Categories
Diversity Weblogging

Reductio

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Update

This post was a mistake. Not the Specks, or linking Catarina, but Adam Green has left me cold…especially when referring to chick blogs. Mr. Green, we’ll also link back when you’re being a dork, too.

 

My original link to Mr. Green was not because he said ’something nice’. I don’t particularly consider, ‘you go, girl’, to be all that complimentary, myself. It was because there was a point I wanted to make, in that diverse discussions are more interesting than ones that consist of similar people saying similar things.

 

However, the point was lost among all the references to ‘girl’, ‘chick’, and hints of our warm, nurturing side (as compared to, as Seth in comments pointed out, the guys and their rough and tumble shoot ‘em up sides).

 

Mr. Green, here’s a note from my warm, nurturing side: leave the outmoded phrases and stereotyping at home with your bell bottoms and polyester disco suit. It is woman or women or even, preferred, weblogger–not girl, and not chick. Was that warm and nurturing enough for you, Mr. Green?

 

(Hopefully we can also cut off the use of ‘blogher’ to differentiate women (those warm nurturing women) webloggers from the men (those tough, aggressive men) webloggers at the pass before this becomes too widespread in usage. Not unless we want to start referring to the male webloggers as ‘bloghims’.)

Adam Green writes on two snapshots of the copyright/RSS discussion on Tech Memeorandum:

One reason why much of the heat has dissipated, and the battle has morphed into a search for a middle ground may be that women have entered the discussion. While this started with the men riding out to shoot up the cattle rustlers, the womenfolk are now asking questions and looking for answers.

 

Is this sexist generalization? Perhaps, but based on the two Tech Memorandum snapshots I’d much rather read a discussion dominated by Shelley Powers, Susan MernitDenise Howell and Jeneane Sessum, than Mike Rundle and Om Malik. No offense meant guys.

Adam has discovered something really amazing: if a dialog is extended to a diverse audience, it ends up being a lot more interesting. In this case, women joined the discussion and the dynamics of the discussion changed.

We women have gotten men to link to us now and again; the next step is to get them to actually talk with us. Hopefully, eventually they’ll reach the same epiphany that Adam has.

I’ve adopted a term I discovered from Catarina Fake to describe the phenomena of linking to women webloggers, while reserving debate primarily to the menfolk: chicking the women. Catarina has been reading a biography of Martha Stewart and found that the author had gone out of his way to trash Stewart, without acknowledging all of her rather impressive accomplishments. The only really positive voice in the book had this to say on Stewart’s interaction with Time Warner about a television show:

Sheingold came to sense something else about the way Martha’s colleagues handled her at Time: There was a slight but unmistakable–and ever-present–tone of condescension in their words, as if the members of the Time Inc’s boys club wanted her to know that they still regarded her as nothing more than the fashion model she once had been, instead of the business executive she’d become.

 

In time, Sheingold invented a word for what they were doing to her. He didn’t share the word with anybody, but it popped into his head every time he heard them belittling and dismissing her, in that certain way that would make Martha’s jaw set and her face go cold. …’Chick-ing’ her.

Jaw set…face cold…I hear that.

Speaking of cold, after this discussion about RSS the following represents the chances of me ever providing full feeds again.

 

Categories
Internet Legal, Laws, and Regs Weblogging

That old copyright song

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

My cable connection started working without problems yesterday, just in time for me to attempt to connect using DSL later today. I’ve also been attempting to take photos of the bald eagles wintering in our area, but have run into interesting complications, which I’ll write about later.

In the meantime, thanks to Halley Suitt for pointing out this rather amazing sleight of hand trick from John Palfrey at Harvard on copyright law, RSS feeds, and his new enterprise, Top Ten Sources.

Mr. Palfrey, the Berkman Center at Harvard holding the copyright of RSS is completely beside the issue, and only serves to obfuscate the discussion–as does raising the specter of the Big Bad Media companies. In addition, I’m very confident that I hold the copyright on my writing regardless of the medium in which I publish the writing, unless I grant that copyright to another. The fact that what I write appears in a RSS feed does not change how copyright laws work. No matter how much you wave the Web 2.0 wand, it does not change copyright law.

People who provide syndication feeds do so in the assumption that the feeds will be picked up in personal aggregators. A personal aggregator is nothing more than what amounts to a ‘reader’ for the content. Whether you read my content in your personal aggregator or via a web browser (point being moot since I only publish partial feeds), does not violate the copyright law because you’re not re-publishing or copying that material in its entirety. The personal aggregator becomes nothing more than a variation of a web browser.

To the techs out there: am I right, or am I wrong? Isn’t a personal aggregator, whether web-based or desktop-based, nothing more than a variation on a browser, in that it renders web-based material for an individual’s personal consumption?

However, re-publishing the content in its entirety for mass consumption without permission is a violation of copyright law. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. In addition, at least in the US, copyright is granted automatically on a work and one does NOT need to re-publish copyright information in one’s feed, unless one wants to. Now, people can and should include Creative Commons licenses that allow one to re-publish content if they don’t care that this happens. But if they do, and no commercial re-publication is allowed, this means that sites such as Top Ten Sources cannot re-publish the material if the site is run as a commercial for-profit enterprise.

To the legal beagles out there–point blank: am I right? Or am I wrong? No, ‘gentlemen of the court’ niceties; no A-list deference; no but it’s Harvard obfuscation; no Web 2.0 bullshit. As clearly and precisely as possible: am I right, or am I wrong?

Categories
Weblogging

The Joke is

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

It is only through the supreme power of weblogging that we discover the absolute best blonde joke. Ever.

Categories
Connecting Weblogging

Proofs

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Several people have been involved in a discussion around the question: do links subvert hierarchies.

It started with Doc Searls (Linkers page). Then Dave Rogers comments (Linkers page), kicking off the following flurry of cross-weblog linking:

Original Mike Warot (Linkers Page)

Wirearchy (Linkers Page)

David Weinberger (Linkers Page)

Sean Coon (Linkers Page)

Mark Bernstein (Linkers Page)

Forthcoming (Linkers Page)

Indefinite Articles (Linkers Page)

Ethan Johnson (Linkers Page)

Scott Reynen (Linkers Page)

More Doc Searls (Links Page)

Dave Rogers again (Linkers Page)

More Dave Rogers (Linkers Page)

Deciding Better (Linkers page)

A Hawkings (Linkers Page)

Karl Martino (Linkers Page)

Doc Searls again (Linkers Pa… when did they start giving out little gold Top 100 badges at Technorati?)

Mark Bernstein again (Linkers Page)

Mike Warot (Linkers Page)

Susan Kitchens (Linkers Page)

There’s a pattern formed by all these responses and counter-responses, and links thereof. I’ve provided all the pieces of the pattern. I leave it to the reader to now discover the pattern for themselves.

Categories
Diversity Weblogging

Blogrolls redux

Lest anyone think that I’m hoping to get listed in the weblog roll of the Women’s Media Center, perish the thought from your mind. If anything, this just demonstrates, to me, the evils of blogrolls–their divisiveness and their arbitrary exclusivity (those with friendly neighborhood weblog rolls excepted–don’t hit me). Especially when used with a site purporting to be the only place for information on women.

I’m still amazed that a site starting in 2005 would dare to imply it is the definitive expert on any topic, much less one as immense as women and women and media. However, it’s what I would expect from an organization led by Jane Fonda–another reason why I would not want to be listed at the site. I have a very low opinion of Ms. Jane Fonda.