When theft isn't theft redux

A few days ago I posted about Deborah Ng accusing a Livejournal user of stealing her 'content.' As it turned out, the user in question used Livejournal to publish Deborah's feed onto her LJ friends list. No problem right? Within a few minutes of me publishing the post, Deborah deleted the original post and put up an apology.

Score one for the good guys? Simple misunderstanding.

Well, somehow this devolved into a discussion about the 'right' way to use RSS feeds. In Deborah and many of her faithful fan's minds, RSS is a private affair, not unlike your husband taking a liking to your silkies. It's ok to use on a private webpage (similar to Bloglines if you've setup the security) but not to aggregate the content elsewhere in public.

To which I say, 'what the hell?'

Over the last 6 years there's been a slow evolution toward users creating their own little mini Internets. Livejournal saw the potential for social networks way back in 1996, but the general public only got to know via the hellish nightmare of code and ugliness that is MySpace. All at once marketer's eyes lit up like it was a glorious Christmas morning and their top client had sold out of cheap plastic toys due to one of their campaigns. They wanted to be part of these mini-Internets, they wanted to infiltrate.

As a result, everyone has a blog, MySpace, Livejournal, Xanga or Facebook (in my case, all of the above.) Along with your actual friends and contacts, you can add Depeche Mode to friends on MySpace or Neil Gaiman on Livejournal. Content is moved all the time and most news sources, brands and entertainers are accommodating people's desires to put it where they like. That's also why you can put ads in your feeds, make money even though the content is floating around in the ether.

The intent of RSS is to make information convenient to the readers. And it does it well.

However, it now appears some are trying to restrict that convenience.

Deborah posted again, this time about people being mean and how Livejournal friends lists aren't conducive to her views of RSS.

Why is it ok for my original content to be publicly posted in the name of RSS? The way I see it, an RSS feed is for individual subscribers, so they don't have visit hundreds of blogs every day. It's not meant to take people's content and publish to a public page. Now, you can send nasty notes and question my credibility, but this is how I feel and I'm not alone.

In my mind, this is the blogging equivalent of crossing your arms, stamping your feet and saying 'I've never had broccoli but I don't like it and my friends over there agree.' Her morals, which I greatly suspect are entwined with very old fashioned views on publishing, are costing her opportunity and revenue. Not to mention the damage to someone who is supposedly a blogging expert.

In the dark days of printing presses, before we had the Internet, I would side with her. Yeah, it sucks for someone to rip your content and move it somewhere else. I was very pissed when now defunct Girlsgoingout.com was ripping articles from iVillage and freelancers without their permission. How dare they do that? They were clearly using someone's articles for their own commercial gain and that's a no-no.

But Livejournal users do not directly make money from having one. Self promotion? Definitely. Advertising products? Absolutely. But Livejournal is essentially a host with extras, the host makes money and the users use the space according to their needs. The young lady that had the gall to publish Deborah's holy feed had to pay to do so. It's not a freebie part of the site. Livejournal is only a commercial venture for Six Apart.

It's a shame people are so resistant to such great technology. RSS feeds are changing the way people read and get their information. It's equally shameful, on a personal note, that misunderstanding technology and a fear of change causes folks to be so closed minded. This has the potential to be a great opportunity for professional writers who can see beyond black and white definitions of what's 'right' and what's 'wrong.'

For me, the professional blogger label is distant. I'm a hobbyist, I do game reviews and run an ISP hate website. But if the time ever comes where I want to use information from real professional bloggers seriously, I'll probably avoid the either/or thinkers and head straight for the grey area.

When theft isn't theft

Sadly, theft on the Internet isn't as uncommon as you'd hope. Lots of people look for ways to generate content without putting in much effort themselves. See Farrah Ashline.

Sometimes though, sometimes theft isn't theft at all. It's a misunderstanding of modern technology and the way content can be spread around all over the damned place.

Take Deborah Ng as an example. Yesterday she posted about plagiarism, that someone was nastily stealing her content and using it for their own nefarious means. Curious, I clicked the link she provided and discovered it led to the friends list of clmoriarity on Livejournal.

"Surely she couldn't mean that," I thought.

But oh yes she did. And oh is she wrong about it. What happened was Caitlin Moriarity added the RSS feed from Deborah Ng's blog to her friends list on Livejournal. Lots of folks do it. There's a Dilbert feed, an Astronomy picture of the day feed and even a QI Quote feed.

The idea is you check your friends list on Livejournal and also see the content of your favorite sites. It's a clever little thing to keep people using LJ instead of shunning it for other feed aggregators. For users it's fairly convenient and for webmasters can spread out bandwidth costs. People reading your content and clicking your links but not interfering with your hosting bill? Give me some more of that!

The best resolution to this would probably be a public apology. Caitlin is coming out of this relatively unscathed for those of us in the know and with the time to explain. How often does it happen that your 15 minutes of Internet fame comes from being mistaken for a thief, instead of actually being one.

Todd Goldman the Opportunist

Shmorky, the creator of Purple Pussy had his stuff stolen and then displayed in art galleries by Todd Goldman. Who is Todd Goldman? The genius behind the whole 'Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them.

After some serious nerd rage and threats of a lawsuit. Toddy-woddy finally Ifessed up and offered the creator of 'Purple Pussy' a bit of money. He claims that "“My intention was not to copy Mr. Kelly. I have never seen his work before and would never intentionally knock-off someone else’s idea" in his press release on the Something Awful boards.

Sadly though, it doesn't appear this is the first time he's participated in such grand insanity. Good run down of thievery on Mikey Tyndall's site.

I won't rehash the whole stealing debacle, or comment on how lame it is to have gnomes find your art for you and the tax benefits of donating someone's just dues to charity. It's been pretty much beaten into the ground by all and sundry.

What I will comment on is how disappointing Wikipedia is handling this.

Lots of enterprising goons and fans of David "Shmorky" Kelly edited his wikipedia entry in an effort to show how dreadfully untalented and lacking in creativity he is. The text originally read:

In April 2007, Goldman was accused of plagiarism by webcartoonist Dave "Shmorky" Kelly in a post on the Something Awful forums[1], claiming that Goldman's piece "Dear God Make Everyone Die," featured in his Gold Digger exhibit at Jack Gallery, was traced directly from a 2001 comic by Kelly.[3] That comic was published on September 19, 2001 in his Purple Pussy strip and reprinted in the book Keenspot Spotlight 2004 for Free Comic Book Day.

In response to the accusations, Goldman has stated, "I made a judgment error and did not research the background of this particular submission. My intention was not to copy Mr. Kelly." He has also stated that he intends to issue a formal apology as well as donate the proceeds of the sale of the piece to David Kelly or a charity of his choice. David Kelly reports that he has received Goldman's apology.[4]

Since Kelly's initial accusation, other premier figures in webcomics joined in criticizing Goldman, including R. K. Milholland of Something Positive,[5] Scott Kurtz of PvP,[6] J. Grant and Mel Hynes of Two Lumps,[7] Kristofer Straub of Starslip Crisis,[8][9] Jerry Holkins of Penny Arcade,[10], and Erin Lindsey of Venus Envy[11]. Roman Dirge, creator of Lenore, the Cute Little Dead Girl, criticized Goldman, and has also noted similarities between his own character and those drawn by Goldman[12]. Writers including Rich Johnston, author of the popular comics column 'Lying in the Gutters,' and Ert O'Hara of Juxtapoz Art & Culture Magazine joined in accusing Goldman of plagiarizing a number of sources.[13][14][3] Penny Arcade, PvP, Starslip Crisis, and several others all published strips explicitly referencing plagiarism or Dave Kelly's image. Fetus-X arist Eric Millikin suggested the possibility of fair use of the image by Goldman.[15]

In response to the criticism and accusations of plagiarism, Goldman is reported as stating, "This is just a bunch of hater artists trying to take me down. I'm not an online Web guy. I'm not trying to rip people off. I work with a team of artists at David & Goliath. We create thousands of designs." Goldman has denied the accusations, claiming that some of the other accusations are incorrect and reference his own art. He states that in 2006, he sent over 50 cease-and-desist letters to other artists for plagiarizing his work.[4]

These accusations of plagiarism were picked up by mainstream media outlets and received press coverage in the days following the immediate events. [16][17]

All of this is notated, with obvious examples of Goldman's copyright violations. But Todd convinced Wikipedia to lock the article (no doubt with threat of a lawsuit) and potentially edit those bits out.

Screen shot of original Wikipedia entry.

So, not only is he a thief (willingly or not) he's also unwilling to have his admitted 'mistake' be documented against him. And while shameful and irritating, I'm pretty 'meh' about it.

As an example of how such an Internet tantrum was almost his destiny, check out his reaction when people didn't like his work:

The artist himself, lurking at a nearby cafe table and supervising the reactions of the gallery's passerby, leapt to his feet and verbally laid into us. Sputtering and red, he demanded to know what we had said about him, if we knew who we were dealing with, and who the hell we thought we were. We pointed and laughed at the poor crazy man who couldn't draw, and went to a movie.

(From Wired.)

So no, his protest had having his good crap making name sulllied isn't particularly surprising. If he hadn't tried it on, the Earth would have collapsed into a giant blackhole of surprised suction.

What is getting me is Wikipedia fell so easily. Amongst all the nerd rage and alleged MySpace hacking, the evidence was there. We had the statement of an artist, Goldman's PR person and some damned good comparisons. Somehow, though, is this still considered defamation?

I'm waiting to see how the fine folks at Wikipedia handle this. Will they or won't they? I'd like for the plagiarism scandal to stay on. I mean, the guy's an artist, surely that's pretty damned relevant scandal? But then, in my world, you don't trace webcomics done by others and hang them in galleries.......

I will say, it's a terrible world when you must get your news from Encyclopedia Dramatica

To protect or not to protect.

One of my main difficulties regarding the UK's weapon laws is the lack of clause for people who genuinely want to protect themselves. Mind you, I'm not suggesting everyone should pack a Desert Eagle or sawed off shotgun, but I find the banning of things like mace and tasers completely out of line. We live in a relatively peaceful society but there are still people and animals running around that could harm our vulnerable little bodies. And being vulnerable, we need to protect ourselves from these threats.

An example of what I'm taking about is here:

Baton mean feared dogs

A man told police he was carrying a extendable baton late at night because he was afraid of dogs.
Wigan Magistrates' Court heard how Gareth Kamierczak was stopped by officers in the early hours of January 6, as he made his way home across fields in Leigh.
The 28-year-old, of Priory Avenue, Leigh, had just finished his shift as a barman in a local pub when police saw him.

He immediately admitted carrying the baton because he had once been bitten by a dog on the field and wanted to be able to defend himself.
He was charged with possession of an offensive weapon. Kamierczak pleaded guilty and was handed a two-month suspended jail sentence, ordered to serve 150 hours' community service and pay £95 in fines and costs.

From here

I know that guy's fear. I've had my own experiences with people's out of control dogs. And I did what you should do, notified the park ranger there was a dangerous dog. Absolutely no response from them and, 2 and 1/2 years later, I spotted the woman and the same unleashed Lab walking down the road near where her dog flipped out at me initially. Very effective.

And as a result of the inaction from Smithhills park rangers and what I feel is an epidemic of irresponsible dog owners, I've carried my Stanley knife with me (along with other cabling equipment) on trains late at night. Was it entirely for protection? No, it was legitimately with RJ-45 jacks and crimping tools. Did I consider it if I was going to be in danger? Yes. Is a Stanley knife way more dangerous to use than mace or pepper spray? God yes.

The argument my husband gives is 'mace and tasers could be used as offensive weapons.' Well, so could kitchen knives, my Stanley knife, my screwdrivers, my hammer, my voltage tester, my steel capped boots...

I can see the logic in banning things like switch blades and hand guns. But for Christ's sake, I really think fining someone for having an asp because the guy doesn't want to be bitten (again) by someone's dog is a bit too god damned far. Not everyone is a former Rugby player with the power to beat the shit out of a Rottweiler. Some of us need an edge over the danger that you know, still exists, in society. Christ knows Greater Manchester police and dog wardens are pretty much useless when it comes to that sort of thing... Why won't they let us take it into our own hands?