian nightmare just because a bunch of people are whining about "poor taste." If you want to whine about poor taste, why not try the conventional media? MSNBCVs Article on the Anniversary [msnbc.com] I'm sure they'll really care about your complaints, and store them in a strong metal container... a trash can.
Re:Actually no...
(Score:5)(Last Journal: Thursday July 01, @04:20PM)
Another thing all the Katz-flamers and general malcontents should consider is the right to fair use. These comments were all made in response to articles Jon Katz wrote, and he has a right to respond to them or otherwise use them in his book. After all, without his articles, the comments wouldn't have existed in the first place. Free speech would be utterly impossible if a person didn't have the right to respond to things being said about him without compensating the people who were saying those things.
Do radio talk shows compensate the people who call in? Does the New York Times compensate people who write them letters which they publish? No.
If you hate Jon Katz, don't respond to his columns, because your comments are derivative works based on what he wrote. (This is one of the irritating things I notice about some kids on the Web, they'll draw a picture of a video game character and then claim to own that picture. Nope, whoever came up with the character in the first place owns the character and has rights to the drawing. Oh, and if you are a person who doesn't believe in intellectual property, I understand your point, but then you can't claim that someone is stealing something that you don't own.)
I really wish some people would learn how to block Jon Katz author if they don't want to see, and feel "compelled" to respond to his work.
Kudos to Katz and Andover
(Score:5)The rest of the world NEEDS a tour guide to geeks. This is what many of us seem to miss completely. We can't understand why the rest of the world can't understand us, but it comes from a fundamental lack of understanding on the part of the outside world, so to speak. The mass media has turned the word "geek" into one of two things - a revered, nearly god-like individual who controls technology and can make the world fall to peices with the very click of his mouse, or a dangerous antisocialite who is a threat to everyone, both digitally or physically.
These people are the ones that look at the words "computer gaming" and think "doom is a killing simulator". This does not bode well for many of us, who enjoy a FPS once in a while. (Note : This applies to most gaming genres. Tell someone that Civ II is a "world building" game and they'll give you the 'look'). So, what's the solution to bridging this gap that exists?
People like Katz. He might not be a geek, and he might not fully understand geeks, but he's actually got a grasp on many important issues. For the most part, he gets his information somewhat right. And a book like this is, in my opinion, VERY important. Who else to present the facts "from the other side of the fence" than someone who is riding the rails? Hopefully, this won't just be a one-time thing. Perhaps we need to get a "Geek Lifestyle 101" written as an open source project from slashdot comments or something, heh.
and that's my $0.02
Re:Respones
(Score:5)(http://slashdot.org/)
I don't think this is the case here. When I post on Slashdot, I'm giving permission to Slashdot to publish my post on Slashdot, in the particular forum where I submitted my post to, and nowhere else. Would it be alright if I took your Slashdot articles, bound them into a book, and sold them? I don't think so.
Furthermore, Slashdot clearly indicates that "comments are owned by the poster" -- this clearly implies that in posting to Slashdot, I understand, and Slashdot understands, that I retain all rights to my post.
Posters take note, the bottomline is this: Slashdot will republish and resell your posts without asking for your permission.
people are not identified by e-mail or name, so their privacy is protected
Have you considered that some posters will want to be credited for what they wrote? I certainly would.
non-profit book, so there is no question of anybody's getting money.
The fact that it's non-profit is irrelevant. I can't take someone else's work and republish it, even if I don't make anything from it.
====
Re:Reader Contributions?
(Score:5)(http://slashdot.org/)
If that's the case, I agree, it's alright if it's just quoting. I was under the impression that some posts were quoted wholesale. So no comments had substantial amounts reproduced?
I'd also like to find out, why didn't Slashdot post an article earlier telling us that Slashdot intended to publish a book containing substantial amounts of reader comments? If there was any interest consulting the readership and obtaining author permission, this would have been the obvious step to take.
As it is, the whole thing seems to have been kept under wraps until the last moment, where it would be too late to make any changes.
====