After my previous post about it and after reading what others have to say about the situation, the sense of entitled for conversations is just seeming more and more idiotic. I'd rather have the conversation spread everywhere whether I know it or not, because eventually what someone wants us to know, will be known and we're not entitled to these conversations. We don't OWN them, we just started them. There's a huge difference in that last statement.
tonyhung
· 1 year ago
1. if you're going to get all hot and bothered about it let's hear some names. I was following the meme all weekend, and actually, I don't think I heard any bloggers asking out loud to "own" the conversation. What I did see was Scoble kicking off the debate by making it a "no one should own comments" vs. "don't steal my content" -- two actually very different things. Everyone came down on the "no one owns comments and conversations", including myself.
2. If you want attribution for your work -- well, that's a level of control. What Shyfter did was fairly benign in the larger scheme of things. But if you don't want your content being used by sploggers and if you don't want people remixing and repurposing yoru content and then *renaming* the author, then yes -- you're actually for some level of control by an author over where and how their content gets treated.
Do you think the answer then is by making all of your content private? If everything is for the taking, do you think that your attribution is one of those things? How about your good name -- if people decide to collect your work with someone else's you despise?
Some food for thought on an otherwise quiet Sunday night. :P
Cheers tony @ dji.
Corvida Raven
· 1 year ago
They didn't ask to own the conversation, but it's how it can come across to a reader. That was my *interpretation* of the articles that I've read concerning the situation.
You do have a point, but you're playing devil's advocate lol and it's just another side to the conversation. Our points are both valid and invalid, depends on who's reading it. But thank you for the food for thought! I do appreciate it and it definitely is something to consider. Maybe I'll make a second post later this week.
wiredgonzo
· 1 year ago
The "conversation" is just the beginning... just wait until it all deflagrates into gossip then we all really lose control. There's no spam filtering for gossip.
Shelley
· 1 year ago
"This is the internet and quite frankly, EVERYTHING is for the taking, whether you wish it to be or not."
Wrong. Not only wrong, but harmful because this is the same as saying, "Remove everything you care about from the internet, because some scuzzbucket who wants to make money from your stuff will." All that will be left then, is content from people who really can give a sh*t about it. Which says a lot about the quality of the content, doesn't it?
Corvida Raven
· 1 year ago
It's not the same because I'm not telling you to remove it. I'm simply trying to make you aware of one of the possible consequences to putting your stuff on the internet.
How is it not for the taking? You can't put your content on lockdown and the only way to really do anything remotely close to that is to protect your entries with privacy features such as requiring a password. Even then, you have to give someone the code and in doing so, you're opening your stuff to the limitless possibility of being taken. Just by putting your stuff on the internet you're doing that. Ergo, whether you want it to be or not, it's there for the taking. Or let me rephrase that last part:* It's open to the POSSIBILITY of being taken.*
CyndyA
· 1 year ago
On the content issue, yes, you do own it, and copyright law is there to back that up. The attitude that it's there, so people will take it and that's all there is to it is EXACTLY why we have the RIAA so far up our butts they are peering out from behind our eyeballs. I'm not going to buy into that for one second, whether you are writing for fun or profit, and saying "well, you asked for it by putting it out there where anyone could see it" sounds like what?
As for the conversation end of it, you are right. It's going to be everywhere. But as more and more apps move more and more of the conversation away from the blogs, what point is there in writing the blog? You yourself said you wanted your comments "back" from aggregators only a few posts ago, as well as saying you were here for conversations, not traffic. So which is it? You want the conversation accessible to you or you don't care? You want your comments or you want them fragmented on 45 different sites?
Corvida Raven
· 1 year ago
You're not asking for it by putting it out there, but it's one of the possible consequences. That's all I'm saying. It's a possible consequence that bloggers will have to deal with.
I do care and I would like them to be accessible to me, but as I stated to Sarah Perez I'm realizing that if I can't have my cake and eat it too, I'm willing to accept that and I appreciate those places that at least provide a link back to the original content.
Louis Gray
· 1 year ago
My position has been made in quite a few places already, so folks know where I stand. But you know what types of parallel conversations do drive me a bit nuts? It's when they're behind password-protected forums, where I see the traffic, know they're talking about my post, but I can't even search the forum without a login and password, which sometimes isn't available. That's a minor, one person complaint-fest that wouldn't likely draw the attention this one did.
Corvida Raven
· 1 year ago
That would probably drive me nuts too. At least other conversations are public and more accessible.
n8k99
· 1 year ago
the "conversation" isn't even valuable until it has move on just like money is worthless until you actually exchange it for something, and the people who Make the money do not get to use it all- and by make I Mean produce the artifact which is exchanged.
All Comments
I totally agree.
about the situation, the sense of entitled for conversations is just seeming
more and more idiotic. I'd rather have the conversation spread everywhere
whether I know it or not, because eventually what someone wants us to know,
will be known and we're not entitled to these conversations. We don't OWN
them, we just started them. There's a huge difference in that last
statement.
2. If you want attribution for your work -- well, that's a level of control. What Shyfter did was fairly benign in the larger scheme of things. But if you don't want your content being used by sploggers and if you don't want people remixing and repurposing yoru content and then *renaming* the author, then yes -- you're actually for some level of control by an author over where and how their content gets treated.
Do you think the answer then is by making all of your content private? If everything is for the taking, do you think that your attribution is one of those things? How about your good name -- if people decide to collect your work with someone else's you despise?
Some food for thought on an otherwise quiet Sunday night. :P
Cheers
tony @ dji.
a reader. That was my *interpretation* of the articles that I've read
concerning the situation.
You do have a point, but you're playing devil's advocate lol and it's just
another side to the conversation. Our points are both valid and invalid,
depends on who's reading it. But thank you for the food for thought! I do
appreciate it and it definitely is something to consider. Maybe I'll make a
second post later this week.
Wrong. Not only wrong, but harmful because this is the same as saying, "Remove everything you care about from the internet, because some scuzzbucket who wants to make money from your stuff will." All that will be left then, is content from people who really can give a sh*t about it. Which says a lot about the quality of the content, doesn't it?
trying to make you aware of one of the possible consequences to putting your
stuff on the internet.
How is it not for the taking? You can't put your content on lockdown and the
only way to really do anything remotely close to that is to protect your
entries with privacy features such as requiring a password. Even then, you
have to give someone the code and in doing so, you're opening your stuff to
the limitless possibility of being taken. Just by putting your stuff on the
internet you're doing that. Ergo, whether you want it to be or not, it's
there for the taking. Or let me rephrase that last part:* It's open to the
POSSIBILITY of being taken.*
As for the conversation end of it, you are right. It's going to be everywhere. But as more and more apps move more and more of the conversation away from the blogs, what point is there in writing the blog? You yourself said you wanted your comments "back" from aggregators only a few posts ago, as well as saying you were here for conversations, not traffic. So which is it? You want the conversation accessible to you or you don't care? You want your comments or you want them fragmented on 45 different sites?
possible consequences. That's all I'm saying. It's a possible consequence
that bloggers will have to deal with.
I do care and I would like them to be accessible to me, but as I stated to
Sarah Perez I'm realizing that if I can't have my cake and eat it too, I'm
willing to accept that and I appreciate those places that at least provide a
link back to the original content.
public and more accessible.