Hard News: #NetHui: it's all about you
469 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 19 Newer→ Last
-
Sacha, in reply to
I am proposing a counter offer
I'd like a different way than term limits altogether.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Which proposal is the most reasonable in that context? I am certainly willing to listen to arguments in favour of a longer term than 24 hours for digital content. Not to do so would be stupid, but longer than the 7 years deemed reasonable for publishers 300 years ago? Come on.
Sorta. But publishing income gradually develops into a modest living for composers over time. Someone like Shayne Carter now basically gets enough publishing income via his songs to cover the rent, and there's enormous social value in that. It's pretty much the ostensible basis for copyright itself.
I think what we do with copyright needs to be finer-grained than what you suggest. What is productive, useful and reasonable, and what isn't? I suspect we'd agree on a much more liberal regime for non-commercial uses. But then you get into the argument of what is actually "non commercial" ...
-
Sacha, in reply to
using it to tie The Other James in logical knots
Guy *so* deserved it
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
It was quite fun watching a certain someone taking that technique to the Dim-Post the other day, and using it to tie The Other James in logical knots. It’s great as long as one has tried engagement first, something that this forum is IMHO pretty good at mostly.
That was some awesome threadplay, for sure.
-
Sacha, in reply to
It is so much more fun to be whimsical than to be angry
Plus trolls are often unintentionally funny and/or worth of mocking
-
Islander, in reply to
I blinked too. I thought recognition of GLITFAB (including us tiny remanant group of asexuals) was the norm here?
-
where did “tone argument” come from?
As I understand it, it comes from the silencing technique used against many feminists, in which a, uh, mansplainer will tell them ‘you’re hurting your cause by being angry; if you were just *nicer* about it then all the non-feminists would listen to you more’. And feminists responded with a) ‘actually, being nice hasn’t got us anywhere in the past’ and b) ‘we’re ALLOWED to be angry, because this issue is worth getting righteously indignant about’.
Again, it’s another totally valid concept which can occasionally be undermined by meanspirited feminist asshats.
ETA: Coincidentally, Derailing Into Whimsy is the proposed title of my as yet unwritten memoirs.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Plus trolls are often unintentionally funny and/or worth of mocking
David Cauchi recently expressed his disgust at Kracklite's slightly cruel tormenting of the P-Troll on his last visit here.
What David didn't realise was that P was a genuinely destructive troll, and sometimes a hurtful one, who had returned under different accounts after being repeatedly banned. I basically looked at that and thought, well, nothing I do works, so ...
-
lurkers still massively outnumber commenters
I think that's because so many people here are reasonably experienced internet arguers -- right back to Usenet and listservs
I believe the above issues to be somewhat connected. This goes further than the intimidating scope of knowledge and expertise demonstrated by many who comment here, and on to someones ability to express themselves in a medium which appears IMHO to require a degree of practice. Not merely informed comments but made by those clearly skillful in expressing ideas within an internet forum. Which is I guess connected to Recordari's ninja skills point.
As for pedantry - fuggit what are they again ? Commers ?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Again, it’s another totally valid concept which can occasionally be undermined by meanspirited feminist asshats.
Gotcha.
-
Sacha, in reply to
David Cauchi recently expressed his disgust
Yes
-
James Butler, in reply to
I think what we do with copyright needs to be finer-grained than what you suggest. What is productive, useful and reasonable, and what isn’t? I suspect we’d agree on a much more liberal regime for non-commercial uses. But then you get into the argument of what is actually “non commercial” …
Surely (at least) half the problem is nothing to do with how long copyright lasts, but who is exercising the right. I like to think that creative types themselves have on the whole a greater regard for the kind of reasonable "fair use" which is necessary for creativity, and are perhaps more likely to look kindly on creative transformation than a multinational content corporation or, in the worst case, a copyright troll like Righthaven. But what we have built is a system in which the rights are exercised by the trolls, and I'm not sure how it could be fixed.
ETA: To be clear, there are two different kinds of trolls in this thread...
-
We're having a discussion about discussion. A meta-discussion. With bonus copyright. Sayin'.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
which appears IMHO to require a degree of practice
Which is another way of saying most of us have been total asshats ourselves online and have (slowly) learned how to avoid asshatary and actually say something useful - which this isn't - so - it being hometime and all...
-
Islander, in reply to
Geez - I might be taking this entirely wrongly - but Commers?
I owned a Commer van, once.
It went off (ice-skid) the road once.
It was towed out by a Honda Civic.
Commers - all the aerodynamics & charm of a slow-moving brick...(EXCEPT- Humber Super Snipes, a car I am still vaguely in love with, had Commer truck engines in 'em. The vans, sure as shit, didnt...)
-
Andre Alessi, in reply to
Hey, can anybody help me with one of the standard shut-downs in the feminist blogosphere: the “tone argument”?
Anyone’s objection to someone being an asshat is instantly disabled when it’s labelled a “tone argument”. It seems to me that tone is incredibly important to a sensible discussion, and that remonstrating with someone over their obviously unhelpful tone is a productive form of moderation.
I get that it’s A Thing. But where did “tone argument” come from?
More or less, it was originally an attempt to point out the ad hominem fallacy in the argument that because someone uses naughty words, or says mean things, they must therefore not be capable of reasoned debate. It’s characterised by saying things like “I’m not talking to you about this until you calm down/apologise for calling me a sexist jerk/start looking at this situation rationally” which is (even now) pretty standard practice for many “Men’s Right Activists” on feminist blogs as a way of avoiding discussing a person’s underlying arguments.
Like most terms, it’s morphed considerably since then (probably because, like most community-generated terms, people learn the definition tacitly, and are just expected to know what it means) and it’s often used in ways that aren’t directly related to the dismissal of arguments by ad hominem attacks, like your example of calling someone out for being an asshat.
There’s a misapprehension (usually from people who see being a dick on the Internet as a right) that any criticism of style or tone from a position of privilege is a “tone argument”.
ETA: Also, what Danielle says upthread. It's frequently a response to attempts to dismiss the concerns of non-privileged groups by claiming they're upset over trivialities.
-
James Butler, in reply to
people who see being a dick on the Internet as a right
Since when has that not been a right? I'm outta here...
-
81stcolumn, in reply to
but who is exercising the right
When I want to make the next Ben Hur (or whatever) I will need to go to the money men. Unfortunately the money men have money precisely because they can exploit my creativity. As to how this equation gets re-balanced is quite beyond me. But the time seems ripe to debate this as banks seem to be buying creative and intellectual output and manipulating them as assets which seems quite wrong to me.
-
<disclosure>
81st creative industries would like to point out that it has no present plans in the pipeline to re-make any religious epic.
-
Punctuating my life with a van like this seems entyrely possible.
Time to go make dinner for Mrs 81st and Mr.3 I think.
-
James Butler, in reply to
(EXCEPT- Humber Super Snipes, a car I am still vaguely in love with, had Commer truck engines in ’em. The vans, sure as shit, didnt…)
The largest Commer trucks had a really fantastically innovative two-stroke engine. I have various fond memories of being with my Dad when he would suddenly stop, tilt his head, sniff the air and exclaim "Commer TS3! Two blocks west, quick!", and off we'd run - eventually I'd catch the faintest hint on the breeze of a sound like ripping hessian, then a little later we'd round a corner to see the back end of an ancient, crumbling lorry or bus struggling away with clouds of smoke billowing behind it.
<sigh> Those were the days.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
But what we have built is a system in which the rights are exercised by the trolls, and I’m not sure how it could be fixed.
That's a good way of putting it.
But it's still reasonable to ask the rights owners sector to get its act together when it comes to facilitating use. Half the reason we see so few great BBC documentaries here (and the reason the BBC wasn't able to name a fee for The Virtual Revolution to be screened at NetHui -- TVNZ 7 changed its schedule instead!) is cost of sale. The Beeb has an excellent annual deal for unlimited use of music -- not everyone else does, so it's quite a job clearing stuff.
Sometimes, even when they try, stuff doesn't get cleared. Prime example: The international version of The Seven Ages of Rock doesn't include the best thing in the entire series -- Hendrix, newly arrived in London, getting invited by Cream to play support, then utterly upstaging the headliners by finishing with his incredible version of 'Sunshine of Your Love'.
Thank goodness for my auntie with her VHS recorder.
-
James Butler, in reply to
When I want to make the next Ben Hur (or whatever) I will need to go to the money men. Unfortunately the money men have money precisely because they can exploit my creativity. As to how this equation gets re-balanced is quite beyond me.
Likewise. Corporate copyright is a completely sensible idea, too. The copyright of all the code I write is owned by my employer, as it should be - I mean seriously, what would I do with it? Optimize supply chains at home in my spare time?
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Not to do so would be stupid, but longer than the 7 years deemed reasonable for publishers 300 years ago? Come on.
To fix it seven years on the basis of what was done 300 years ago seems as meaninglessly arbitrary than fixing it at 120 years, or death plus 70 or whatever. I'd be happy for copyright holders to claim an income for longer than 7 years, so long as fair use was expanded beyond the current draconian standard. (I also have no beef with Disney holding on to Mickey Mouse to be honest. It's not as if it's a life-saving drug or anything.)
-
Righto: need to go and clean the kitchen and make dinner, albeit of the here's-a-curry-I-prepared-earlier style.
I'm quite enjoying having a, er, safe place talking about some of the recent feminist blogosphere things. And I feel bound to say that in particular Queen of Thorns has a dazzling, intelligent prose style, but it's wasted on a bad-faith style of debate; all that special-vocabulary-as-weapon stuff, and strawman hyperbole about what people have said. She could be way better than that. Sayin'.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.