Posts by David Cauchi
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I'm talking about the reader, and what responsibilities they have?
A reader has no responsibilities whatsoever. They almost always don't have to read what you've written, and certainly don't have to work to understand what you've written.
If there's an indication that the writer's primary consideration was to 'just get the document out', a good proportion of your readers will stop right there. That's your responsibility, not theirs. They have not failed as readers. You have failed as a writer.
-
Ben:
From
So long as the meaning is adequately conveyed, or can be easily found out, there's a lot to be said for just getting a document out, however many technical typos there are in it.
to
You're well within your rights to demand explanation of what is unclear in the bill
you seem to be mistakenly thinking that the onus is on the reader to discover the writer's meaning.
In any context, a writer must think about their readers' needs, and write accordingly. Your concern, however, seems to be with the writer's needs.
The reader is well within their rights to not have to demand an explanation of what is unclear, nor to 'easily' find out what the writer wanted to convey. This is not pedantry or being picky. It's simple common sense.
If you, as a writer, want to convey something, the onus is on you to convey it as clearly as possible. If you can't be bothered doing that, why would you expect anyone to bother reading it?
-
Hi Matthew, hypocrisy was poorly chosen on my part. Ironic would've been a much better word.
-
Matthew:
Just as I have done here, he made the point ...
This leads me to conclude that it is not a simple report of Lessig's comments. Otherwise, why distinguish?
However, it's not at all clear which are Lessig's conclusions and which are your own opinions. You use examples he didn't, and you include phrases such as 'Lessig said' and 'Lessig argued' in some places but not others. I concluded from this that you endorsed and extended Lessig's argument. Apologies if this conclusion was unwarranted.
-
Could someone please explain why this post and the previous copyright discussion on a site that has
©2002-2008 Public Address, all rights reserved.
isn't rank hypocrisy?
You're advocating for people to use creative commons, so why don't you use it yourselves?
-
Well, I'm sorry if I missed the subtle detail and context by selectively quoting the entirety of your three word comment in the same thread it was made. I didn't realise making a general observation on a public discussion was verboten, thanks.
And the implication I was referring to didn't involve you at all, but I can see how you'd take it that way. That's another thing with the internet. Interpretations that seem perfectly clear to one person appear quite different to other people. It's the same with lots of things, but perhaps more pronounced on the internet.
Seriously though, I did realise I was getting into dangerous territory, but thought it was worth mentioning as something to consider.
It's possible to be a little too precious.
-
Ben,
Whatever, man.This says it all.
I'm not aiming this at anyone in particular (despite the implication in the quote), but there is a marked tendency on internet forums for entrenched positions, where people keep arguing their point beyond all reason. I reckon this tendency is built into the medium, due to its nature.
I suspect a lot of people don't actually read and consider what others have to say (no matter what they may think), but merely scan other comments solely for something to seize on for their response (which tends to be immediate). Things like 'Godwin's law' only exacerbate this, I reckon ('well, I haven't mentioned the nazis so I'm okay').
There's also an unpleasant tendency towards self-congratulation. I'm sure people genuinely believe they're kind, sensible, helpful, moderate, whatever, but it's not up to you to say.
Of course, I'm guilty of all of the above as much as the next person. That Delphic injunction is hard, man, hard.
-
Dead C Eusa Kills (remember them blowing Sonic Youth off the stage in 1993?)...
Jesus, Clover, I recorded that, but sadly the cassette tape is no more. What a good night that was.
-
You're obviously more hooked into the arts scene that I, but could you point to any artist who doesn't want their work seen and discussed?
I am of course only speaking for myself, but I put my work on the net because I want it to be seen by people who might get something out of it. I don't care about it being discussed.
In fact, I'd rather it weren't discussed or seen in certain contexts. I've turned down shows for this very reason, just as I'd refuse permission for certain people to reproduce my work.
The idea that any publicity is good publicity is bollocks.
-
I can absolutely see why people instinctively want to cling to strict copyright control, but if you lock something away (like Hamish Keith's example of Maori art being stifled by museum's red tape), then no one gets to experience it, and that is the real loss.
Choosing not to use Creative Commons does not necessarily mean instinctively clinging to strict copyright control, nor does asserting copyright mean locking something away so that no-one can experience it.
None of the professional contemporary artists I know have chosen Creative Commons. None. However, most have websites and blogs where you can see their work (there's a list of links to them on mine).