Just by the process of placing some blog story in a major newspaper you make the story marketable for the newspaper audience. More accurate though, you make a product out of the blog story (idea).
Why it is assumed that implementation of the blog idea should involve text modifying?
I, for one, have a lot of ideas. None of them are the marketable products now, while they are all in my blog entries. If a major newspapers publish my idea word-to-word without mentioning me as an idea creator, I would be flattered. I would prefer to have myself credited, of course, but c'est la vie - better something than nothing. Better be anonymous author of a successful idea/product than to bury your idea in your own mental grave.
What is the implementation of the marketable product, in relation to the newspaper column?
Is Wikipedia/some blog publication marketable for the newpaper target audience? Hardly so.
It is in the same way marketable as bananas growing in Columbia are marketable for US housewife.
The newspaper author makes a blog publication an end-user product by finding it and publishing it in the newspaper. Whether to credit the particular banana tree (or is it grass?) on the supermarket box with bananas - is up to the store owner.
If I were a columnist, I would probably want to credit the blog author for the idea if I use it. But wouln't that affect the credibility of the newspaper, in public eyes? Isn't here the demand for copyright clearance in our society nowadays? I believe this ide fix has come out of proportion lately (last couple of decades probably). It is now an obstacle to the progress, which cannot sustain without free idea sharing.
Let's look at the things in perspective.
Isn't it perfectly OK in our society (at least in legal terms) to grab someone's idea (ideas are not patented, btw), and use it at your own discretion, for example, create a marketable product?
Now, why situation with written word (the idea in its purest form) should be different?
Someone expressed the idea somewhere in a blog, in a form of written text. The other guy, who knows how to convert this idea to the product (say, content of the daily column in a major newspaper) goes ahead and does it.
What's the difference? If you don't like the implementation of that idea, don't buy it. Wanna use it in its original form? Fine, just browse the blogs daily.
The guy (nespaper columnist) created a product for the customers who wanted it. Why shoud he be punished for that?
Slashdot Mirror
Just by the process of placing some blog story in a major newspaper you make the story marketable for the newspaper audience. More accurate though, you make a product out of the blog story (idea). Why it is assumed that implementation of the blog idea should involve text modifying? I, for one, have a lot of ideas. None of them are the marketable products now, while they are all in my blog entries. If a major newspapers publish my idea word-to-word without mentioning me as an idea creator, I would be flattered. I would prefer to have myself credited, of course, but c'est la vie - better something than nothing. Better be anonymous author of a successful idea/product than to bury your idea in your own mental grave.
What is the implementation of the marketable product, in relation to the newspaper column? Is Wikipedia/some blog publication marketable for the newpaper target audience? Hardly so. It is in the same way marketable as bananas growing in Columbia are marketable for US housewife. The newspaper author makes a blog publication an end-user product by finding it and publishing it in the newspaper. Whether to credit the particular banana tree (or is it grass?) on the supermarket box with bananas - is up to the store owner. If I were a columnist, I would probably want to credit the blog author for the idea if I use it. But wouln't that affect the credibility of the newspaper, in public eyes? Isn't here the demand for copyright clearance in our society nowadays? I believe this ide fix has come out of proportion lately (last couple of decades probably). It is now an obstacle to the progress, which cannot sustain without free idea sharing.
Let's look at the things in perspective. Isn't it perfectly OK in our society (at least in legal terms) to grab someone's idea (ideas are not patented, btw), and use it at your own discretion, for example, create a marketable product? Now, why situation with written word (the idea in its purest form) should be different? Someone expressed the idea somewhere in a blog, in a form of written text. The other guy, who knows how to convert this idea to the product (say, content of the daily column in a major newspaper) goes ahead and does it. What's the difference? If you don't like the implementation of that idea, don't buy it. Wanna use it in its original form? Fine, just browse the blogs daily. The guy (nespaper columnist) created a product for the customers who wanted it. Why shoud he be punished for that?