Branch (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot) wrote2009-05-06 10:20 am
branchandroot) wrote2009-05-06 10:20 am
Entry tags:
Ah, here we go
I was wondering when the comment-importing skirl would start.
And it's true, the transfer of content such as comments lies in a rather strange and precarious area. There are two major competing precedents I can see.
One is the correspondence precedent, which says that comments on a blog are as personal email--they are personal communication whose copyright is retained wholly by the originator and which may not be transferred or copied without permission, beyond such quotation as may be covered by fair use. This is complicated by the public nature of a comment and the fact that acceptance or rejection of its publication is in the hands of the blog owner as well as the comment author.
The other is the contributor or submission (or even 'letters to the editor') precedent, which might consider comments to be as articles or notes, contributed or submitted to the 'editor', that is the blog owner, and subject to publication, deletion and republication at the editor's will, though only under the original terms of access/remuneration/etc. This is complicated by the personal nature of a comment and fact that no blog/journal site I know of has any explicit statement to the above effect.
Personally, I think DW has struck about the best balance that can be struck in this push-pull, by ensuring there is no content alteration, retaining all original access and terms and providing (currently in the works) a mechanism for mass screening by the comment author.
And it's true, the transfer of content such as comments lies in a rather strange and precarious area. There are two major competing precedents I can see.
One is the correspondence precedent, which says that comments on a blog are as personal email--they are personal communication whose copyright is retained wholly by the originator and which may not be transferred or copied without permission, beyond such quotation as may be covered by fair use. This is complicated by the public nature of a comment and the fact that acceptance or rejection of its publication is in the hands of the blog owner as well as the comment author.
The other is the contributor or submission (or even 'letters to the editor') precedent, which might consider comments to be as articles or notes, contributed or submitted to the 'editor', that is the blog owner, and subject to publication, deletion and republication at the editor's will, though only under the original terms of access/remuneration/etc. This is complicated by the personal nature of a comment and fact that no blog/journal site I know of has any explicit statement to the above effect.
Personally, I think DW has struck about the best balance that can be struck in this push-pull, by ensuring there is no content alteration, retaining all original access and terms and providing (currently in the works) a mechanism for mass screening by the comment author.
no subject
WHY? WHY? They are totally different. They use none of the same tools. They are written in different LANGUAGES, for fuck's sake. OTW is a 501(c)3! (I mean, you're totally right, I think people are conflating them, I am just....baffled about how you can do that. Take five seconds to look at the two homepages, they look nothing alike.)
And I would bet MONEY that some of the anti-OTW crowd (*rubs scars*) are fomenting the issue, because that is what they do. There are Certain People I Suspect. /conspiracy theorist
And now to go do my OTW work, because I have done my DW work for the day, and OH LOOK, I can tell the difference between the two.
Um. I have kind of been awake for twenty hours.
no subject
no subject