EVEN MORE: yeah… again, thoughtful criticism would have been refreshing… D.
MORE:
Jon,
While you are at it (well… whenever you get around to posting it) it would be good to know what you think of Seth’s position on this. Thanks!
Delia
...
re: “They can be dislodged.”
… and what would *that* solve? you’d just have new *names* but the same flawed system — alliances are formed, interests are protected and fortunes are made (in the name of “serving the people”) — *largely,* that’s the name of the game… Seth is right on this. D.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
the better way to do it
18th comment: tqft: "Net Neutrality," in general, would serve corporate interests, agreed... (craigslist among them -- no wonder Craig is loudly praising Obama) but things like whether or not ISPs should have yet another means to annoy a large part of their customers or whether people should be concerned that the ISPs want to do something about their unwarranted right to block any site they want... these are serious issues OUTSIDE of the "Net Neutrality" interests. Do they try to USE them to justify "Net Neutrality"? yes! Seth is right on this... but not on dismissing the issues themselves. Talking about ways of dealing with the issues *without* having them be used to justify "Net Neutrality" would be the better way to go about it... I think... D.
16th comment: They *might*? Come on, Seth... you really think they WOULDN'T do it if they could get away with it? who *knows* if it would really violate those laws until expensive litigation goes through?
"In the US, ISP's already have, BY LAW, broad ability to block any site they want, and have had that ability for a DECADE. Nobody cared..." --> are you suggesting people *shouldn't* care? what side are you on, Seth?
Delia
14th comment:It seems to me that you would have to trust the ISPs not to abuse it and I see no good reason to do that... do you, Seth?:) D.
12th comment:as long as it's LIMITED to messages pertaining to the *functionality* of the service, I suppose it's not exactly "evil"... but once it's done, what would stop the ISPs from just putting ads or other things in that space? wouldn't we be better off to leave it as it is and have these people call the ISP if they have trouble and don't know what to do? most of them would end-up doing that, anyways...D.
1oth comment: oops! you said it *had* to be opt-out? I don't understand why... D.
EVEN MORE (9th comment)ok...then make it opt-in! (that would make sure people *want* it and it's not just a way to put in ads or who knows what later on without peoples' actual consent...) D.
MORE (7th comment)Seth, you don't really believe people would opt into this kind of thing, do you? (they should make it an *opt-in* if they really think some would *want* this -- I highly doubt it -- opt-outs are just taking advantage of the fact that at least some people just would NOT spend any more time reading extra stuff so ... so *technically* they haven't said "no"...but they haven't really made a CHOICE either...) D.
Seth,(5th comment)
you'd think someone would figure out how to block such ISP "messages/"ads or whatever the way you can block regular ads.
Delia
P.S. I agree with tqft, the ISPs should have the decency to take no for an answer... and stop trying to get in through the chimney and the like -- people are just going to figure out how to block the chimney so you only get the poor souls that don't know how to find this stuff to hate you
even more and for good reason... D.
16th comment: They *might*? Come on, Seth... you really think they WOULDN'T do it if they could get away with it? who *knows* if it would really violate those laws until expensive litigation goes through?
"In the US, ISP's already have, BY LAW, broad ability to block any site they want, and have had that ability for a DECADE. Nobody cared..." --> are you suggesting people *shouldn't* care? what side are you on, Seth?
Delia
14th comment:It seems to me that you would have to trust the ISPs not to abuse it and I see no good reason to do that... do you, Seth?:) D.
12th comment:as long as it's LIMITED to messages pertaining to the *functionality* of the service, I suppose it's not exactly "evil"... but once it's done, what would stop the ISPs from just putting ads or other things in that space? wouldn't we be better off to leave it as it is and have these people call the ISP if they have trouble and don't know what to do? most of them would end-up doing that, anyways...D.
1oth comment: oops! you said it *had* to be opt-out? I don't understand why... D.
EVEN MORE (9th comment)ok...then make it opt-in! (that would make sure people *want* it and it's not just a way to put in ads or who knows what later on without peoples' actual consent...) D.
MORE (7th comment)Seth, you don't really believe people would opt into this kind of thing, do you? (they should make it an *opt-in* if they really think some would *want* this -- I highly doubt it -- opt-outs are just taking advantage of the fact that at least some people just would NOT spend any more time reading extra stuff so ... so *technically* they haven't said "no"...but they haven't really made a CHOICE either...) D.
Seth,(5th comment)
you'd think someone would figure out how to block such ISP "messages/"ads or whatever the way you can block regular ads.
Delia
P.S. I agree with tqft, the ISPs should have the decency to take no for an answer... and stop trying to get in through the chimney and the like -- people are just going to figure out how to block the chimney so you only get the poor souls that don't know how to find this stuff to hate you
even more and for good reason... D.
hangout time
Seth, (5th comment)
Putting a limit to the time you spend on this may be the best way to go about it -- whatever you are comfortable with... it's not bad "hangout time" if you look at it that way: you *do* have an audience (smaller than you'd like but it's there...).
Delia
P.S. I would think this is more fun for your (and your readers) than hanging out in a bar, but you are the only one who really knows that. D.
Putting a limit to the time you spend on this may be the best way to go about it -- whatever you are comfortable with... it's not bad "hangout time" if you look at it that way: you *do* have an audience (smaller than you'd like but it's there...).
Delia
P.S. I would think this is more fun for your (and your readers) than hanging out in a bar, but you are the only one who really knows that. D.
Monday, December 17, 2007
giving credit: just basic respect...
STILL MORE: Hi Ket! re:" The giving of credit is not relevant though in determining copyright infringement."yet this seems to be what created the problem (I doubt we would have heard anything of this if attribution would have been given) D.
EVEN MORE: Hmmm… I don’t see how the Creative Commons (or any other such organization) could possibly give EXTRA rights to copyright owners that they do not already have by law. The whole idea behind CC is to *give away* SOME rights copyright owners legally *have* (while preserving some of them, such as attribution, which appears to be just basic respect). D.
MORE: It seems to me that it IS legally required (unless the people running the CC License are completely ignorant of the law... and I seriously doubt that). I mean, they devised a way for copyright holders to give away some LEGAL rights so that the "creative commons" (aka. the society at large) would be better off. The right of attribution is NOT among those rights (just check out the link I gave).
......
re: http://creativecommons.org/about/license/
Mathew,
I don't get it... what's the big deal with giving someone *credit* for having produced something original, such as a photograph? Why *shouldn't* credit be given? Who's harmed by giving credit? Even the Creative Commons retains this right... and it does give away quite a few rights that could be legally retained, just not THIS one... it apparently regards it as not harmful and fundamental.
Delia
EVEN MORE: Hmmm… I don’t see how the Creative Commons (or any other such organization) could possibly give EXTRA rights to copyright owners that they do not already have by law. The whole idea behind CC is to *give away* SOME rights copyright owners legally *have* (while preserving some of them, such as attribution, which appears to be just basic respect). D.
MORE: It seems to me that it IS legally required (unless the people running the CC License are completely ignorant of the law... and I seriously doubt that). I mean, they devised a way for copyright holders to give away some LEGAL rights so that the "creative commons" (aka. the society at large) would be better off. The right of attribution is NOT among those rights (just check out the link I gave).
......
re: http://creativecommons.org/about/license/
Mathew,
I don't get it... what's the big deal with giving someone *credit* for having produced something original, such as a photograph? Why *shouldn't* credit be given? Who's harmed by giving credit? Even the Creative Commons retains this right... and it does give away quite a few rights that could be legally retained, just not THIS one... it apparently regards it as not harmful and fundamental.
Delia
Sunday, December 16, 2007
thoughtful criticism would have been refreshing
MORE: Dan, I thought I posted a comment to this entry (it's unclear to me if it just went missing or it didn't display for a different reason) D.
....
I think Seth is right re:Dan Gillmor being a "member of the club" (and thus not a good "case" to prove anything in these regards).
Delia
P.S. Dan, to your credit, you do not appear to yell much (form what I've seen...) but you do seem to "lend a hand" to the "right side" when others are yelling... (it's just that you at least have the decency to do it *without* yelling)
e.g. http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/12/02/again-big-media-guy-tries-to-make-it-bloggers-versus-journalists/(that issue was a mindless yelling game as far as I could see -- http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/11/30/updating-bill-keller/ -- some thoughtful criticism from you would have been refreshing...) D.
....
I think Seth is right re:Dan Gillmor being a "member of the club" (and thus not a good "case" to prove anything in these regards).
Delia
P.S. Dan, to your credit, you do not appear to yell much (form what I've seen...) but you do seem to "lend a hand" to the "right side" when others are yelling... (it's just that you at least have the decency to do it *without* yelling)
e.g. http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/12/02/again-big-media-guy-tries-to-make-it-bloggers-versus-journalists/(that issue was a mindless yelling game as far as I could see -- http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/11/30/updating-bill-keller/ -- some thoughtful criticism from you would have been refreshing...) D.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
what happened?
Jeff,
It would be interesting to know what happened. I also found your link not working yesterday. I tried both Mozilla and Explorer (both of them returned an error message).
Delia
It would be interesting to know what happened. I also found your link not working yesterday. I tried both Mozilla and Explorer (both of them returned an error message).
Delia
Monday, December 10, 2007
it's NOT a conversation...
MORE: re: It implies that they can manage our mouths when, indeed, that’s the one thing that we, the customers, are fully in charge of. If they truly realize that we, the customers, are in charge, then that changes the way you comport yourself in this conversation. Again, you listen more than you speak.
Jeff,
You *gotta* know this is NOT true — just take a look at your blog: *who*’s in charge here? YOU, of course… People don’t have to post here and they can disengage at any time but they don’t really have control over what ends up on your blog: You do… It would be the same if this was a “corporate blog.”
Delia
P.S. As to using blogs for corporate marketing purposes, I would hope people would be smarter than to volunteer their time and ideas so that the corporations can make even MORE money — if for-profits want peoples’ input or whatever… they should pay for it!
If they wanted to be NON-profits and be happy with normal salaries and benefits, great! I’m sure plenty of people would be glad to help out if they saw the profits go towards serving the community instead of building someone’s empire… D.
...
Jeff, it may well be a platitude (you said it…) but as far as I can see it’s NOT a conversation… Interesting idea, just not true… D.
Jeff,
You *gotta* know this is NOT true — just take a look at your blog: *who*’s in charge here? YOU, of course… People don’t have to post here and they can disengage at any time but they don’t really have control over what ends up on your blog: You do… It would be the same if this was a “corporate blog.”
Delia
P.S. As to using blogs for corporate marketing purposes, I would hope people would be smarter than to volunteer their time and ideas so that the corporations can make even MORE money — if for-profits want peoples’ input or whatever… they should pay for it!
If they wanted to be NON-profits and be happy with normal salaries and benefits, great! I’m sure plenty of people would be glad to help out if they saw the profits go towards serving the community instead of building someone’s empire… D.
...
Jeff, it may well be a platitude (you said it…) but as far as I can see it’s NOT a conversation… Interesting idea, just not true… D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)