Mainstream Media on Slashdot and Microsoft

Its happened before, but with the recent MS happenings, MacWeek, MSNBC and to a certain extent Wired have written stories based largely on Slashdot comments: Specifically those that appeared on Microsoft Addresses World, Instant Legal Analysis and Microsoft==Monopoly. The mainstream media now thinks that picking a few comments from a thread on Slashdot is a story (of course they often don't properly credit or link them). More interesting is that by picking a few extreme comments, or poking fun of "Anonymous Coward" that they somehow have the pulse of Slashdot as a whole. Regardless, they are watching, its fascinating to see what they think we think.

Comments

Should I be pissed?

[Wah]

From the MSNBC article...

"Tough for Slashdotters to pick between two (roughly) equivalent evils: Microsoft and the U.S. government," one correspondent wrote.

Which is remarkably similar to comments from this posting. It would seem that my comments (Comments are owned by the Poster.) have been taken and reproduced without my permission. Not to mention edited and taken out of context from a comment made in jest (this was a reply to the story that the ruling would be out in a few hours, and included a smily).

So my comments were stolen, changed and reused without permission when they are clearly owned by me and contact information was easily available.

Legal recourse? Should I bitch and moan? e-mail bomb msnbc?(j/k) Ask for my cut of the ad revenue from that page? This is more of a curiosity, but I am still taken aback that someone would so blatantly steal another's idea without attribution (I am not paid by /. and therefore it would be incorrect to call me a /. correspondent)

Two words: Fair Use

[homunq]

From Stanford's copyright FAQ:

What is fair use?

Fair use provisions of the copyright law allow for limited copying or distribution of published works without the author's permission
in some cases. Examples of fair use of copyrighted materials include quotation of excerpts in a review or critique, or copying of a
small part of a work by a teacher or student to illustrate a lesson. New issues about fair use have arisen with the increased use of the
Internet. At the time of publication, a bill is pending in Congress concerning whether fair use provisions will be extended to
appropriate users/uses of copyrighted Internet materials.

IANAL but:

As quasi-traditional (rich, establisment) media, they are on pretty solid ground claiming that any limited quoting that they're doing is fair use.

Paradoxically, the very thing that most Slashdotters think makes much more sense - linking not just to /. but to the story and specific comments - is much riskier from a lawyer's point of view. You know and I know that /. wouldn't even dream of suing for something like that. Still, I'm sure the MSNBC lawyers don't want to start down that path, because they want to be able to sue people who do it to them.

Let's not be idiots now...

[Otto]

Look, don't get angry that they are using your posts.

You can't sue them. Fair use allows quoting. Admittedly they should attribute the quote to you, but there's nothing that requires them to do so in a specific manner. "Howdy," said one guy on Slashdot is attribution enough for the law. The fact is that when you say something in a public forum, it is then public. Deal with it.

I don't see why anyone would be angry (as many commenters seem to be) in the first place. Guess what people, that means they're listening! Certainly took 'em long enough.

Instead of focusing on this new power for itself, perhaps we should focus on making all our comments a little more well-reasoned and thought out. After all, the world (via the media) may be paying attention to what you say.

Stop shooting from the hip so much. THINK about what you say, and make sure that it's your honest opinion. Opinions are good, disagreeing opinions are even better. But when what you say really gets the point across, more people will read it.

(You realize I'm just angling for a major news organization to quote me, don't you? :-)

---

Tonight on CNN

[jabber]

After many unanswered phone calls and requests for an interview, the online celebrity Anonymous Coward was quoted as saying:

"First Post!!"

Industry pundits have not been able to agree on the meaning of this cryptic response to the Microsoft = Monopoly ruling. Though technology expert John C. Dvorak stated that this may be a comment of outrage directed at the President of the United States rather than Bill Gates. Mr. Coward could not be reached for further comment.

In other news, the online community is believed to be rediscovering their spiritual roots, as observed in the slashdot readerships frequent references to Karma. Church officials claim that this is probably brought on by the upcoming end of the millenium.

Ima Freud, a psychologist at Deutchmacher University, claims that references to Karma are an attempt at closure in the wake of the Columbine Masacre, which shook the close-knit geek community to it's core earlier this year.

Executives at Warner Brothers deny that the concern with one's Karma, as demonstrated by members of the Slashdot cult, is actually a clendestine publicity stunt to promote End of Days staring Arnold Shwarzenegger. Mr. Shwarzenegger did not return phone calls.

Wow! Accountable media..

[Wah]

..who'da thunk it?

Within 5 minutes of sending the above e-mail I received a phone call from Alan Boyle (the editor of the original article). We talked for a few minutes about the weather, slashdot, and his grandkids, no wait....

Anyway, I requested that he remove my comment from the story (not a bad idea since it wasn't even a sentence to begin with) and he said he would be happy to. He also said that the purpose of the article was to point people towards the lively discussion that occurs here. Nice guy.

This goes down as the day I challenged MS(NBC) and won, yippee! hehe

Consider posting fair use/citation guidelines

[mrflip]

The Encylopedia Brittanica has a rich set of guidelines to fair use and citation of their material. Furthermore, every article on EB has a link, at the bottom, for "How to cite this article." The Slashdot maintainers should consider posting such a guideline.

In my opinion, the journalizm community has a deep understanding and commitment to copyright and fair use issues. If the comments were not given due credit, it is probably because it was not clear enough what comprises due credit. The reputation and continued success of a journalist depends on his fair treatment of sources. If we make it clear exactly what the Slashdot community considers fair treatment, I beleive that most reporters will respect it.

Here are some thoughts for possible fair use guidelines:

• If your article is largely based on a slashdot discussion thread, please give the URL for that thread in the text of your article, or porvide a link at the end. The format for such a URL is
  • http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/11/08/1226 255&mode=thread
  (where the date/unique number is replaced with the appropriate value).
• If you quote a slashdot post, give the real name or nickname of that poster. It is generally inappropraite to refer to "a Slashdot poster" if that person's name could reasonably be used as well. In an online article, please link the user's name to his or her slashdot "User Info" page. Such a link appears below each post, and has the format
  • http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=userinfo&nick=cm drtaco
  (where the text following "nick" is replace by the user's nickname). Please do not link to the poster's email address, even if it appears in the post.
• If you wish to cite a slashdot discussion, use the format
  • "Discussion title." Slashdot Discussion. [Accessed date].
  For example,
  • "Mainstream Media on Slashdot and Microsoft." Slashdot Discussion. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/11/08/122625 5&mode=thread [Nov 8, 1999].
  
  To cite a post, use the format
  • Poster Name, "Post Title," opinion expressed in Slashdot Discussion "Discussion title." [Accessed date].
  For example,
  • Homunq, "Two words: Fair Use," opinion expressed in Slashdot Discussion "Mainstream Media on Slashdot and Microsoft." http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/11/08/122625 5&mode=thread [Nov 8, 1999].
• If you wish to report the representative sense of the slashdot community, please note the mechnaisms by which the community assigns trust to opinions. Posts that have been moderated up, and those by users with high karma, should be given higher weight and maybe considered representative. It is a disservice to the truth and to slashdot to reprint the flamebait ramblings of an anonymous coward as representative views.
• Anonymous Cowards are a necessary evil, but their comments are neither authoritative nor accountable. If you repeat the opinions of an AC, please make it clear that those opinions are in no way representative of the slashdot community. Before you choose to repeat the posts of an anonymous poster, strongly consider whether it is appropriate. (An exception may be made if an AC post has been strongly moderated up, to +2 or above; such a post may be considered representative).
• Keep in mind that comments are owned by the poster. It is fair use to quote them, in context, in a story or paper. For deeper questions on the copyright limitations and freedoms, see Stanford's copyright FAQ.