Slashdot Log In
Postscript: Who Owns The Hellmouth Posts?
from the why-they-should-be-published-as-they-are dept.
To me, the moral imperative of the Hellmouth series has always been simple: get these stories out to a wider audience. That's what they were sent.
There are countless victims of a tragedy like Columbine. First, and certainly foremost, there were the 12 kids and a teacher who were slain. Secondly, there were the two emotionally disturbed kids who killed them, and then took their own lives. And finally, there were the many thousands of individualistic, interesting and sometimes-alienated kids who have suffered from the post-Columbine hysteria.
Their stories are familiar to anyone who read the Hellmouth series, or who has been following the epidemic of suspensions, expulsions, arrests, forced counseling sessions, social abuse and suspicion, and nightmare creations like Pinkerton's "WAVE America" program, an anonymous hotline on which kids are encouraged to turn in peers they consider dangerous or violent.
In the days after Columbine, many of those new victims sent messages to Slashdot, in the hopes of finding an outlet for their experiences -- since schools, the media and politicians were giving them no voice. We can't count exactly how many messages were sent this way, some posted here, others e-mailed directly to me, while many messagers were unable to get onto the site. But my best guess is close to 20,000.
In a handful of cases, posters asked for anonymity, or that their messages not ever be passed along. Those requests were, of course, honored. But as perhaps the only person who read all the messages, that got through, and that I received, I am confident about their spirit and intent, both literally and figuratively. Those people wanted to get their stories out. They sent their messages in the hopes of reaching beyond their own lives and schools and into mainstream media, educational and political circles. The Hellmouth posts are unique. They belong in the public domain. In fact, they cry out to be there.
The overwhelming majority of these kids and adults came from outside of the Slashdot community. They perceived Slashdot as a place where messages get out, where they could speak freely, where information is shared and distributed. They asked that I do everything possible to see that their words and perspectives and pleas and stories reach journalists, educators and parents. None of them were particularly aware of or interested in the many internicine issues and conflicts that characterize a site like this. They were not conventional posters to Slashdot's Threads.
So I have worked to be faithful to those requests. In these kid's lives, a year is a long, sometimes painful time. Lots of these kids have stayed in touch. Many have moved, gone on to college, switched computers or ISP's, changed their technological lives or personal interests. Many, of course, were young, complicating the posting issues still further.
Although I didn't select the messages in this about-to-be published collection, (Since I am legally under contract to another book publisher, I couldn't directly participate in the production of the book, and I also thought it would be better to have a more detached eye) I've read them. The selections were brilliant. They are the right ones, and they are powerful.
My belief and recommendation was this: the safest, fairest and most effective way to deal with publishing excerpts from the outpouring was to select the most powerful and universal posts, strip them of identifying name or e-mail addresses (some of them are young, some messages to them might be intercepted by parents or siblings, and the Net can be hostile) and publish the strongest, most representative excerpts. To do anything else, in my opinion, would be arbitrary and unfair, because:
- Messages shouldn't be excluded just because the posters were young, or had moved or switched ISP's.
-Messages should be chosen for their content, not availability.
Inclusion in the book shouldn't be part of a negotiating process, but on the basis of merit.
-All of the posted messages -- including some e-mailed to me -- were clearly sent with the intent of being seen. People wanted to have some impact on the post-Columbine hysteria.
Many people in this community have raised all sorts of questions about my motives (the accusations included profiteering, self-promotion, exploitation, opportunism, among others), and about idea ownership, and some proprietary questions about including posts. Many of these concerns are perfectly valid, others ironically coming from people who routinely download music, videos, software and other information and pass along opinions, columns and stories without a second thought, or even as a matter or principle.
Fact is, I've never been prouder to have my name on any book. I hope it's published in a timely fashion. I hope it's supported and widely read.
One of the problems with the eruption of hate-mail Friday (I define hate mail as a message with the word "hate" in it, or a message sent for the sole purpose of personal attack or injury) is that it often obscures genuine issues, and the posts that raised intelligent and important questions. That was the case in the response following the announcement that "Voices From The Hellmouth" was going to be published.
These issues, while valid, raise the risk of obscuring the point: The Hellmouth messages urgently need to be disseminated; they deserve to be heard. Don't do to these kids what so many journalists, administrators, parents and others have done -- shut them up.
Where possible, it's perfectly valid to try to reach individuals and get their permission -- believe me, that will not be a problem. In every case, e-mail addresses should be stripped and only the poster's initials used. But messages ought not be kept from the book simply because a poster was unreachable. These messages are the right ones.
That unrelated issues ought not delay the publication of the book by a single day, or result in the deletion of any valid message. Nor should they divert attention from what the Hellmouth series is really about -- the very real persecution of kids who are individualistic, different, "non-normal," and who have been wrongly caught up in an ugly hysterical response to a tragic event. These voices should not be silenced, and certainly not here.
Addendum by Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda
I wanted to make a few points in addition to Jon's.
- A terrible thing happened a year ago. Then the world freaked out and caused even worse things to happen to even more people. Everyone involved in the production of this book felt that this would in some small way help. You're not obligated to buy, read, or even care about this book. But there are many people who hopefully will benefit from it.
- It was impractical, and in fact undesirable to contact and credit the vast number of contributors. Under other circumstances, it might have been different, but considering the subject matter, we felt that it was better done anonymously anyway. If we were publishing the 'Slashdot Readers Guide to Hacking C++' or something, much different criteria would have been used.
- We're donating any money to charity: we'll certainly entertain suggestions about which charity, and perhaps it'll be put to a Slashdot poll, all of that however was just a nice side benefit to a larger purpose. Accusations that this is a PR stunt were pretty hurtful. We honestly feel that this was above all else, a "Good Thing". Yes, we did it through a Andover, a corporate, "For Profit" entity, but that alone doesn't make turn this into an evil plot to take your money, and earn us fame. Turn the conspiracy theory down a notch and remember that Andover just a group of human beings with real feelings and everything. Several of them were very hurt that so many people reacted so angrily to something that we all felt was good.
- We're in the middle of a big server move. After that we'll hack a permission system to allow people to decide if their words are for Slashdot only, or may be redistributed if this ever comes up again. There are many good things in the comments worthy of wider audiences, and most readers don't have any problem with that, but the few (loud) people for whom this is a major stumbling block should most certainly be allowed to determine the destiny of their own words. It has been my intent to add this for months, but ideas are plentiful, while the time to code them isn't.
- It will be published electronically. It'll be run either on Slashdot, or it'll be in some downloadable format. Its just not out yet, so chill out for a few weeks ;)
Extra-special bonus addendum 04/21 16:24 by michael : Already the jokes have begun.
Seriously... grow up! (Score:3)
Look, you posted the comments anonymously. That means there is no way to trace you back. Sure, there might be server logs -- but come on! Why would Katz or any of the Slashdot crew go through the time and trouble to pair up web server logs, hunt down IPs, trace them back to an ISP, and through some MIRACLE find out who you were. That's SILLY and totally, totally impractical.
Katz's little opus here has a lot of merit to it. People posting in the under the guise of anonymity share more information -- information that can be used in this book.
Seriously, you all post anonymous comments and then get mad when they get published for a profit. You think Slashdot doesn't make a profit already? All that ad revenue comes in because of the hits and the hits are caused by returning traffic -- traffic that READS your COMMENTS. Oh God forbid, a PROFIT IS MADE!
Seriously, if my comments were included I'd be rather flattered. Unfortunately I never posted on the whole Hellmouth issue. If I had, and my comments were published in a book, I'd be sort of thrilled.
All you whiners need to grow up. It's not a GPL world and, hopefully, it never will be.
Re:So _who_ owns the messages, may I ask? (Score:3)
So, really, who owns the posts?
I thought it covered that. There is no blanket answer to the question that will make everyone happy. Since the question can't be answered collectively, Slashdot will soon have a feature that allows you to answer that question for your own posts.
And what if one of the featured decides that the published version is too personal, and, despite of the alterations for privacy, all too personal and identifiable?
Then there's a problem. Either the person can quietly stew and be generally upset, or yell and scream, making themselves even more visible. This isn't a perfect world we live in, and some things just don't have easy solutions.
----
So _who_ owns the messages, may I ask? (Score:3)
But the article does not address the issue its own title raises _at all_ beyond suggesting the emails/posts _should_ be in the public domain.
So, really, who owns the posts?
And what if one of the featured decides that the published version is too personal, and, despite of the alterations for privacy, all too personal and identifiable?
In Defense Of Rob/Hemos (Score:3)
I was especially concerned that there wasn't a Taco/Hemos post (if there was a missed it, please correct me) that DIRECTLY addressed the question of a perceived incosistency between the "comments owned by poster" text on the Slashdot footer and the charachterization by Hemos of the posts as "a public forum".
HOWEVER, Rob's comments above resolve any concerns I could see with any of this for two very important reasons:
1) Rob informed us that this book WOULD be available electronically, and presumably, this means free of charge - (again, please correct me if I'm wrong). This means that we can make the choice to whether we wish to support the chosen charitable organizations involved with the book in harmony with reading and passing along the important messages it contains. Feeling free to pass the text of this book around to as many people as possible seems like something I WANT to do; I'd be willing to host a mirror of the text on a non-commercial area of my web sites. I'm assuming if it's deemed helpful I could be called on to do so.
2) Rob has stated that we will have the ability to designate our comments as "proprietary" or "public" as soon as possible. This is a very Good Thing on multiple levels: the level of confusion this will clear up on Slashdot, and knowing that the Slash code, and presumably this new functionality, will be "open", it will be possible to use this code as inspiration for the ame functionality in Slash and other GPL'd weblog applications, like the one I use, PHPSlash.
I don't always post "pro-slashdot" sentiments, so I stand by my objectivity, but Rob/Hemos/Katz deserve a ton of credit and respect here, and those who would otherwise need to grow up.
Here's a problem you missed: (Score:3)
I post on this forum because it is freely available to the world. I understand the philosophical unease someone might have with formerly "free" comments being gathered and edited for a non-free publication, for someone else's benefit.
People post comments, to make their ideas heard, but their choice of forum is also a comment, if that makes sense. Some people want ideas to be exchanged freely. I know I feel that way, and so I don't willingly donate my free time to creating content that someone else plans to package and sell.
I suspect I'm not alone in feeling this way. (Though I stop short of condemning this book. My feelings are mixed on this subject.)
ObOT: I am, however, livid about Slashdot's new affiliation w/ DoubleClick [slashdot.org]. I encourage all readers to grab a fresh copy of Junkbuster [junkbuster.com] and terminate Slashdot's ad revenue w/ extreme prejudice.
-Isaac
Use our posts --> give book away for free onlin (Score:3)
for the record you may republish any and all of my posts as long as you cite the author... please just be responsible and follow basic Open Content [opencontent.org] guidelines.
However, I think that if you're going to use our posts from a public forum, you ought to make the book freely available on the web. This only seems appropriate given how you obtained (at least some) of it's content, and considering how important some of that material might be for teens unable or unwilling to purchase the publication on paper.
The book.. (Score:3)
...is a collection of columns written last year, and the excerpts chosen by a book editor. I didn't assemble it. Of course, they are my columns. Is there something here I'm missing, or that isn't clear?
Re:Public domain Yeah, but... (Score:3)
That would be fine, except for the fact that there's a copyright disclaimer at the bottom of every page on Slashdot, and it reads
The emphasis is mine. "Comments are owned by the Poster" What does this mean if, anything? I believe it means that Slashdot gives up their public-domain claims on Poster's comments -- if not in a legal sense then at least in the broader moral sense. If it doesn't mean that, then what does it mean?That's not a rhetorical question, Rob. I'd like to see an answer. What do you intend "ownership" to mean, if anything?
--Jim
Re:Give the money to the victim's families (Score:3)
I think that it'sa bad idea to give the money to the families of the victims. It cheapens the value of their loss. If we were talking about a civil lawsuit, this would be different. What good does "We feel very sorry for you, here will this MONEY make you feel better" do? As sad as it is, those people are gone.
They should donate the money to a charity that can do some good for people who are still alive.
LK
Re:Public domain? (Score:3)
Re:Seriously... grow up! (Score:3)
Author writes a comment and posts it on Slashdot.
Hellmouth book takes comment and sells it along with other comments, taking out the less-than-outstanding ones, making it more convenient.
All originals comments (aside from ones lost due to moderation, but presumably these comments aren't in the book either) are still available for free in Slashdot archives.
This is certainly in the spirit of freedom, open source, blah, blah.
Copyright Office (Score:3)
Fair use is covered in Circular 21 [loc.gov] (pdf). I found this part quite interesting:
Looking at the above list of factors, it would seem that 1 and 4 may be problematic. The book is clearly commercial (even if the profits are going to charity), and the included posts influence the market potential of the book considerably (i.e., they are the market potential for the book). There isn't clearly a problem, IMO, but I would definitely want an IP lawyer to take a look at the book before it was published.OTOH, reading down a little, it appears that comments can safely be reprinted in their entirety without violating the authors copyright--in particular, it states that short stories, which are far more substantial than most posts, can be used in their entirety. The caveat is that this specific example only applies to classroom use (these are the provisions for educational use), but it would seem to imply that shorter works can be reprinted safely. (Of course 'imply' doesn't mean much, legally.)
-jcl
Third Party Righteous Indignation (Score:3)
Not plagiarism!! (Score:3)
People keep bandying around the word plagiarism and that is 100% dead wrong. Plagiarism is taking someone elses work and claiming it to be your own. I'm assuming these quotes are simply anonymous. Like this:
One Slashdot reader commented, "I'm a blithering idiot, and a zealot to boot!"
There's a huge difference between that and plagiarism. They aren't even in the same ball park. Not to mention that accusing an author of plagiarism is somewhat akin to accusing a judge of accepting bribes, or a sports player of throwing a game. It strikes right at the heart of their profession and isn't an accusation that should be leveled lightly.
--GnrcMan--
Re:Public domain (Score:3)
Although there may be copyright issues involving a post, when an actor or politician says something in public there's always the possibility that he can be quoted. The same thing applies here. Thousands already read your post so what's the problem with a few more? If you didn't want your opinion to be heard why voice it in the first place?
Well, there are quite a number of issues here.
First off, there is a difference between quoting and publishing. When somoene is quoted, only a part of a larger text is re-printed. When text is re-printed in its entirely, the rules for quoting do not usually apply.
It should also be noted that things said in public are not in the public domain. For instance, a speech given in public can still be copyrighted. The same applies to sporing events and concerts. Just because a song is played in an open forum certainly does not mean that it can be re-produced or re-broadcast.
What concerns me most though is that no attempt was made to contact the authors and verify the stories, as this is one of the most important tennants of responsible journalism. Putting something in print that was submitted anonymously is just flat out irresponsible.
This story has the potential to be an excellent and very powerful book. It is too bad that is nothing more (in essesnce) than a collection of sound bites. Welcome to reporting in the 21st century...
Re:Come clean everybody (Score:3)
In addition, it would be decent to cite entire threads -- and whether or not that occurred has not been mentioned. Realize that this is a *discussion* board and *not* a board for posting isolated messages that must stand alone...
The issue of anonymity hurts the credibility of any such work. Many of us, if sufficiently bored, could probably employ multiple writing styles and positions in order to simulate an entire discussion under the 'Anonymous Coward' epithet. Without at least making some effort to verify individuality and authenticity, the book could not really claim anything much stronger than, "These messages appeared on Slashdot and were attributed to (x) different accounts".
Quoting people without giving credit, in a published work, raises ethical issues; while there may be a right to quote, one may argue that there IS a responsibility to offer credit. I really would not WANT to be identified on such a permanent medium, out of context, but perhaps some of the posters WOULD want that option. That providing this option might be a tedious burden does not absolve the editors of it, any more than "taxes being onerous" is a legitimate argument for accepting the benefits of citizenship and residency without paying.
Finally, there are ethical issues about using the speech of others to support charities, most of which work for causes that some of us may oppose...
dismayed... (Score:3)
But what annoys me most about how Slashdot has handled the whole affair is how incredibly self-righteous the Slashdot editors have been about it. There is no tone of apology or asking of forgiveness, such as "We used your posts without permission, we thought it was important, but we're sorry about it."
Instead, what we have is a big brotherly, condescending, holier than thou attitude. To paraphrase: "We know they would have wanted their comments in the book"
or "the few (loud) people for whom this is a major stumbling block should most certainly be allowed to determine the destiny of their own words" (translation: you whiners, you should be ashamed of yourselves)
or "it's a public forum. We can quote you without asking."
I don't think anyone here would seriously object to having their posts appear in a book. But what we want is to be asked first. It's a simple principle really, and goes a long way towards showing regard for you readers.
If asking isn't possible, then do as Weird Al Yankovic does, and ask for forgiveness. The condescending and righteous attitude displayed by the editors is disgusting.
====
Surprised (Score:3)
Then I thought about some of the things that were said - the feelings that were expressed (I had some A/C posts in the threads somewhere)and the experiences shared. I realized that I didn't just want my words heard by the Slashdot community. That's preaching to the converted. There is a whole, wide world out there that has to learn of the impact of growing up a geek can be - and the scars that it leaves.
I am still a little ambivalent about the whole thing -- but I have enough trust in Rob & Co to let them run with this ball and see where it takes us.
I would suggest that the money go to youth outreach groups - ones that could make a difference for younger versions of all of us.
An almost final thought: a little warning would have been nice that this was coming out. As hurtful as some of the responses were - I think a lot of that was out of surprise, and perhaps, a feeling that perhaps Slashdot might be using its community to promote their own agendas. And then again, the whole thing involved JonKatz -- which causes AutoFlame/Trollz.
Final note: I bought the book yesterday. And sent it to my parents. I never could make them understand why my highschool years were hell. Hopefully the thousands of words in this book will paint the picture.
Public domain? (Score:3)
Forests and trees (Score:3)
I work in a high school and not five minutes ago one of the brightest students here approached me and said that she'd been dragged into the office by the "Life Skills" teacher (irony, eh? - and note that the word "teacher" form here on out is used questioningly) for her "inappropriate" dress. After making the kid sit for a half-hour the teacher asked this student what her G.P.A. was and when the student (honestly) replied that it was a 4.0 the teacher sneered, "Kids like you don't get good grades".
If "Hellmouth" can instigate the _necessary_ dialogue on these issues then I'm all for it and, frankly, bless Jon and Slashdot and Andover for putting it together.
I don't get what is so bad about it. (Score:3)
IIAL (I am a lawyer). (Score:4)
Re:What the fnar? (Score:4)
Disclaimer: I was not involved in the production of the book, the above is merely my interpretation of various comments by Jon Katz, Commander Taco and Hemos.
----
Reality check (Score:4)
At risk of sounding harsh, then they shouldn't have posted them to start with.
Look, folks: how many people read Slashdot on a frequent basis? How many people see any given article or high-rated comment? Thousands? Tens of thousands?
How many people have seen a substantial part of the "Hellmouth" series? At least tens of thousands? Closer to hundreds of thousands?
More than you think than will see a book with a print run of, say, 25,000? I've worked in publishing. 25,000 would be an big run for a first printing of something that didn't have the name Danielle Steel or Stephen King on it.
Wake up, folks. These posts have already been published. There are some valid copyright concerns in theory, but I don't think this can be said to set a "once online, all rights are lost" precedent. (You can, of course, kiss first serial rights in all countries goodbye, but that's another story.)
The change in media is irrelevant--the question is only whether or not this falls under "fair use" provisions of copyright. If you're prepared to argue that it doesn't, you'd better be prepared to argue against
...you can see where I'm going with this. The media and the distribution of that media aren't relevant to copyright concerns; you don't get to say that those examples are okay but the Voices from the Hellmouth book isn't simply because there's a chance you'll be able to find it at Borders.
Open-source everything but my comments! (Score:4)
How does it feel now? are you going to stop posting anti-copyright diatribes, or do you just think your writing is more deserving of legal protection than anyone else's?
Notice: I grant permission to the slashdot editors to reprint my comments in part or whole in any form, with or without contacting me.
The above is now in my user bio section, I encourage everyone else who feels the same way to put something similar in their info.
Re:Public domain (Score:4)
You had me, right up until this statement.
In the middle of an insightful, well-reasoned post, this is just rubbish.
If you submit something to Slashdot anonymously, you're not sending it to small, secret group of people; you're sending it directly to several tens of thousands of people worldwide, and you're listing it on search engines where it'll show up to anybody typing a keyword or two [google.com].
What would be irresponsible would be backtracking the Anonymous postings to identify their poster, so he could be credited; that would completely undermine people's confidence in the anonymity of their postings, and have a chilling effect on a tool that's getting a lot of important messages moved from inside people's brains (where they often aren't accomplishing much) and out into the wide world, where they sometimes are accomplishing useful things.
Slashdot isn't a private messagebase on a BBS somewhere, it's a public forum.
It's a bit like a big reader-edited newspaper, which doesn't really have parallels in the non-virtual world because it's not feasible without Tim Berners-Lee's amazing invention [w3.org].
I assure you, when we collectively interview somebody, he doesn't assume he's speaking to use in our living rooms privately; he assumes he's being published.
If you post something to Slashdot anonymously, the very act of making it anonymous removes any right you have to hope it remains unpublished, because you've made it unattributable.
The Right Thing vs. The Legal Thing (Score:4)
I agree that this is a story that must be told. I think that it is extemely important that "freaks and geeks" not be persecuted for being different.
There was a right way to do it. Unfortunately, Andover et. al. didn't choose that way.
In reading the comments in this thread I've seen a number that express the idea "The issue is too important to worry about the legal issues." or "We have a moral imperative that supercedes any other issues."
This is the same argument used to murder abortion doctors. This is the same argument that is being used to keep a young Cuban boy from his father. This is the same argument used to destroy research projects and careers in the name of animal rights. This is the same argument used by the religious right against gays. It is used everytime someone 'knows' what is right for everyone else.
And this is the same argument used by the Pinkerton company to run roughshod over the rights of kids whose only "crime" is that they are different.
The outrage I have with Andover et. al. is not that they put together this book or even the way they did it. My problem is the attitude they are now displaying after the issues were raised. "We know best." "We are above the law." "We don't have to stand by what is written on every
For better or worse we (at least in the US) live by the rule of law, not by the rule of force (in theory at least). You may not like the fact that abortions are permitted, or gays have rights, or that animals are used in experiments, or that kids who are different get persecuted. But you do not have the right to take matters into your own hands and ignore the rights of others.
I find CmdrTaco's, Jahn Katz's, and Andover's actions both unfortunate and disturbing.
Steve M
What the fnar? (Score:4)
Although I didn't select the messages in this about-to-be published collection, (Since I am legally under contract to another book publisher, I couldn't directly participate in the production of the book,
Ok, then, who did write the book and why is your name on the cover?
-p.
Re:This IS a Good Thing (Score:4)
But I'm standing up with you. And Jon and Rob. I hope the book spreads some consciousness about the almost-timeless problem of adolescence, how rough it is for most people, and how most people cope with it okay without losing their sanity, and what can help them make it through instead of making it harder.
I think it is a good thing, and is the right thing, and I salute the people who went to the effort of doing it. From the kids brave enough to tell the world about their pain and humiliation, to the folks at Andover (who are NOT going to make a lot of money at this, I expect), to Jon and Rob, who also endure more pain and humiliation than they should have to.
Now here's my two cents on the intellectual property mess.
It seems that lots of people on
Now, I'm not as rabidly paranoid as some others, so I think that Jon and Rob are not cleverly scheming to use other people's work for their own devious purposes. I expect that most of the stories published are:
- not from the people whining about their rights to their posts
- from people who wanted to tell their story, and would be honored to have it more widely published
- quite possibly fair use.
But I don't know, and neither does almost anyone who's posted about it. Therefore, maybe we should wait until it comes out and see if anyone whose work is published feels like their rights have been infringed before we unleash all our righteous rage. There are things Jon has said that I've thought were inaccurate conclusions, but that hardly seems reason to presume that this book is going to have infringing material in it that the copyright owner's going to be upset about.
In the this-isn't-the-law-but-it's-what-I-think-is-right
category, I don't think anyone's going to make a lot of profit from this. So I don't really feel that anyone's liable to benefit overmuch from someone else's talent. And the only situation that I can imagine someone getting hurt from their post being published is if they sent to Slashdot expecting that no one they knew would read it, and when it is published as a book, someone does read it and is able to identify them, and they didn't want anyone they knew to read it. But this seems somewhat unlikely. No undue benefit, probably no undue harm -- in my little world, there's no foul.
And if in your little world, there's some horrible moral lapse or negligence that _might_ be going on, maybe hold judgement and a little trust that the good guys we know and love are doing a good job, until you see the end product?
Bob
I don't understand the complaining (Score:4)
I've really only seen two types of angry arguments from the /. crowd over this book. Some people are upset that a whole sentence or two of what they posted in an already public forum is being spread into a more public forum. The rest of the people are complaining that /. is just selling out, trying to make money by exploiting the community it has. I'm pretty sure they've said numerous times that this book is not making them any profit.
What I haven't seen much of is criticism of the underlying idea, which is that the people publishing this book, and the posts and emails that were quoted in it are trying to fight a culture that has allowed a tradgedy to get far out of hand.
Why are you whining that Katz is trying to speak out on behalf of people who need a voice? In this case, it doesn't sound like he's really trying to speak for the geek community as a whole (which he sometimes seems to do), but rather just relaying a message that has found much discussion among us.
I guess the point is, most of you need to stop your petty selfish whining. Shut up and swallow the whole "information should be free" concept. If you don't believe that, well, fair enough, but /. is a community built on sharing information, and if you don't like it, then maybe you shouldn't post here.
ps. - There have been a few posts of people actually arguing the real issue, and while they have point some valid points across, I don't think they're significant enough that they should prevent a spreading of the views of thousands of others.
This IS a Good Thing (Score:5)
Here's the text of an email I sent to Jon yesterday in response to learning about the publication of the book:
Thank you too, CmdrTaco!
'Nuf said.
Graham
Public domain (Score:5)
Come clean everybody (Score:5)
Everybody who is upset about getting their /. posts quoted in the book are upset because of one of two reasons:
Jon and Rob are not idiots. If they were to seek permissions for all the posts they chose to include, they would run into the following problems:
Grow up and get a life outside of /.