Ah, here we go
May. 6th, 2009 10:20 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
branchandrootI 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
Date: 2009-05-06 04:15 pm (UTC)*wry* I think the people saying things like that are the ones who are taking an excuse to hate DW. While trying not to get in the bad books of their actual friends and acquaintances. I try not to pay attention to people who can't use Earth logic.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-06 04:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-06 04:46 pm (UTC)Yeah, that's the impression I got, too. To quote someone else: I don't want that openID in the first place since I don't want to use DW, but if I want to stop them from hosting my content on their site, I'm forced to use the site first. I wanted to stay away from DW altogether, and I'm not okay with them making it impossible for me to do so.
It was a comment on an open entry by
no subject
Date: 2009-05-06 04:51 pm (UTC)And as for "omg, I have to /touch/ it!", I'm sorry, I didn't have any sympathy for that excuse in Home Ec, either, when the princesses didn't want to dump out the drain catcher because there was /food/ in it, just imagine. *snorts*
no subject
Date: 2009-05-06 04:57 pm (UTC)