Slashdot Mirror
12 Laws Every Blogger Needs to Know
An anonymous reader noted a nice piece discussing 12 laws bloggers need to know which includes explanations of matters including domain name trademarks, deep linking, fair use of thumbnails and so on. It's worth a read for most anyone who puts words on this here interweb.
As it rips off its list of steps for incorporating directly from nolo.
And those rules... how are they different for other things in life? You don't copy images in a blog, but don't do it for other things either... Don't claim that you are objective if being paid in a blog. Don't do it in your site or your book either... These are normal ethical rules for life that we shouldn't even NEED to explain to anyone.
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
I RTFA ... it simply restates the bleeding obvious. In a nutshell:
1. Don't steal. This includes trademarks, images, links, pay your taxes, and the other "gray" areas.
2. You are responsible for your content. Even the comments. And don't count on being counted as a journalist.
Most importantly, "To clarify further, you may not rely upon this information as legal advice, nor as a recommendation or endorsement of any particular legal understanding, and you should instead regard this article as intended for entertainment purposes only."
Oh.
Kind of like the universal laws of physics. Here are the laws every blogger should know:
1. Nobody wants to read your blog.
2. 95% of bloggers are illiterate.
3. Yes, the top blog spam garbage makes money (digg etc.) But do not quit your day job because, honey, you ain't gonna make no money. The days when "AllAdvantage" paid you to surf your computer are over.
If your panties are all wet for blogspam, then go read Roland's technology trends or digg.com
Never assume you are safe even when you follow the above 12 important US laws
Who uses e-mail anymore?
Actually, I do. *please mod interesting, please mod informative*
On a more serious note:
I believe in [property rights for] real assets that have finite supply, not intellectual assets that can have near infinite supply.
This is a subtle but significant leap a lot of people don't notice. (Think Fifth-Axiom-ish.) The information *itself* has infinite supply; the good of excluding people from it, does not. My desire not to have my writings infintiely copied conflicts with your desire to copy them. STOP WHAT YOU'RE DOING, GET THAT CURSOR AWAY FROM THE REPLY BUTTON. Note, I didn't say that my (arguably huge) desire justifies enforcement of a right to it; I'm just saying that you should not equate the good of the information, with the good of excluding access that information, and that you should be able to justify why all rights must be articulable in terms of physical objects if you want to use "infinite supply" arguments like that.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Sometimes I edit people's comments for very innocent reasons, some include : html markup somehow made it in, correcting a spelling error, fixing a broken link. It never dawned on me to have a terms of service that says I can and will edit comments as needed.
I'm really not worried about it, but if patent trolls exist, there's a good chance that you-edited-my-comment-so-ill-sue-you'ers also exist.
Don't say anything on a blog without making sure it's legal to say it. Sad but true.
"at which point you can remove the link after you've profited from it." So under this philosophy it's ok to put a movie on your website, get a lot of money in google ads or whatever ad format, then wait for the cease and desist to take it down and keep your money? I agreed with him a little up till this point. The patent and copyright system is a bit borked, but what he suggests is just wrong. *shakes head*
I believe in real assets that have finite supply, not intellectual assets that can have near infinite supply.
Books, articles, news reports and blogs don't write themselves, and the last time I checked, there was a finite number of hours in a day. Thus I think it's easy to conclude that that intellectual property that people create is NOT in infinite supply.
ToddIgnorance of a law is never a valid excuse for breaking it.
3. The Legal Use of Images and Thumbnails
see #2 -- Cease & Desist before lawsuit.
Forget that. You should never ever hotlink someone else's image because they'll be able to replace it with the goatse.cx image.
Charming as it is to debate different laws, they're only of merit if both sides can afford to go to court.
Here's the quick version of the U.S. (civil) legal system:
Party A doesn't like something party B does.
1. Party A threatens (usually via a Cease And Desist)
2. If party B can't afford a lawsuit, they probably cave unless they're pretty sure of 3. in which case they call party A's bluff and go on to 3. anyway.
3. If party A can't afford the lawsuit, after having their bluff called, they probably cave. If they think B is bluffing, they repeat 2-3 a few more times.
4. In the rare event that both sides refuse to back down from their bluffs, it goes to court where...
5. Repeat steps 2-3 as out of court settlements. Far more money than simply sending a cease and desist letter gets involved here so most people try to get out during 2-3.
6. Maybe, just maybe, it comes down to the legal merits. Even then, it may well not end up decided on so much as reach an out of court settlement based on the likelihood of losing vs. cost of doing so rather than actual legal right/wrong.
The moral of the story is that laws are all well and good but 99% of these things come down to who has the money to fight this for longer than the other guy - they win. Sad, but also true.
If you delete/edit posts by other people, then you lose your common carrier protection.