>I don't agree, I mean you pointing your journalist to what you think it
>You didn't respond to the questions I raised. I think the matter is more
>complicated than just saying the discussion is free. I was asking whether
>such a discussion can be printed out, passed on incoherently,
>inchronologically, out of context? Van it, amnd why should it, and what for?
>Amd how do the other particpants feel?
I think that the position put forth on Artswire is correct. Let me quote them:
> 1 - You have the rights to the words you post on Arts Wire.
> You have the right to freely express your views, and to control how
> others use your words. Your words cannot be used by others in any
> medium without your permission, unless you post them in an area that
> states otherwise.
> 2 - You are responsible for the words you post on Arts Wire.
> You are responsible for your words and the affect they have on others.
> You are responsible for the legality of your words, that is, observing
> copyright, slander, and other illegal uses of language.
Though we can argue about the notion of copyright in general, the idea that
we own (and own up to!) what we say feels correct to me. I mean, if
Amanda's journalist does an article and quotes one of us, then I think the
words should be attributed to their inventor.
Beyond this, I think the way in which Amanda passes information along to
her friend is up to her. Perhaps they share a particular interest that is
served best by "editing" out the non-relevant information and getting to
the points they are interested in. Is this different than when I gave a
friend of mine a quick summary of the "length of post" discussion that
occurred a while back and didn't tell him about every thread that had
-- Mark Coniglio
Mark Coniglio, Artistic Co-Director | firstname.lastname@example.org
Troika Ranch | http://www.art.net/~troika