Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Slashdot.org News

Update On "Voices From The Hellmouth" 245

Posted by Hemos from the voices-to-be-heard dept.
Our announcement about our intent to publish a book based on the "Hellmouth" series met with more controversy than we expected. In our haste to do something that we felt would help parents, school officials and kids understand something, we neglected to consider the copyright problem presented by using this content. Read on to learn what this means.

The voices of many people who were hurt by this tragedy were heard loudly and clearly on Slashdot. We decided to use their comments in the construction of the story. As often happens though, good intentious can cloud things: in our haste to create the most powerful story possible, we neglected to get the permission of all of the writers. At this time, we've contacted a large number of the posters, and all the responses so far have been affirmative.

Legally speaking, we've been told that what we intended to do was just fine, provided we gave credit. We would be publishing words from a public forum: this 'fair use' thing is one of the basic principles that makes journalism possible.

This point is kinda irrelevant, though. We've decided that publishing this book without asking for permission wouldn't be the right thing to do. Instead we've decided to run the story as a serial on Slashdot: since these comments were already posted here, this will still allow the message to be sent to those who want to hear it, but without taking copyrighted materials off the place they were intended to be seen.

We've got permission from many of these people to publish their comments anywhere we like. But putting this on Slashdot will give people the ability to see if they are quoted. I've had hundreds of people e-mail to say that they have no problem with us using their content ... only one person actually e-mailed me to say that he would not allow his comment to be published: and he hadn't even posted in any of the Hellmouth stories.

If one of your comments is posted, we'll have an e-mail address that you can use to either give us permission to use it, or explicitly refuse it. At the conclusion of the series, we'll re-evaluate if this book will ever be published. What this means is that over the next couple of months, the serial presentation will allow you to help us determine the book's future -- linking to the original comments as quoted, allowing people to comment on and evaluate the text. And, if you are in there, and want to be removed, you'll be able to e-mail hemos.

We should have done this the first time around, but we're only human. We make mistakes, and we apologize for them. We hope that this is the right thing to do.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Update on "Voices from the Hellmouth" More

Update on "Voices from the Hellmouth"

Comments Filter:

  • Re:Arrghh. (Score:1)

    by Hemos ( 2 )
    We may yet publish it - but I want to give everyone the opportunity to opt out, or opt in - like I said in the statement.
  • No, jackass, apparently you've forgotten that JK's stories hellmouth center around people coming out and telling stories about how they

    IDENTIFY WITH THE KILLERS.

    Blue, I beg to differ. The stories I read when the original series ran, were about people who WERE IDENTIFIED WITH THE KILLERS. That change to passive voice is important. I can't remember a single story where someone said they understood or really empathasized with the killers. People said they were suspended, harassed, beaten up, and otherwise scapegoated, because some third party decided that there was a resemblence to the killers.

    Did you read the same series of posts that the rest of us did? Or are you just assuming you know what they probably said?

  • Too bad there's no integrity amongst readers. That cheapshot about NT is not only off-topic and irrelevant, but untrue.

    I've got NT servers here at one of the largest railroads in North America with uptimes of over 280 days...

  • All I said was, I hope it is marked as "Katz" so I don't have to read it.

    You don't, no matter how it's marked. Unless someone clicks on "Read More" for you, the article won't come up. (You do realize that it is a suggestion, not a command?)

    If it upsets you that some people don't want to read Katz, then you honestly have an problem you need to deal with.

    On the other side, some people seem to hate his articles so much that simply seeing a link to one on the front page causes them distress. That doesn't sound normal to me.

    But the powers that be have given you additional freedom. Hooray!

    --

  • Here's a link about it. [wahcentral.net]

    I've learned a bit since then, but I think the one-to-one possibilities of the Net make it much easier than in times past. Just ask, man, just ask.
    --

  • alleria wrote:

    You also weaken your own point, by telling us that the only person who'd emailed you negatively so far is someone who didn't even post on that series of stories! Considering... your (admittedly non-scientific) report above of a 100:1 positive to negative reaction ratio, it would seem that Slashdot readers are giving you a thumbs up on whether publishing the book would be ethical.

    Nope. The e-mail said to write back if you granted permission to reprint in dead-tree form. "Hundreds" of people may have said OK. Which could be anything from 101 on up. But how many of those letters do you suppose Hemos sent out? The rest, who didn't reply, have not granted permission. Perhaps the number of "yes" replies were disappointing, a low enough percentage to make publication in print unappealing.

  • Oh come on guys..stop complaining!
    Slashdot is trying to do a good thing by selling a book and raising money to help people. I'm sure that 99% of you couldn't pick your specific comment out of the book. This was a tragic event and we must document all sides to make sure it doesnt happen again. Lost of innocent people lost their lives and lots of you had good stuff to say about our society and what's wrong with it. These are good and should be published even if you dont get credit. So stop your bitching
  • Bowie you are the biggest whiner I have ever seen. When things don't go away you take the "burn all bridges" route. It's not surprising that VA kicked your ass off their server.

  • Whiners (Score:4)

    by geekd ( 14774 ) on Monday May 15, 2000 @10:25AM (#1071660) Homepage
    "What this means is that over the next couple of months, the serial presentation will allow you to help us determine the book's future"

    What this means is that a bunch of selfish whiners are keeping a much need book from being published. A book that could actually do some good in the world.

    "You can't quote me! That post is my property"

    You guys are just as bad as the RIAA amd the MPAA.

  • Because the people that talk don't often think, and those that think don't often talk.

    I don't care if my hellmouth comments are posted. I don't even remember if I posted any of substantial quality. As such, I didn't post to the article about the book, because I didn't have a problem. Unfortunately, people like complaining more than they like complimenting.

    People apparently don't want to donate money to charity. People are also rabidly anti-MS. People also don't like Jon Katz. People are either too ignorant, or too stubborn, to deliniate between the two issues.
  • For a group that worries so much about intellectual property rights, it's wierd how everyone assumes that having their name at the bottom of a post gives them some kind of right to do what you want with it.

    Frankly, I'm pissed off that no one asked me. I do own all these posts, after all.

    the Poster
  • What if you worte a play and performed it in the park for everyone to see. If you were covered on the TV news you would probably be happy. If someone saw your play (in public) and made a TV movie out of and gave all the profits to charity you probably would be unhappy.

    If I relate my experience of mistreatment at the hands of my peers in high school, in the hopes that someone, somewhere, might be affected for the better by that tale, then why would I demand monetary compensation for it when someone decides to quote that tale and publish it to a wider audience? Was I initially motivated by altruism or the desire for personal gain?

  • At the risk of taking away from Dan's fine comments....

    We the geeks do not condone what Eric and Dylan did. However, to correctly answer the more important question why they did what they did, as terrible as it was, would in fact place them among the ranks of the victims. The whole point of this exercise is to not let it happen again.

    Eric and Dylan were two sick individuals. Sick of the abuse from their peers, sick of being ignored by teachers and parents alike. Sick and tired both of being bored out of their skulls, and being kicked around by a society that has grown incapable of handling them.

    And so they went and did that terrible thing. And we the geeks said, scheisse, I remember feeling like that.... and so some of us tried to do something, and Katz got hold of it, and here we are. Not because we want to wallow in our own misery, gods no, enough of that. And heaven forbid we should cause more... gratuitously. We are standing up for our fellow human being, not to condone violence, but to stop it... the very subtle violence that we ourselves endured in silence for years, and to which we finally have a chance to say:

    NO MORE!!!

    And if in the process a few people Don't Qute Get It, Blue, well, that's just tough. We'll try our best to explain... once. And then we'll move on and find someone who will listen, and, gods willing, make sure the listener ends up in charge.

    --
    Never Again -- not-so-old Jewish saying

  • Better yet, a button right in plain view when posting that states whether or not you would allow that post to allow said actions.

  • You complain [slashdot.org] about the supposed content of Hellmouth, and then state that you want to filter out any posts regarding it.

    Why should anybody listen to your posts when you aren't even willing to make an informed decision? How can you comment on anything that you don't read or don't want to? Isn't the first step in activism informing yourself?

  • Legal? (Score:1)

    by pmc ( 40532 )
    Legally speaking, we've been told that what we intended to do was just fine, provided we gave credit.

    The point is, of course, that initially the posts were not going to be given credit, so what you were intending to do was not "just fine."

    This point is kinda irrelevant, though. We've decided that publishing this book without asking for permission wouldn't be the right thing to do.

    I'm glad you see the difference between ethical and legal - it is certainly commendable.

  • Yes. We've already had the Hellmouth discussion.

    This is the meta-Hellmouth discussion.

    Be watching, because soon we'll have the meta-meta-Hellmouth discussion, where we discuss wether we should even be having this discussion about the discussion about whatever the heck "Hellmouth" was in the first place. (btw, does Katz have a copyright on the term Hellmouth"??)
  • Don't forget to post a list of links. I'm sick and tired of sifting through 5 articles of crap in order to find the news I'd like to see.
  • I just turned the Katz-Filter back off so I'll get a shot at reading the serial. If the htmlized version is a good read, I may just buy it.

    Which begs the question... If I have the html, is there any need to kill a tree? Should I buy the book, or can I just Pay Lars?

    --Threed

    The Slashdot Sig Virus was foiled before it could spread.

  • Use your mouse and your mind to block it. Don't read what you don't want to read! If it looks like Katz, and you can't stand to read anything related to Katz, don't click it.

    Thus spake the spammer: "If you don't like spam, don't read it. Just delete it."

    Maybe people overreact to this type of issue, and maybe they don't. The point is that we have computers these days, which should be excellent at filtering some things on our behalf, especially if the sender of the information (Slashdot) assists in categorizing things.

    That's why we have story categories (and category filtering), author filtering, and moderation. Filtering is a Good Feature, and traditionally Slashdot has recognized and embraced it.

    The appropriate thing for Slashdot to do is categorize this thing correctly, either by putting in the Katz category, or by creating a new meta-Katz category, or whatever. Let people filter it out. And look at the flip side: it will also make it easier for people to find it if they want to read it.


    ---
  • If you listen to fools -
    The mob rules.

    I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
  • Whoops. Thanks for pointing that out... Just corrected it. I feel like an idiot now. *sheepish grin*

    My English teacher once said to me, "Two double positives don't make a negative." Two words for her: Yeah, right.

  • Re:Nice (Score:1)

    by Hemos ( 2 )
    Uh...yeah, it would. I'd yank it [the comment].
  • It still says the same thing. Just a bit deeper now.

    I see that repetition is working...;-)

    --
  • This site is dedicated to Linux. We are supposed to LIKE information being free so that we can use it. So why are so many of us mad that the information we put out there is getting used. It is alright for us to use someone else's source code, but noone can quote us??? If we want to be given source, we should give quotes. It is the absolute least we can do. If we dont embrace our own philosophy, who will?

    I understand that the site says that we own our posts, but why is everyone up set. Dont you want to be heard by the rest of the world?? If you dont, dont post a message!!

    Slashdot isnt encouraging everyone to lead by example by telling us we own our posts. That directly contradicts the notion that everyone owns information. I do respect them for asking us, but i think most of us readers are be rather hippocritical.


    --Read at your own risk, fell free to ingore
  • While this is a good policy for slashdot to observe, it isn't legally binding, is it? (Fair use and all.)

    People should be clear that clicking this box won't necessary stop 3rd parties from republishing it it won't...
  • What is with this fight anyway? I am bisytemematic, some things MS does better (admittedly thru app support) some things blax!X does better...

    but in the end to know your enemy is to become them, personally I feel Linux (especially, BSD lookin' sweeeter) is becoming weaker as it emulates MS more.

    and now for something etc . . .

    oh yeah, forgot for a mo there, are the dangers in schools really any greater than before, or is it that they are just more known?

    What is at fault here.. the system, parents, X, ...
    e.g. would perhaps smaller schools work better , where the teachers actually know the students names? I mean I took a bomb to school once, and I never even got detention.... (but hey I did go to the same school as Dick Wittington (?) - no lie)

    maybe it's time to stop questioning, stop accusing and think up a few REAL answers???

  • I think youre doing the right thing, even if its the more-work thing. I understand the impulse/imperative to publish the hellmouth stories (I think it would make a heck of a book) but I thought some of the concerns of the posters about copyright were well raised.

    At the risk of being redundant Id add my voice to the suggestion that permission to publish slashdot comments in other forms. However, Id remind that once you start putting in that permission choice, the lawyer types will have to ring round exactly what permissions are involved-- I think it would be one of those examples of a place where good fences make good neighbors.

    I think you did a good thing for the whole community by dealing with these issues squarely.

  • There are sections where "good, but less important" stories on actual _news_ pertaining to Apache, BSD, Science, Ask Slashdot, and Your Rights Online. Maybe Katz(related|type) "news" should get buried in one of those, perhaps calling it the "shameless plug" section.

    /. knows nothing of the word slience, and majority opinions are few. Hence, there is no "silent majority".

    The flame wars shall rage on...

    --

  • IMHO, Andover / Slashdot would do more good than bad overall by going ahead and publishing the book. Sure, a few people might not be credited with their brilliant musings, but the people who really NEED to read this book, will be more likely to read it if it's on paper!

    what i don't understand is this book has already been published. has anyone read Geeks? a whole third of the book is reprints of the hellmouth series. what is the purpose of another book? this material has already been dealt with. w0rd.
  • Especially if the poll code can keep separate tallies for registered users and ACs.

    * Publish it now, screw the credit

    * Publish it soon, credit where possible (email candidates, timeout in 14 days)

    * Publish it later, take excruciating care with credit

    * I just like voting

    * Don't publish it
  • YES! We also need a checkbox stating whether we consent to having our post deleted if it contains any copyright-infringing material.

    I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .

  • I would like to point out one small problem with this scenario... There were individuals who posted to the Hellmouth stories and emailed Jon Katz who were not regular Slashdot readers (the cretons :)

    But seriously, by saying you have to email Hemos to have the comment removed, you are saying that they have to take the initiative to remove the comment. Unfortunately, since some people might never hear about this serial, some people won't get the option to have their comments removed, which is not right.

    I think the proper way to do it is only use the quotes that you have email confirmation from, or you have talked to on the phone. You just can't assume that 'no comment' means 'yes'.

    But I am looking forward very much to reading your serial, and stuffing it in the face of a few parental figures around here... :)

  • First, any such preference ought to be loaded with all the legal disclaimers you can think of. Things like "only /. editors are obliged to honor this preference" and "the Fair Use doctrine still exists and /. will NOT enforce YOUR copyrights with outside media" (like if the NY Times decides to quote someone).

    To discourage this generally anti-social discussion behavior, I think users should also have a preference to NOT see posts that the owners feel are so proprietory that they aren't meant to leave slashdot.

    I don't think AC's should have this right. In fact, I think the AC submission button should declare that the submission is Public Domain. If you can't prove that you even own a post, how do you intend to enforce your copyright of it?

    You could also just change the text of the "Submit" button to "I authorize this post to be posted on /. and I understand that the Fair Use doctrine may allow republication of my comments".

    Don't get me wrong. I'm glad that you guys are reconsidering/clarifying your policy. I don't think all of the complaints were just "whining". But I think the most valid objection was that it says "comments owned by the poster," which is a kind of vague thing that somehow left others feeling that they could continue to control redistribution. My assumption is that the intention of the disclaimer was "don't sue /. for what this guy said" (and even then, it didn't seem to work).

    I do think it's "cricket" of you to ask people permission to reprint, but as your lawyers have already told you, you have no legal obligation. Adding preferences, I fear, will simply give the users more confidence that they can control their posts (which they can't), and possibly even make /. liable for enforcing such un-enforcable preferences.

    My prediction for the future if /. adds this preference: ZDnet or someone will publish an "unreproducable" comment and we'll have to go through this whole damn controversy again.

  • Is there any balance to this project? (Score:4)

    by Zico ( 14255 ) on Monday May 15, 2000 @10:38AM (#1071698)

    I ask, because I never received an email asking if publishing my post would be okay. I realize that you haven't contacted everyone, and I hope that's the case in my situation, rather than because my post wasn't set for publication.

    I'm just a bit concerned, and I think with good reason, that the whole project is going to be a one-sided pity party along the lines of "those kind of guys picked on me when I was in school, so I don't blame Dylan and (whoever) for murdering 20+ people." I really hope that you aren't leaving out posts from those of us out in the real world familiar with both sides of the coin. For instance, NPR contacted me to add a counterpoint to the common sentiment around here. I hope Katz/Slashdot are planning to do the same thing instead of only giving one side of the story. And no, I don't mean by me necessarily, but by anyone who disagrees with the Slashdot mainstream on this subject.

    Cheers,
    ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

  • There IS a silent majority that support Katz and generally ignore those few, loud people who LIKE to HATE him. I think people tend to assume Jon's an adult, writing stuff for the public, and he can take the criticism like a man (which he generally does).

    There was a poll a while back about whether or not to "Keep the gasbag". Maybe that should be run annually. I somehow doubt Katz stuffed the vote box on that one, partly because I doubt he's technically competent enough... no offense to him, because it's not his JOB to be a hacker...

    I also think it's folly to separate Katz and Slashdot. It's been made abundantly clear by Taco and Co. that Katz is here for a reason... he's not just some gasbag that hacked his way in, posts when he feels like it, and Taco just hasn't found a way to keep him out. He posts as a member of the Slashdot editorial team.

    Slashdot posts what they want when they want, miss some good stuff, filter out a whole lot of bad stuff... and leave the quality debate up to the unwashed masses (that's you and me)

    - StaticLimit
  • One checkbox, in user preferences.

    I don't see how a checkbox is gonna work.

    Check one :

    Take my thoughts without asking.
    .or.
    Leave my thoughts alone.

    I still think just asking is an easier way to go. It's not an "we're all cool, maaan." suggestion. If you want to use my shit, just ask. If someone takes it without permission, raise a stink. This happened to me a while back with one of my posts reappearing in an MSNBC article. I ended up talking to the author of the article by phone the same day and he removed my comments.

    This book deal is a bit more high profile, but I think their solution is adequate. I don't think a checkbox is worth the bits that create it.

    --
  • It is good to some some integrity amongst journalists. That is a rare thing indeed, much like a one month uptime on a Windows NT server.

  • Princibles (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    We would be publishing words from a public forum: this 'fair use' thing is one of the basic princibles that makes journalism possible.

    Spel cheking isnt a basik princible, tho.

  • Part of the problem is that whether or not a given amount of quoting is "fair use" is very, very, murky, even in cases that look like they should be obvious.

    Would I sue? No. If someone sued, would slashdot win? Maybe. Would the comment author win? Maybe.

    I must say, though, that this is the most-fair way I can think of to resolve this. There is an open issue; what if someone's comment is in the book, and they *don't* know you're doing this, because they don't read slashdot? From a purist's perspective, perhaps, instead, you should use an opt-in thing; quote only comments you are told you *are* allowed to quote.

    But I don't care that much; I think this is a reasonable compromise, and I'm very glad that slashdot backed down a little and is now taking the time to ask. Good job.

  • I disagree (Score:5)

    by Andrew Cady ( 115471 ) on Monday May 15, 2000 @09:27AM (#1071714)
    I am shocked with the number of people here on slashdot (where I expect some degree of enlightenment) who are confusing law with morality. There are people here who say that mp3.com is just making information already available to a person available in another form, and therefore is no different than the original distribution... why do I see none of those people come out in support of this book?

    Copyright law, it originally appeared, did not come out on the side of the publishers. So what? Since when does being law mean anything? Laws can be wrong -- slashdotters almost always hold that copyright law is wrong at least to some extent. Well what is the moral (not legal) justification for keeping this book out of stores?? For what moral reason should anyone ever have to ask permission to print publically available information, sell the printed copy, and give the profits to charity!??

    Those of you who have objected to publication, ask yourself this: if public outcry was sufficient to stop this book from being published, would the world be better off? Would anyone's post actually be secret (rather than just obscure)? Would anyone receive more payment for the authorship of the post? The answer, I'm sure we all must agree, is no.

  • Re:A little better, but... (Score:3)

    by hypergeek ( 125182 ) on Monday May 15, 2000 @12:24PM (#1071723)
    But seriously....Slashdot is a public forum. If you don't want people to quote you, then don't say it in public.

    Moderators: Please chuck a point or so of "Insightful" at this guy. (He also makes the sensible point about the ACs, period.)

    (Hopefully Mr. TheCarp will find it in his heart not to sue me for quoting him without permission! ;-)

    Rule of thumb: "fair use" is exactly what it sounds like.

  • "On the other side, some people seem to hate his articles so much that simply seeing a link to one on the front page causes them distress. That doesn't sound normal to me."

    You must not have read my post.

  • Re:This is going a bit far (Score:3)

    by Col. Klink (retired) ( 11632 ) on Monday May 15, 2000 @10:44AM (#1071728)
    > those I never want reprinted

    Simple. Don't post. Seriously. If you really mean "never", don't rely on some /. preference to really keep your post from showing up on the front page of the NY Times.

    > those I would only want reprinted in certain situations or publications

    Same answer. /.'s not going to go around and sue others on your behalf, and Fair Use will still apply giving others a perfectly legal right to quote at least a portion of your comments. The *only* one that I would really expect this to apply to would be /. itself. They can promise that they won't reprint your comment, but they can't make a promise for anyone else.

    > those I don't care what happens to them

    These are really the only things you should post. If you "care" what happens, you'd best realize that you don't have control...
  • According to the homepage the posts are owned by the users not by /. Now you cannot ethicaly use these comments and strip off their owner's identities and still make the pretense that they really belong to the poster. I don't know if you legaly have to give credit when quoting or reproducing in full with "fair use," but it would be very ethical to do so, not to mention giving proper credit where credit os due.

    About this "town hall - public forum" crap. I post here knowing exactly what I'm getting into, banner ads and all, not to mention a disclaimer on how I own my post. Waking up to find one's post used in a different medium that I am not at all familiar with or consented too may or may not be legal but I sure as heck don't own my post anymore. Its unethical, unexpected, and violates the agreement on the homepage. I'm glad the slashdot crew realized this and is doing the right thing. Though I'm certain a possible class-action against them is probably the main reason for the sudden change of heart.
  • This may just be me, but how is this different than Microsoft wanting their copyrighted works not being posted? I believe that letter from MS asking that their copyrighted works be removed is about the same as posters not wanting their posts included in this book.

    I just can't see how some people don't want their posts included in this book and then decry MS as an "evil empire" for wanting the exact same thing.
  • Why should it fall upon the users to constanly decide if x is reprintable. Let the potential publishers contact the users with some information about how their post is going to be used, when, possible compensation, etc...

  • Re:The Truth!! (Score:3)

    by TheCarp ( 96830 ) <sjc.carpanet@net> on Monday May 15, 2000 @10:47AM (#1071735) Homepage
    > This is the part of this whole thing I don't
    > understand. What are the lessons we've learned?
    > A couple of unstable wackos went bonkers and did
    > something really terrible. But what did this
    > teach us?

    That, in and of itself, has nothing to teach us.
    Unstable people will do nasty things. People can
    be hurt. We knew that.

    The real lesson is in what happend AFTER columbine
    which is what the articles were really about. The
    lesson is that we can't just easily "Explain away"
    bad things that happen. The lesson is that it is
    wrong to punish anyone who is "different" because
    they "scare us".

    The worst atrocities happend not at columbine,
    but all over the country. It was the reactonary
    measures to "Protect the children" where innocent
    kids were punished to satisfy some parents, and
    educators need to "feel safe".

    -Steve
  • Isn't the book /already/ published?
  • in our haste to create the most powerful story possible (emphasis added)

    Remember when news used to be reported instead of created?

    I think this one little slip is the scariest thing I've seen so far related to the whole "hellmouth" incident.

    :wq!

  • This is the right thing to do (Score:4)

    by kzinti ( 9651 ) on Monday May 15, 2000 @09:29AM (#1071741) Homepage Journal
    As one of those who was outspokenly critical of Slashdot in this matter, let me be one of the first say that I think Hemos, Katz, and company are doing the right thing here. In particular I'm happy to see that they weren't concerned so much with the nuts-and-bolts legality of publishing the book, as with the larger question of whether it was the right thing for them to do. If they had wanted nothing more than to keep the lawyers happy, they could have published anyway but that would have alienated many of the Slashdot faithful and would have been contrary to the spirit of the "little guy" that Slashdot so often seeks to defend.

    I know this decision can't have been easy for Slashdot. In e-mail exchanges with Hemos and Jon Katz following my "Slashmouth" editorial, I came to appreciate the deep commitment they have to the people that Hellmouth is by and about. I know that they wanted the Hellmouth stories to reach as many people as possible, and I recognize that a book would probably have reached more people than a serialization will. But they also care about doing the right thing, and in this compromise I think they have done that.

    It still remains for Slashdot to clarify, for the future, what their exact stance is on copyright issues. Who posts here, and what does "ownership" refer to? I have faith that they will answer these questions too, and that most Slashdot users will be happy with their answers.

    Carry on, guys.

    --Jim
  • Geeks out of school shuddered--they(and *I*) knew deep down that we got out just in time, but there were those we left behind.
    My God, Effugas. I actually shuddered while I was reading what you wrote. Because although I came realtively late to Slashdot, I understand. One day, I decided to check out that "Hellmouth" thing that was in the column on the right-hand side of the front page (somebody referenced it in one of their posts for a story and I finally was curious enough to check it out).

    I read every posting in it. Then I read the next story in the series. And then the final one. And I could feel what the posters had felt. Because I'd experienced much of the same myself.

    I was kinda haunted by the Hellmouth series. I remember watching the newsclips on TV (I was in a hotel in New York, for some training for work). I saw the fear and the confusion on the faces that appeared before me on the screen. I knew that things must have been horrible there, and I thanked God that that never happened at my school.

    But I didn't think about the "other" angle until I read the Hellmouth trilogy. I had no idea that that sort of witchhunt was going on in schools around the country. I just turned 22 last month, so I was only a couple years out of high school when the whole thing happened. And I can't help but be haunted by the thought that were I still in school, my life might've been made a living hell.

    <ficticious possibility>
    Random school teacher/administrator: So how does everyone feel about the tragedy at Columbine?
    Me: I think it's terrible. I feel badly for the victims. But I can also understand how the shooters must've been feeling, because I've heard that they were teased constantly.
    </fictitious possibility>

    This needs to be heard. The story is begging to be told. Don't confine it to our own little intellectually-inbred mentally-masturbating clique. We already know this stuff; it's the rest of the world that must hear this. To confine this to Slashdot is to effectively silence the very Voices that are screaming to be heard.

    Rob, Jeff, and the rest of you:
    Please don't silence the Voices.

    --

  • OK. Once more into the breach, dear friends...

    The question Hotaine should be asking here is "why?" What is it that makes an above-average mind so angry it wants to wreak death and destruction on its peers? What is it that makes other brilliant kids take their own lives, or otherwise render themselves incapable of functioning in polite society?

    The answer, while two-pronged, is pretty damn simple. "Average" kids hate smart kids. Gives'em an inferiority complex. So the smart kids get picked on. That's the "A" part.

    The "B" part is the degeneration of the government-run schools. Teachers can no longer open a can of whoop-ass on a miscreant when he deserves it.... if s/he bothers to care enough to want to do so. Teachers these days come from the lower end of the educational spectrum (not my own blathering, but results from the guys who give the SAT's), and are often only interested in getting thru the day and cashing the paycheck. The idea of putting in some extra work to make sure Einstein Junior over there stays interested is anathema to this mentality. Far easier to put this overactive kid on Ritalin....

    Boom.

    Frankly, I think it should have been up to the parents to step in and make sure the kids' needs were being addressed. But when Uncle Sugar all but decrees that Mom must work to pay the taxes on the fruits of Dad's labor, it becomes very easy to shirk that responsibility. So whose responsibility does it become?

    Mine. And yours. Even if it's nothing more than flapping our yaps, or pounding our fingers on the keyboard. Just getting the word out will help... If we can get this topic, properly explained, before parents (and it's going to be geeky parents who are more likely to have geeky kids) maybe hopefully a couple of them will remember and get just pissed off enough to go in and thump some heads in a school system that really needs it.... or just maybe start one of their own....

    Yeah, bot, you keep dreaming. It just might happen.

  • > Slashdot ought (although is not legally obliged) to seek permission to reuse posts.

    On this, I completely agree. But the original post said things like "never want reprinted", and it was to this that I was replying. I you mean never, don't rely on a button click to save you.
  • Also, the idea that we, as geeks, or outcasts, or the formerly societally abused should use the shootings as a sounding point to 'stand up' for other people who don't 'fit in' is WAY wrong. It's sick.

    Blue--

    What you say would be true--should be true--had not a good number of skittish administrators started looking for the Dylans and the Erics among their own kind.

    Guess who they found.

    Go read the Hellmouth stories. Dylan and Eric didn't just traumatize kids in their own school; the backlash from their actions engulfed unquestionably innocent geeks for no cause that could ever be considered as fair. Consider the rather intriguing fact that Dylan and Eric weren't even *part* of the "Trenchcoat Mafia"--did you know that, Blue? Did you realize that was all a media invention because, well, they wore Trenchcoats, and, like, so did this other group that *hated these kids too*?

    I don't think a single one of those kids from the Trenchcoat Mafia was allowed back into that school. It was apparently believed that their mere presence would be traumatic to the survivors, regardless of their total lack of involvement.

    At its most extreme, that was probably what the entire Hellmouth rage was about--

    1) Something must be done!
    2) This is something.

    Therefore,

    3) This must be done.

    Those kids over there looked like The Killers. Get 'em out! That group over there, we don't understand him. Get 'em out! That clique has a tradition of verbally harassing people? Ah. They're kids. And they're cheerleaders/football players/"boys will be boys".

    Blue, people were SUSPENDED FOR THEIR BELIEFS. People were feared for no other reason than the games they played! Go read the Hellmouth responses--it was never really about people complaining about how they'd been victimized for all these years ad nauseum. It was how schools across the country started looking inward to find the secret "Most Likely to Kill Us All" award winners, and the slots kept on ringing up, "Isolated Computer Geek", "Dungeons and Dragons Player", and "That Guy Who Sits Alone In Lunch And Hates PE."

    No administrator wanted to be liable for letting the school get shot up. So a veritable Lord Of The Flies environment sprouted up in schools across the country. Geeks still in school reported the harassment they were subject to, and stood back in awe as Slashdot spit back hundreds of similar stories from everywhere and anywhere inbetween. Geeks out of school shuddered--they(and *I*) knew deep down that we got out just in time, but there were those we left behind.

    Would you have survived the Purge from Columbine? Would I? How many were harassed to make the popular feel safe? How many were exiled?

    I honestly believe the greatest thing to come out of the Hellmouth series was that it was *so* quick to come out and *so* topical that it *had* to amount of something of a defense infrastructure for those being considered for extreme punishment.

    I don't know this for sure, but I can hope: The Hellmouth series had the direct effect of making it much more expensive for administrators to eliminate subversive though entirely innocent elements from schools across the country. It made kids bolder in defending themselves, it gave parents a window into something they could only vaguely remember, and it made administrators know there'd be a heavy PR price for eliminating the "inconvenient" rather than the truly dangerous. That's why I want this book published, incidentally: For all the non-geek exposure this series got, it was most likely limited to short emails read for short periods of time by the people who could and should Make That Difference.

    The publication of this book needs to happen--the bottom line is that there's a *reason* it's legal to quote, and Slashdot should not feel guilty about doing so--especially when most readers enthusiastically support the printing of this material! The people who would be quoted overwhelmingly support such a printing--they wrote what they wrote to be *read*, *understood*, and *acted upon*. Hemos, Taco, and even you, Katz, you've *done* that.

    Do the authors proud! Release this book.

    Yours Truly,

    Dan Kaminsky
    DoxPara Research
    http://www.doxpara.com
  • DUH! That's why they are posting the series back here...so you can consent (if your comments are used) or not.

    Wake up!

  • Typo. Sentence in last paragraph should read:

    Who owns posts here, and what does "ownership" refer to?

    --Jim
  • The lessons of Columbine are far too important to ignore.

    This is the part of this whole thing I don't understand. What are the lessons we've learned? A couple of unstable wackos went bonkers and did something really terrible. But what did this teach us? To be suspicious of people who are different? To not be suspicious of people who are different? That anyone could go bonkers at any time and kill a bunch of people?

    Not trying to flame (really, seriously, not). I just don't understand what should be learned from this. I can't see what difference it makes who these kids were, or where it happened. They were clearly deeply disturbed. I seriously believe this could happen anywhere at any time. I just hope I'm not there when it does.

    I guess I don't understand all the tossing around of ideas to solve this or fix that. I don't see what there is to solve or fix. Sometimes people lose their shit. Not good, but I believe they're disturbed individuals, and would have found an excuse at some point to lose it. They were clearly not living in the same reality as the rest of us.

    Whatever it is, if it is a problem that can be "solved" (or at least minimized), it's clearly not solely an American problem [go.com], as has been hypothesized repeatedly (not by the above post, just ranting now).

  • Re:uhm... (Score:4)

    by Alarmist ( 180744 ) on Monday May 15, 2000 @09:33AM (#1071771) Homepage
    It's the change of media that irritates some people.

    Really, I don't see why. What are the differences between web-based text and print media?
    --Web-based is dynamic within certain limits, print much less so.
    --Web-based is available only with certain equipment (computers, web access, etc.). Print is accessible to anyone that can read the language it's printed in.

    These are the basic differences. There may be some legal differences, but this is more an artifact of our legal system having failed to catch up to new technology.

    Why is the change of media important?

    And, perhaps what my real question is, why do these people care? People wrote in with their own stories of abuse at the hands of their peers; they wrote in with opinions, diatribes, and sometimes incoherent or off-topic rambling. They did this in a semi-public forum that is commonly frequented by others of their kind, an informal kind of clubhouse for the technically proficient. Preaching to the choir, you might say.

    However, the instant that there is some possibility that a wider audience (perhaps less-technically inclined, perhaps less sympathetic) can see these remarks, then people come out of the woodwork crying about intellectual property and "my permission wasn't asked!"

    The point I am trying (somewhat disjointedly) to make is this: The people who could benefit most from reading these remarks (i.e. anyone who cares to pick up the book) are being denied that insight by the people who have the information (i.e. the Slashdot posters--some of them, anyway). It is as if a repressed minority lashes out against a largely ignorant majority with "You don't understand us! You are oppressing us!" and then refuses to give that majority the insight that would prevent oppression from ignorance.

    This is a step towards social suicide.

  • Because they want their post read in the context of the particular forum. If they knew that the post would appear in another forum, they might post differently or not at all. Audience, context, and control differ and matter.

  • Geez (Score:2)

    by volkris ( 694 )
    Publish now!
    Ignore all of these whiny hypocrites; a huge disservice is being done by sitting on this book.

    I don't understand why everyone is raising a fuss, and meanwhile a book is being held up by all of this squabbling. They are inside their legal and moral rights, so let's not let politics hold back progress. That is not the geek way. We're supposed to be better than that.

    This is exactly the same thing as the space station being held back while the government makes sure noone gets their feelings hurt by being left out. The plans just sit and sit and nothing actually gets done.

  • Re:I disagree (Score:3)

    by Mr. Slippery ( 47854 ) <tms&infamous,net> on Monday May 15, 2000 @10:03AM (#1071777) Homepage
    For what moral reason should anyone ever have to ask permission to print publically available information, sell the printed copy, and give the profits to charity!??
    The fact that the profits are going to charity is irrelevant. After all, you're picking the charity, not me - I don't want you supporting your favorite charity (which might be one I oppose!) with my work.

    Want to quote a short section of something I've written? Feel free, that's fair use. Want to copy it entirely for your own pleasure or reference, or give a friend a copy, or even put it up on Napster/Freenet/Gnutella? Go right ahead (I couldn't stop you anyway, as the recording industry is slowly and painfully learning), but I demand that you keep my name on it. (Which, as I understand, they weren't going to do with this book.)

    But if you're going to sell copies of my work and make money, you owe me a cut. It doesn't matter if your intent in selling is to buy a Porche, or give the money to your church or even the ACLU; if anyone else is going to make a buck off my work, I should too.

  • Re:A little better, but... (Score:3)

    by TheCarp ( 96830 ) <sjc.carpanet@net> on Monday May 15, 2000 @10:55AM (#1071790) Homepage
    > Not just a user preference. This doesn't help
    > people that post anonymously. Make it an option
    > on the form, and (very important)

    Thats simple to solve. Post anonymously...you
    don't get to specify...it should be assumed that
    quoting is ok...

    afterall, you have dissassociated your name from
    the comment, that act, to me, disavows any
    connection to the comment, you shouldn't care
    if it is quoted elsewhere.

    But seriously....Slashdot is a public forum. If
    you don't want people to quote you, then don't
    say it in public.

  • Re:What exactly is free use? (Score:3)

    by TheCarp ( 96830 ) <sjc.carpanet@net> on Monday May 15, 2000 @11:01AM (#1071798) Homepage
    Well if they are quoting you...then you can't
    really call them guilty of slander (unless
    perhaps they purposfully distorted your words)

    Aftrall, its a quote, you said it, not them.
    You can't exactly blame someone for spreading
    lies about you, when you are the one that told
    them the lie to begin with.

    Now private documents, or things said in private
    may be different. However, if you say it in public
    you sure can be quoted.
  • i dunno if i posted in the hellmouth articles. i don't much care either. i think a lot of people had an outlet on slashdot, and i think that's great. it's obvious the mainstream media generally ignored those people so it's good that there was an outlet.

    however it's an outlet that has a very limited audience. many people who should have heard from the people posting in the hellmouth articles will never visit a web site in general, and those that do probably will never see slashdot.

    will the book be biased? i have no doubt that it will, but it's a point of view that was not raised very often or very well in the public discussions following the shootings.

    i hope the slashdot developers add whatever buttons people want for allowing comments to be published. i hope they can get some agreement on how to publish their book since i think it would be good for other people outside of the geek community to hear their voices.
  • Well, since Jeff appears to be reading this thread, I think it's time for a good ol' fashioned rant, and an explanation of why I posted saying that I don't want to see the book published.

    There are true victims involved in the Columbine shootings, and I doubt that any of them are active /. readers.

    If you were a parent or lover of someone killed in the shootings, how would you feel about all of this? Is it our place, our responsiblity to continue to harp and pound on someone else's tragedy? Don't you think that maybe all we're doing it prolonging the suffering of those who just want to move on with their lives and heal?

    Also, the idea that we, as geeks, or outcasts, or the formerly societally abused should use the shootings as a sounding point to 'stand up' for other people who don't 'fit in' is WAY wrong. It's sick.

    If you have something to say about how you were treated - if you feel that your natural views and actions have brought you pain from people more societally attuned, then, great, write about it - become an activist. Stand up for YOU, not in defense of the actions of some whacko fucknuts with guns.

    But to use someone else's pain and suffering to make yourself feel better - to diefy the SHOOTERS as being the victims, is absolute BULLSHIT. It makes me completely ill.

    And, so, my point is, if /. wants to publish a bunch of stories about how we all got our lunch money ganked when we were six, that's cool with me - making miserable people more miserable is not. It is their place to stand up and vocalize their pain, not ours.

    --
    blue

  • Re:A little better, but... (Score:5)

    by donpardo ( 128815 ) <<matt> <at> <iweb.net>> on Monday May 15, 2000 @09:36AM (#1071805)
    I don't understand what the big deal is. You've put your comments in a public forum. Anyone with an internet connection can see them. And anyone who wants to report them may do so, regardless of what permissions you give. They are in the public record.

    /. is, in effect, a town hall meeting. Anything you say is on the record. You have the right to speak up or to keep your mouth shut and just read to what's being written.

    And it isn't about whether or not money is going to be made on a magazine article or book. /. isn't a charity (even though it is a .org). It's a business. If it wasn't, it wouldn't have sold for the money that it sold for. Those banner ads up at the top are the reason the site is allowed to exist. They pay for the bandwidth and the boxes.

    If you don't want people to associate you with what you've said, post as an AC. If you don't trust the journalists that run the site, don't post at all.

  • So, we would be adding a checkbox to grant /. permission to republish a specific comment, and a checkbox to grant them permission to delete a comment if required on a messsage-by-message basis? Excellent idea. I will have to incorporate that into my own php-based /.-like code (http://www.omphalos.net [omphalos.net]). Great ideas all....

    By default these would have to be unchecked, but there could be a preferences panel option to automatically check them if the user so desires - assuming that this would not be challengable legally somehow. Perhaps we need to require a user to explicitly check their comments when submitting (so as to avoid the same criticisms that are applied to most software license agreements - which most folk do not read I am sure)...

  • Legally speaking, we've been told that what we intended to do was just fine, provided we gave credit. We would be publishing words from a public forum: this 'fair use' thing is one of the basic principles that makes journalism possible.

    That might hold up for true public forums like Usenet, but Slashdot makes the EXPLICIT statement on every page that "Comments are owned by the poster" That precludes Slashdot from being a true "public forum" by maintianing that comments are not public domain but remain the sole and private property of the poster.

    Katz, you're backpeddling because you're feeling the heat of potential lawsuits and are now trying to play Mr. Richeous for PR purposes.

    You mailed me for permission to use some of my comments (posted as my logged in screen name). So just to be an asshole, and to question your intentions (because I don't believe what you're saying now), I'm going to do like I did with the US Census and fail to reply. Not a yes. Not a no. Just deafening silence. We'll see what you do and where all that journalistic integrity talk really stands.

    The test: Will you publish /. comments without explicit permission? We shall see.

  • So why not publish?

    Because asking "may I?" does wonders to smooth the workings of society.

    If you ask "may I borrow your stapler?" I will invariably say "yes" and happily let you take it. If you just take it I'll get pissed at you.

  • Re:Uhh? (Score:2)

    by Hemos ( 2 )
    Reread the part about "Fair Use". Anyone can use them - they have to give credit.

  • Re:A little better, but... (Score:3)

    by Tower ( 37395 ) on Monday May 15, 2000 @10:06AM (#1071811)
    When you post anonymously, you are giving up all rights to what you've said. You don't want to be associated with those words, or you would have logged in. (or you hate cookies.. or whatever). The point is, if you post via AC, it's not attached to you, so all reprinting rights are up to /. at that point. If you care, log in.

  • Make it a preferences-panel option! (Score:5)

    by Frater 219 ( 1455 ) on Monday May 15, 2000 @09:08AM (#1071821) Journal
    I suggest that there be added to the per-user preferences an option specifying whether you want Slashdot (or other people) to feel free to use your posts (with attribution) in books or other works.
  • but i'm sure you think this is a worthwhile price to pay in exchange for some dilettante reader to be able to "check my reporting" or "understand potential bias".
    If you choose to speak or publish anonymously, great. I believe you have every right to do so; I've posted anonymously on /. before, and in fact back in the glory days of USENET I sometimes acted as a forwarder for anonymous posts to alt.drugs. And if I'd had a forum like /. in my oppressed school days, yes, I probably would have posted anonymously.

    And anonymous sources are recognized as being valid journalism, no problem there.

    But these are at the option of the speaker or writer. What I object to - ethically, esthetically, and legally - is having anonymity forced upon me.

    My genuine real honest-to-goodness mom-and-dad-gave-it-to-me name is on the bottom of this post, and has been on almost all of them since I started shooting my mouth off on FidoNet almost thirteen years ago. (I think I've made fewer than a dozen anonymous posts in all that time.) For good or for ill, I put my reputation on the line to back up what I say. When you take off my name, you've not only stripped away that reputation, you're taken off the fact that the author was willing to back up his statements with his reputation.

    Anyone who's been on the net for a while takes anonymous communications less seriously than those attached to a name, even a nym. Stripping away authorship credit damages the integrity of the work, as well as depriving the author of due credit.

  • Hehehe.. Maybe its because the only entertainment value left these days occurs when Timothy and the other tots screw the pooch.

    Dontcha just love it, by the way? I crank shit out for these people for 2 years straight. I decide to stop. Now i'm a whipping-boy..Hehehe.. Gratitude is too much to ask from these people.. I'd settle for something simple, like sanity.

    Triple-dog dare ya,


    Bowie J. Poag
  • Never bothered to early on, really. Half the time I would have preferred that nobody know who I was anyway. Nowadays I just dont care. :)


    Bowie J. Poag

  • Re:Erm... huh? (Score:3)

    by stil ( 112175 ) on Monday May 15, 2000 @02:05PM (#1071835)
    ::in our haste to create the most powerful story possible (emphasis added)

    :Remember when news used to be reported instead of created?

    :I think this one little slip is the scariest thing I've seen so far related to the whole "hellmouth" incident

    Quick & Dirty response:

    You reference "story" and equate it with "news". Consider that for a moment and determine if they are really the same.

    Long & Drawn out response:

    I think it's important to note that "reporting" is pretty much entirely based on the creation of stories. True, news is often used to garner interest in the stories, but there is a reason that they are called "stories" in the media.

    They are indeed creating a news story, much like any other organization does - by taking a factual element, padding it out with details, quotes, and an angle, then putting it out for mass consumption. There's nothing inherently *bad* about this, per se. The news media models that we have come to accept over the last century or so are not built to deliver news - they are built to sell advertising. The news/sitcoms/movies/stories that you see are the draw to the advertising. Just because /. doesn't fit into this model doesn't mean that it can't use the methods common to it for story structuring.

    If this type of realization is "scary", I suggest that all who feel this way refrain from any type of research on the history of mass media outlets - you might be pushed over the edge! :)

  • Ok, so AC allegedly owns his comments; but property only extends as far as the right to sue. Now, who'll sue Slashdot if an AC post is published? Nobody. Therefore, for all that matters, Slashdot (or anyone, if Slashdot denies property) can publish AC posts however it likes.

    That said, /. may lose anonymous writership if it publishes AC posts w/o permission, so a preference-defaulted checkbox to allow or disallow republication on other media is a good idea. On the other hand, if people write on such fora, it is in the hope of being read; publication on other media only enhances the public; hence, the default should be to allow republication (with proper authorship acknowledgement, of course), since it only amplifies the displayed goal of the poster.

    Anyway, down with intellectual property! Long live acknowledgement of authorship!

    -- Faré @ TUNES [tunes.org].org

  • Well I know I speak for at least FIVE PEOPLE ;-) when I say this:

    To hell with these people that have their panties in a knot over copyright issues. You have no basis for complaint. You posted in a public forum. I am one of those posters - I had a longish comment in the original discussion that was moderated to 4 so there's a good chance it'll be used. You know what? It wouldn't bother me a bit if they posted it with NO COMPENSATION and didn't ask for permission. In fact, I'd be a little flattered.

    Now publish the book already! I want to see the book! What's the holdup?!?!????

    --
    grappler

  • A little better, but... (Score:4)

    by lar3ry ( 10905 ) on Monday May 15, 2000 @09:11AM (#1071842)
    I think this re-thinking of attitudes on behalf of the editors is a good thing. In the future. tje editors may want to consider this idea:

    Give users a chance to be quoted on the "Post Comment" screen. Two checkboxes saying "this can" or "this can NOT" be quoted in a different medium. Have the boxes unchecked by default. Allow the users to decide AS they are posting; not before or after. For registered users, this may even be set to a default.

    If neither is selected, the editors may make some sort of announcement that such a republication of ideas is being considered, and remind people that they can opt in or out when they post.

    And Slashdot should have an EDITORIAL POLICY as to the disposition of those comments that have neither of those selections made.

    This is all hindsight, of course, but mistakes like this are good if people learn from them. If you want to retain copyright, there is a simple method. And if you don't care if your comments are posted, you can either give explicit permission or not select either choice.
    --

  • Re:A little better, but... (Score:5)

    by Hemos ( 2 ) on Monday May 15, 2000 @09:12AM (#1071844) Homepage Journal
    We actually will be making a user preference for that, for everything going forward - first we need to get all of these machines stable and such. *grin*
  • Boy, it must be difficult to track that Anonymous Coward guy down, he is such a prolific poster. I mean, he posts almost as [slashdot.org]

    --
    Gonzo Granzeau
  • What I find amusing with this is how ferverently people here support Open Source, free beer, freedom of information, screwing copyrights, etc. And yet, when it's their own stuff that's being used like this they are all against it. How is it different if we all distribute MP3s from some high profile band, or distribute your publicly posted comments?

    One thing i've heard is the "if something I did makes money, i want a cut". Which goes against the whole opensource concept. How about all the people who contributed to Linux, and Redhat sells a distro for profit. They are not getting a cut from that. But that's ok?

    Explain plz.

  • This is going a bit far (Score:3)

    by nano-second ( 54714 ) on Monday May 15, 2000 @09:40AM (#1071852)
    I think that to make a sweeping decision like this could get a lot of people into trouble... My comments fall into several categories:

    those I never want reprinted

    those I would only want reprinted in certain situations or publications

    those I don't care what happens to them

    I suppose we could have a check box form to fill out every time we post... but I think that's going a bit far. In the second situation, how could I really specify where I wouldn't mind my comment being reprinted? If taken out of context, an innocent seeming conmment could be made to say something you never intended. I think it makes more sense to have the interested parties contact the posters concerned and allow them to make up their mind when actually confronted with the possibility.

    Disclaimer: Yes, this is just an opinion, I could always check the "Don't reprint this" box, and just ignore it. But maybe if the right party approached me, I might want my comment reprinted.
    ---

  • just ask.

    Won't work. There's always going to be some asshole screwing things up if you try for the "we're all friends here, we don't need rules" approach.
    And the 15 different check boxes covering everyone's possible mood or preference is too much of a pain. You can't make everyone happy, don't bother trying. Just make as many happy as possible and make sure you do the legal and moral CYA. One checkbox, in user preferences.
    My two bits.

  • Re:Erm... huh? (Score:4)

    by laborit ( 90558 ) on Monday May 15, 2000 @10:16AM (#1071861) Homepage
    Um, news also used to be (and still is) reported sometime in the general vicinity of the incident. Columbine, and for the most part geek profiling and persecution, are not news to anyone. What they are is facts, and to be understood facts need to be put into a cohesive framework.

    Let's say you walk outside one morning and find a dead penguin hanging from your doorframe. You might say to yourself "hmm, I guess this means Microsoft wants me to get their Kerberos code off my website." But this isn't something you've observed; it's a story you've told to turn the visible evidence into something meaningful and useful to you. If you're a scientist, you might call this story a hypothesis or an inference instead. In any case, it's not something that can be directly reported or observed; you had to combine the immediate stimulus with memories, accepted rules about the world, and reasoning as to what might come next.

    That some kids at some schools are being given a hard time in the wake of Columbine is a fact. It can be reported. But what does it mean? How should we think about it? What do we need to do now? These are matters of interpretation and extrapolation, and Hellmouth is one story that helps organize the facts with an eye towards figuring them out.

    Yes, it's a story. At this point stories are what we need.

    - Michael Cohn
  • Good job on part of the /. team for following up on this and respecting your reader's opinions on the matter.

    Takes guts to admit to something when you're wrong. You guys deserve resepect for stepping up on this one.
  • That doesn't help the Anonymous Cowards or those that want to post anonymously. Instead of only a preference option, put two check boxes on the "Post Comments" form (see my message #18).
    --
  • Lighten up! What I understand they are doing is considered fair use.

    I can't begin to count the number of times that I've seen the famous Orwell quote, "Big Brother is watching you," posted on this site.

    Did the Posters using this quote ask for permission from the estate of George Orwell (I believe that that is the copyright holder)? Of course not.

    Oh, and by the way, did you ask Hemos for permission to quote from his article? He did post it to /., so therefore, doesn't he own the post? And you didn't even quote him properly-you didn't tell us who you were quoting (nor did you use quotation marks, but you did use italics so that can slide :))!

    I am glad, however, that they have responded to the wishes of the majority of the community and asked for permission. It really shows where their priorities are.

    However, like you, I hope that they are being honest. I believe that they are wholeheartedly, but only time will tell whether or not this is a PR move for sure.
  • Like the saying goes,
    "Me spell chucker work great. Need Grandma chicken."

    Sorry, I'm being sarcastic today.

  • IMHO, the controversy wasn't about individuals fanaticly defending their rights over their "published works" but something more complex that struck a nerve with many of the Slashdot readership whether they posted to that discussion or not. (I'll try to explain my view)

    WHO
    I think some folks are still uneasy with the thought that Slashdot is now a very much for-profit public company. As a public company they have a lawful obligation to maximize profit for their shareholders.

    Despite this, we think of Slashdot as being different and they are. If the NY Times had published the entire discussion in a special Columbine One Year Later insert, we'ld be glad to have been heard, and their use of our "copyright" material wouldn't have surprised anyone. We expect Slashdot to exist on a higher moral plane than the rest of the media, and even if it can legally be done doesn't mean it's the Right Thing. We expected to be asked our feeling on the use of readers' comments before any kind of deals were signed.

    Personlly, I think asking the overall readership their opinion on the matter in a Slashdot Poll *before* announcing the book as a done deal would have resulted in an overwelming positive response and given you the informal permission you needed to proceed without getting PR whacked. After the fact now, you've got all this greif and the publication of a good book is in limbo.

    HOW
    If Slashdot had announced that the comments were going to be published in a $1 edition of Wired [wired.com] magazine there would have been less upheavel. Had /. announced that they were distributing 20,000 copies in "note-pack" bindings at this year's Comdex instead of bumper stickers, etc. there may have been only praise. - But, when you publish a "real" book for ThinkGeek [thinkgeek.com], an Andover company, to sell for $14.95 - you're inevitably going to alienate some readers.

    As legal as it may be, Slashdot readers don't want to be used to help Andover's bottom line without being asked nicely first. It helps us maintain our suspension-of-disbelief that your not really a for-profit concern.

    I thinkg /. is doing the right thing now and I hope they're successful in getting the book to press. I hope this somehow helps some understand the tension here. I think I'm stating the obvious, but from a lot of other posts I've read, maybe not.
  • I really wish you wouldn't serialize it. You said that what you originally planned to do had no legal hang-ups attached. This is just going to slow the process down. I would prefer that the world have an opportunity to read the stuff that came out of those Hellmouth articles, rather than continuing to keep it within our community.

    Publish it! Get it out there! Forget about the hypocrites who whine about corporate intellectual property ownership while jealously guarding their own supposed intellectual property!

  • Sounds quite fair, IMO, but ... (Score:5)

    by alleria ( 144919 ) on Monday May 15, 2000 @09:15AM (#1071873)
    We've gone over why posting on Slashdot just isn't as effective in this instance:

    you/Jon Katz/whoever would just be preaching to the converted. Yes, Slashdot is a very popular electronic magazine. No, the people who really need to see these stories probably don't visit us here!

    IMHO, Andover / Slashdot would do more good than bad overall by going ahead and publishing the book. Sure, a few people might not be credited with their brilliant musings, but the people who really NEED to read this book, will be more likely to read it if it's on paper!

    You also weaken your own point, by telling us that the only person who'd emailed you negatively so far is someone who didn't even post on that series of stories! Considering that publishing the book would be a legally sound action, and your (admittedly non-scientific) report above of a 100:1 positive to negative reaction ratio, it would seem that Slashdot readers are giving you a thumbs up on whether publishing the book would be ethical.

    So why not publish?

  • Re:Anonymous Cowards... (Score:3)

    by GoNINzo ( 32266 ) <GoNINzo.yahoo@com> on Monday May 15, 2000 @11:23AM (#1071876) Journal
    Boy, it must be difficult to track that Anonymous Coward guy down, he is such a prolific poster. I mean, he posts almost as Signal 11! [slashdot.org]

    (that will teach me to preview before posting... bleh. sorry about the duplicate.)

    --
    Gonzo Granzeau

  • Also, the idea that we, as geeks, or outcasts, or the formerly societally abused should use the shootings as a sounding point to 'stand up' for other people who don't 'fit in' is WAY wrong. It's sick.

    I think that you and I remember the Hellmouth story (and its replies) very differently. There were a lot of voices, so maybe we're each being rather selective. But if you think it was about deifying the shooters, then maybe one or both of us should go back and reread it.

    I did not see it as a call-to-arms of "This is what happens if you keep screwing us." There was some of that, but I saw something in the Hellmouth story that was a hell of a lot scarier. And it makes the shooting very relevant and directly-related. I refer to the witch hunts that followed.

    I'm talking about kids who were suddenly mistrusted, treated as potential criminals, and in some cases directly interfered with, because of the types of clothes they wore, the type of music they listened to, or the types of games that they played. These aren't stories about someone getting their lunch money stolen when they were six. These are stories about things that happened after the shootings and as a direct consequence.

    When some kid says that he's not allowed to wear a trenchcoat at school anymore because of the Columbine shootings, then I certainly don't think it's "WAY wrong" or "sick" for him to evoke the word "Columbine" as his explanation. It was other parties who chose to use the shootings to assist their agendas and prejudices, not the kids who griped about it.

    You're right that it sucks that people have exploited the shootings. But the Hellmouth story was, in part, about the victims of that exploitation. The shooting survivers can try to put things behind them and get on with life, but the indirect victims, who are persecuted because of the shootings, have no relief in sight. I see nothing wrong with drawing public attention to their problem.


    ---
  • If people don't want their comments to be used in place x or place y or even place z, then let them add that line to their user preferences, where it can be appended with every .sig. That takes care of the issue and keeps from adding yet another bloated feature to slashdot (I'm not suggesting slashdot features are bloated -- most are cool.. but this one is redundant).


    ---
    icq:2057699
    seumas.com

  • Re:uhm... (Score:2)

    by Hemos ( 2 )
    It's the change of media that irritates some people.
  • "F**k you, B***h". When she turned around to confront the student, he said "You can't do anything. You have to give me a warning". And he was right. Her hands were tied.
    My reply in that situation: "OK. You're hereby warned: The next infraction, under ANY circumstances, will result in your immediate explulsion from my presence. Do I make myself clear? OK, now, do it again. I double-dog dare ya." And give the kid the heave-ho.

    The larger point is, I came up with that with about half a second's thought. Most of the teachers in there now couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag. The rest, including the teacher in the previous example, are scared they'll cross somebody's liberal agenda and be without a paycheck.

    There are ways to get the kids' attention even with the current system in place. If you want proof, go check out the video "The Real Horse Whisperer," the BBC video about Monty Roberts. The first half is about horses. The second is about people, young people, and getting them to respond in a positive manner, without violence or even raising your voice. Problem is, even if the teachers knew, who would have the cojones to put them in place?

    Frankly, the system needs replacing, privatizing. (I wonder how the voucher system is doing in Florida?) Unfortunately, few of us have the resources to even attempt that; we're going to have to start by pounding on the one we've got. We need to get some smart, dedicated, fearless teachers in there, and give them some discretion. (What? Hire teachers on merit? Horrors!)

    (PRECISELY horrors, see also Columbine!)

    --
    All bad precedents began as justifiable measures.
    -- Gaius Julius Caesar, quoted by Sallust

  • Excellent point. To extend that, how about allowing dynamic licensing, allowing the author at the time of commenting what the license for it should be. For example, I may not want my JK flame to be taken and put in a book, but I may want comments about MS and Kerberos to be freely used by anyone.
  • I'm sad to see that you caved to the irrational whining from a bunch of people who didn't even have comments in the original series. The book was a good idea. Putting this on slashdot alone is preaching to the choir. Why bother? The whole point in doing a book was to bring the message to a larger audience in the (admitedly unlikely) hopes that things might change.

    I understand the concern about the use of comments without permission, even though it would have been perfectly legal to do so. But at the same time I have no doubt whatsoever that anyone who had a comment used in the book would have been pleased to see it there; to see that their voice was being heard - whether or not their name was attached.

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close