| Bullets Journal | Wizards Biz | Wizards Web | Wizards Boards | Wizards Talk |
| The Bench Roster | The Locker Room | The Ball Boy |
April
|
Talk About The Online Experience
|
Hmmm, not a bad shot at the prediction on the for the NCAA Finals, no?This time, I'm not going to talk much about the Bullets. There have been some online issues that have been tugging at the back of my brain that I need to get out in the open. Even with the awesome results of last night's game, I feel a need to talk about these online issues first.
The Copyright Provisions, Revisited
Well, the hardcore copyright definition that I had previously warned you about got defeated in the international arena. Now, more fighting is going on, this time as the Senate prepares to ratify the proposed treaties.
One of the things I find interesting about the treaty is that it does seem to expand the notion of who is responsible for policing for copyright violations. In the past, it has almost solely resided with the owner of the copyright. However, if the ISPs are correct about this treaty, they may find themselves at risk if they aren't coopted into the copyright fight. And that's wrong, IMO.
Who Really Owns The Material?
I really don't think that's much of an issue, do you? James Gleick, respected scientific author and a member of the online writing community, feels very strongly on this issue.
Of course, it's never that simple. Take the case laid out by John C. Dvorak in PC Magazine about the suit against Total News. Mr. Dvorak doesn't see anything wrong, but I do. The line that he is trying to draw, that once it's online it's fair game, just doesn't seem right. And is there any surprise that publishers tried getting an even stricter copyright treaty passed last year?
From my viewpoint, taking someone else's work, especially on a large-scale, and packaging it inside your own scheme without negotiating for the rights to it is wrong. No other media works that way. The author of the work owns the rights to the work, whether it's text, video, sound, or graphics. And to repackage it like Total News is doing just blurs the line of ownership too much.
Now, if Total News had chosen to provide the links without dropping the material into its advertising structure, that's different. The links are understood (at least, I hope it's understood by anyone who surfs online) to be separate entities, and one does not necessarily endorse the other. I'm all for meta-news, but this site seems to take it one step too far.
If you have a differing opinion, I'd love to hear it. If you like, your rebuttal can be posted here. But to me, some lines need to be drawn.
Where Do I Stand On This Issue?
I'll be honest. It really hacks me off when I see repeated, blatant copying of materials from other sites. Usually, it's in the form of pictures, video or sound. Often, credit isn't even given for the original source. And that's wrong.
Here, I try to give you original material. If I link somewhere, I maintain the original link so that proper credit is maintained. Sometimes, I'll state where it's from. However, I'm probably not perfect. But I try to honor the stated wishes of the owners of the material.
An unstated policy on use of material is not a blank check to copy to your local site. And if you choose to forsake this policy, be careful. Learn about what your rights and responsibilities are.
But if you choose to flout precedence, you may be opening yourself up to a wide range of liability issues. The lawyers could have a field day with you.
Is The Net The New Root Of All Evil?
Don't you love the hype of how evil it is to be online? The Heaven's Gate tragedy is just the latest thing to paint online life as terror waiting to happen. The fearmongerers strike again.
We know life is not that bad. (At least, I hope you do; I know it isn't.) But when will the print and TV media wake up and stop the scare tactics? (I guess never, because they continue to lose readership and viewership every year.) At least some people, like Dan Gillmor of the San Jose Mercury News, understand that the Internet is not to blame for these tragedies. (It helps that he's their computer editor, but it's a generally computing-savvy publication.)
If you like that, you might also like to read Steve Silberman's reaction and Jon Katz' 2-part (1 & 2) take on the media coverage. The Netizen is usually a good source for opinion about online information sharing and the pitfalls involved.
If you disagree with me about the evils of cyberspace, let me know. We can keep the exchange private, or we can do it publicly. Your choice.
The Washington Post And Its "Free" Online Articles
Now, what gives with the Washington Post and its archive of online articles? I read that they're only maintaining articles for about 14 days, and from one perspective, that makes sense. They are in business and must try to recoup their costs. (Me, I'm covering all costs out of pocket. Luckily, the costs are relatively low.)
However, I've noticed that my sports links are still valid well beyond the 14 day lifespan. So, what gives?
I don't want you, the reader, to wind up with a bunch of dead links because I supplement my writing with information from the online archive of the Washington Post. (It's a shame the Washington Times provides very few sports articles, and almost never Bullets articles, online.)
It appears to me that many of the links, in the long-term, will go dead. Most of the links provided by the Washington Post are provided in their daily subfolders, which means that there is no year associated with the articles. So, even if the links stay alive for the time being, they will probably become obsolete next year when they get overwritten with new material. But that's just a guess on my part, and I'm a little afraid to go inquiring about how that will be actually handled.
And that's sad, because I really mean for this site to be a long-term archive of Bullets information. So, in a couple of years, you can look back here and read all about this nice run for the playoffs that the Bullets are currently producing. Except that most of the news and opinion links provided by the Post will be dead (I think). And the only rich detail that will remain will be what I write. Which isn't bad, in and of itself, it's just well complemented by what other sources, like the Post, provide.
In the meantime, I appear to be lucky in that the links are still alive. Just don't get too mad at me if they suddenly go offline. I sure hope they don't. I'm a firm believer that information wants to be free.
wtf 4 April 1997
