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/)