Comments on: They Are Scum

By: Bryan

Bryan — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 19:14:30 +0000

You can’t control what others do, Suzan, and you identified the author, not the thieves. You had no way of knowing that those jerks stole it and put it on display.

It was the members of the “legitimate media” who are the crooks. They’re the ones with the “editors” and lawyers.

By: Suzan

Suzan — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 13:26:22 +0000

I believe that I was among the first of the bloggers to link the Rolling Stone article online and I credited it to Rolling Stone, not to one of the sites linking to it. I believe this is the proper way to credit copyright holders, or am I wrong? S

By: Bryan

Bryan — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 05:14:09 +0000

Obviously programmers, and others who make their living creating copyrighted material, and people who write research papers are very careful about citing information.

In addition, I don’t want certain people to think that anything I write is from anything other than open sources, or things could get annoying.

“Fair use” is no different that citing something in a paper, a link is like a footnote.

The bloody MSM is constantly ripping off bloggers and denying them credit for their work, especially on local stories. I don’t like the Local Puppy Trainer, but if they do good work, they deserve credit.

The same for the “Via” links, i.e. someone else found the information, so they deserve to be recognized for the find, even if it is a silly video.

In this case it is definitely a matter of money. Rolling Stone lost a lot of hits on their site that would have generated revenue for them. That is theft by Time and Politico, plain and simple.

This isn’t about any major legal concepts at its heart, it is common courtesy.

By: Steve Bates

Steve Bates — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 04:33:53 +0000

In my experience, bloggers credit their sources much more reliably than the MSM... much more reliably. I know you do. I know I do. Where are these ethics-challenged bloggers I always read about? I occasionally read Rolling Stone in the paper edition. Part of it is my musician's background; part of it is a respect for what they have done for us all over the years... they aren't necessarily rewarded for that if one reads only the online version. But I forgive myself if I read paper publications online quite a bit; I don't have much money, and when I quote, I do attribute legitimately. Can the same be said of Politico or Time?