Friday, March 12, 2004

whats the internet point 3

I continue to ponder the ethics of the internet and the personal implications for me as a thinker and writer. I have been informed that my Open Letter to Mel was cut and pasted from this website and emailed to people around New Zealand, without my knowledge.

I struggle with this. I put the letter up. I asked for feedback. There were 2 comments and 2 emails, yet I find out via a friend that via email it is flying around the internet.

I think aloud. The blog is great for that. I want to be read. I am honoured that people would cut and paste it. But why, oh why, couldn’t you pay me the courtesy of telling me. I feel quite exploited on this one.

Perhaps I am just too naive for this internet game.

Posted by steve at 11:24 AM


  1. Hmmm. Technically if they attributed the work to you in their email and it was noncommercial then they could argue it fitted within your creative commons licence.

    Still, pretty rude to rip it off and not tell you. Also, if they are using the posting for their own agenda then there is no right of reply – unlike posting a comment to the blog entry and redirecting others to read and comment too.

    As an aside my observation is that when it comes to ethics some of our fellow Christians are definitely in “the end justifies the means” category with respect to things like intellectual property and software.

    Comment by Stephen — March 12, 2004 @ 1:49 pm

  2. I can’t believe that there are people who do that!! Maybe I’m naive too.

    It’s a bit rude especially because it is clear that whilst you had formed the basis of the letter it was still a work in progress as you were asking for input and reflections on it! I think you have every right to feel exploited, I can’t believe that there are people who do that!

    Comment by Andrew — March 12, 2004 @ 4:43 pm

  3. This definitly raises issues on new media. It does seem as if print media and the internet are incompatible as far delivery, fair usage, timeliness, etc. With print media there is a fee paid for (by the reader) information. This puts the reader and author at the mercy of the publisher. Blogs and email are free. There is no clearcut governance of what is fair usage, especially when blogs take on a sort of stream of thought appearance.

    You should get the credit for your ideas. I believe your post and request for dialogue make your writing more relevant. If people used your article out of context they are wrong for doing so. These same people should instead link to the piece, networking the dialogue, as its intended. That is the value of the internet over print media.

    Comment by chad — March 13, 2004 @ 1:32 am

  4. Wow. I didn’t realize blog writers were even concerned about ownership, legalities, and “asking persmission” before quoting materials. That’s such a different perspective from how I view blogging. For me it’s pretty much open season … people can quote, link, copy and paste. I mean, it’s pretty much a given that that’s what’s going to happen in an email-type system. So, if I was writing something for publication, like an article, I wouldn’t posted it first on the web. (Like my nextwave article. I held on to it instead of roughing it out on the web. I did email it privately to a “reader” pal first.) Of course, whenever I do quote or link to someone I do reference them, but I don’t ask first…and neither do most of the people I read. Should I????? Yikes? Major nettiquitte faux pas??? I am sorry this has beat you up Steve, and I’m glad you’ve brought the topic to the table.

    Comment by rachelle — March 13, 2004 @ 2:59 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.