The issue of linking versus plagiarizing (or "stealing") will be a very
difficult one to regulate and resolve. It is similar to the "fair use"
clause in the copyright laws. What constitutes "fair use" and "linking" is
rather subjective. So, we must approach this problem with the understanding
that linking and plagiarizing are matters of degree, and therefore avoid
imposing overarching rules on others, and view the issue on a case-by-case
basis. Instead of fighting by throwing threats and insults at each other, we
need to learn how to negotiate with due respect to each other.
An extreme example of plagiarizing or stealing at one end of this spectrum
is "inlining" where you embed an asset into your page by specifying an
explicit URL. For instance:
<img src="http://www.moma.org/images/someimage.gif">
Since the image file is still residing on the moma.org server, technically
speaking, you did not copy anything. If you properly credit the image on
your page, you may be able to get away with it, but most of us would agree
that this is unethical, if not outright illegal. Even within this area of
inlining, it is arguable. Some instances of them might be protected under
the "fair use" clause. Google's image search is protected under this clause.
(See: http://www.chillingeffects.org/linking/notice.cgi?NoticeIDI1 )
I once needed to link to a PDF document of a court ruling. Since it was a
public domain document, I had to think carefully before I created my link.
Some other commercial site had a copy of this PDF, and I first thought to
link to this copy, but then I thought that would not be respectful to the
site owner since I would be using their bandwidth for free. If it were in
their commercial or political interest to disseminate this document as
widely as possible, I could justify using their bandwidth, but this wasn't
the case. In the end, I decided to copy the file to my own server and linked
to it. I figured, in this case, copying is the more respectful approach.
For the Internet to be a useful resource for all of us, what is important is
not so much arguing and rationalizing what is right or wrong, but to respect
one another and negotiate pragmatically on a case by case basis.
In this sense, I feel that Jo-Anne has done her part in offering a pragmatic
solution by asking Curt to link to a different URL that meets the needs of
Turbulence.org rather than threatening him with a cease-and-desist letter as
many institutions do.
I understand Curt's assertion that not allowing re-contextualization of
Cory's work is contradictory to his presumed "punk" mentality. (Though I'm
not sure where that claim comes from. "fresh, formalist and punk-rock to the
core" Is this the line in question? If so, is this really describing Cory's
work?) It is true that there is a bit of "punk" mentality in his work if you
are referring to his subversive nature. He is after all subverting the
intended use of QuickTime technology. However, there is a difference between
subverting a medium and subverting someone's rights. Cory does not do the
latter. Even if he submits his work to Apple, they would not have any issue
with his use of the medium. "Punk" does not have to be about subverting the
rights of others. If Turbulence wishes to protect themselves from
deep-linking, then one should respect that wish and perhaps negotiate a
compromise.
Dyske
Linking vs. Plagiarizing (Re: Turbulence.org)
-
Type: discussion
Comments
> i'm not sure using ethics and respect as arguments is so useful here. if copyright laws and fair use are considered "subjective" how in the world is something like ethics or respect supposed to be universally agreed upon?
it seems to me that this all comes down to politics (and i don't mean that in the derogatory sense) and all the subtle variations of practice. copyright and fair use were never created out of ethical concern - they engender a specific way of life through an ideology based on private property and darwinian competition. i say "ideology" because "private property" and "competition" are really regulated and controlled by everyone agreeing on the rules of the game - even if they're losing. but the rules are still arbitrary when it comes down to it, not natural.
if you agree with the politics (or see yourself represented in them) that Turbulence represents, you would "respect" their claims to controlling (though not limiting) access to the work. and the politics are important here… if someone wants to argue Turbulence isn't allowing re-contextualizing of work, that's exactly right. but saying that that is more an exercise of privatistic ideology is another matter. the person who wants to re(de)contextualize the work bears as much responsibility here to be open (if there's even an agreement on openness). the key for me is the transparency of the process. otherwise ethics and respect can become code for naturalized censorship (this is why the right celebrates the term "political correctness" isn't it, to make the issue about censorship rather than politics - and giving them back the power to control speach?).
and regarding "punk" and subversion… i don't know how these ideas got crossed. "punk" isn't subversion for me (though it's aesthetic HAS often subverted by fashion and the right), just as DIY culture isn't about subversion. it's about operating in the current while trying to create living alternatives that hopefully won't remain alternative. the ongoing process of trying to create living politics is "punk". as one art history professor used to tell me, "it's not in the object, stupid."
good discussions going on…
best,
ryan
> i'm not sure using ethics and respect as arguments is so useful here. if copyright laws and fair use are considered "subjective" how in the world is something like ethics or respect supposed to be universally agreed upon?
it seems to me that this all comes down to politics (and i don't mean that in the derogatory sense) and all the subtle variations of practice. copyright and fair use were never created out of ethical concern - they engender a specific way of life through an ideology based on private property and darwinian competition. i say "ideology" because "private property" and "competition" are really regulated and controlled by everyone agreeing on the rules of the game - even if they're losing. but the rules are still arbitrary when it comes down to it, not natural.
if you agree with the politics (or see yourself represented in them) that Turbulence represents, you would "respect" their claims to controlling (though not limiting) access to the work. and the politics are important here… if someone wants to argue Turbulence isn't allowing re-contextualizing of work, that's exactly right. but saying that that is more an exercise of privatistic ideology is another matter. the person who wants to re(de)contextualize the work bears as much responsibility here to be open (if there's even an agreement on openness). the key for me is the transparency of the process. otherwise ethics and respect can become code for naturalized censorship (this is why the right celebrates the term "political correctness" isn't it, to make the issue about censorship rather than politics - and giving them back the power to control speach?).
and regarding "punk" and subversion… i don't know how these ideas got crossed. "punk" isn't subversion for me (though it's aesthetic HAS often been subverted by fashion and the right), just as DIY culture isn't about subversion. it's about operating in the current while trying to create living alternatives that hopefully won't remain alternative. the ongoing process of trying to create living politics is "punk". as one art history professor used to tell me, "it's not in the object, stupid."
good discussions going on…
best,
ryan
Hi Ryan,
You misunderstood me. I never said that we need to establish a universal
code of ethics by which everything can be determined right or wrong. What I
suggested was exact opposite of this, that there is no such thing. And, that
is why we need to deal with this in a case-by-case scenario. If two parties
involved in the issue could talk pragmatically and were willing to make
compromises, then there is no need to throw insults or threats. That is all
I meant to say.
-Dyske
"it's not in the object, stupid."
Breath of fresh 'lionel blair' 'flair' = air…
Discount the above it's just flippant cockney slang…
I've been a great believer in looking around the object and viewing its
connections, the strucure that it is hanging on, holding the art piece in
place - for that is what heavily contributes to the making that object so it
can be noticed. So shouldn't the trimmings around the work be discussed
also? Wherever the rests there is context.
best - marc
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Linking vs. Plagiarizing (Re: Turbulence.org)
> > i'm not sure using ethics and respect as arguments is so useful here.
if copyright laws and fair use are considered "subjective" how in the world
is something like ethics or respect supposed to be universally agreed upon?
> it seems to me that this all comes down to politics (and i don't mean that
in the derogatory sense) and all the subtle variations of practice.
copyright and fair use were never created out of ethical concern - they
engender a specific way of life through an ideology based on private
property and darwinian competition. i say "ideology" because "private
property" and "competition" are really regulated and controlled by everyone
agreeing on the rules of the game - even if they're losing. but the rules
are still arbitrary when it comes down to it, not natural.
> if you agree with the politics (or see yourself represented in them) that
Turbulence represents, you would "respect" their claims to controlling
(though not limiting) access to the work. and the politics are important
here… if someone wants to argue Turbulence isn't allowing
re-contextualizing of work, that's exactly right. but saying that that is
more an exercise of privatistic ideology is another matter. the person who
wants to re(de)contextualize the work bears as much responsibility here to
be open (if there's even an agreement on openness). the key for me is the
transparency of the process. otherwise ethics and respect can become code
for naturalized censorship (this is why the right celebrates the term
"political correctness" isn't it, to make the issue about censorship rather
than politics - and giving them back the power to control speach?).
> and regarding "punk" and subversion… i don't know how these ideas got
crossed. "punk" isn't subversion for me (though it's aesthetic HAS often
been subverted by fashion and the right), just as DIY culture isn't about
subversion. it's about operating in the current while trying to create
living alternatives that hopefully won't remain alternative. the ongoing
process of trying to create living politics is "punk". as one art history
professor used to tell me, "it's not in the object, stupid."
> good discussions going on…
> best,
> ryan
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
Wherever the rests there is context.
that's better…
marc
> "it's not in the object, stupid."
>
> Breath of fresh 'lionel blair' 'flair' = air…
>
> Discount the above it's just flippant cockney slang…
>
> I've been a great believer in looking around the object and viewing its
> connections, the strucure that it is hanging on, holding the art piece in
> place - for that is what heavily contributes to the making that object so
it
> can be noticed. So shouldn't the trimmings around the work be discussed
> also? Wherever the rests there is context.
>
> best - marc
>
>
>
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Linking vs. Plagiarizing (Re: Turbulence.org)
>
>
> > > i'm not sure using ethics and respect as arguments is so useful here.
> if copyright laws and fair use are considered "subjective" how in the
world
> is something like ethics or respect supposed to be universally agreed
upon?
> > it seems to me that this all comes down to politics (and i don't mean
that
> in the derogatory sense) and all the subtle variations of practice.
> copyright and fair use were never created out of ethical concern - they
> engender a specific way of life through an ideology based on private
> property and darwinian competition. i say "ideology" because "private
> property" and "competition" are really regulated and controlled by
everyone
> agreeing on the rules of the game - even if they're losing. but the rules
> are still arbitrary when it comes down to it, not natural.
> > if you agree with the politics (or see yourself represented in them)
that
> Turbulence represents, you would "respect" their claims to controlling
> (though not limiting) access to the work. and the politics are important
> here… if someone wants to argue Turbulence isn't allowing
> re-contextualizing of work, that's exactly right. but saying that that is
> more an exercise of privatistic ideology is another matter. the person who
> wants to re(de)contextualize the work bears as much responsibility here to
> be open (if there's even an agreement on openness). the key for me is the
> transparency of the process. otherwise ethics and respect can become code
> for naturalized censorship (this is why the right celebrates the term
> "political correctness" isn't it, to make the issue about censorship
rather
> than politics - and giving them back the power to control speach?).
> > and regarding "punk" and subversion… i don't know how these ideas got
> crossed. "punk" isn't subversion for me (though it's aesthetic HAS often
> been subverted by fashion and the right), just as DIY culture isn't about
> subversion. it's about operating in the current while trying to create
> living alternatives that hopefully won't remain alternative. the ongoing
> process of trying to create living politics is "punk". as one art history
> professor used to tell me, "it's not in the object, stupid."
> > good discussions going on…
> > best,
> > ryan
> > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
> >
>
>
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
dyske,
evidently "punk" is too open a term. so let's abandon it and move on to the idea of "not art" or "outsider art" or "art brut." Alex Galloway claims in the piece's artist statement that the piece is not art (odd then that it should have an artist statement). Yet when I try to recontextualize the piece outside of its given contemporary art environment, i get slapped. this irony is noteworthy.
curt
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
dyske said:
I understand Curt's assertion that not allowing re-contextualization of
Cory's work is contradictory to his presumed "punk" mentality. (Though I'm
not sure where that claim comes from. "fresh, formalist and punk-rock to the
core" Is this the line in question? If so, is this really describing Cory's
work?)
hi,
sorry for misreading your comments, i didn't really
think you were trying to standardize ethics… i guess
i'm just weary of using terms like "ethics" anymore,
as the language can mask the politics. and i would
agree with your "case by case" methodology, as long as
the criteria used was open for debate and
politicized/contextualized.
anyway, thanks for calling me on that.
best,
ryan
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
hi all,
i think it is a major error in viewing Cory's work in trying to call it
'not art' or any of the other terms Curt has listed.
Cory is definitely an artist and his work is simply borrowing from
sub-cultures which haven't been mined by the traditional art world as
of yet ie the very specific 'demo' culture. taking from culture's
outside of the dominant is an art strategy that goes back, oh, let's
see, to the impressionists.
not dissing Cory's work, I think it's fly. But his strategies are very
much in the tradition of the main art world.
here's a freebie for anyone else who wants to follow this strategy:
overclockers.
On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 05:54 PM, curt cloninger wrote:
> dyske,
>
> evidently "punk" is too open a term. so let's abandon it and move on
> to the idea of "not art" or "outsider art" or "art brut." Alex
> Galloway claims in the piece's artist statement that the piece is not
> art (odd then that it should have an artist statement). Yet when I
> try to recontextualize the piece outside of its given contemporary art
> environment, i get slapped. this irony is noteworthy.
>
> curt
>
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> dyske said:
> I understand Curt's assertion that not allowing re-contextualization of
> Cory's work is contradictory to his presumed "punk" mentality. (Though
> I'm
> not sure where that claim comes from. "fresh, formalist and punk-rock
> to the
> core" Is this the line in question? If so, is this really describing
> Cory's
–
<t.whid>
www.mteww.com
</t.whid>
<quote>
evidently "punk" is too open a term. so let's abandon it and move on to the
idea of "not art" or "outsider art" or "art brut."
</quote>
Curt,
Forget it. If "punk" is too open, then discussing "art" or "not art" ain't
gonna fly.
Dyske
For the record, if I were Curt I would've just changed the link, but I'm
a total pushover.
Here's a great article about the current legal status of deep linking,
from the 2001 Berkely Technology Law Journal:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"LINK LAW REVISITED: INTERNET LINKING LAW AT FIVE YEARS"
By Mark Sableman
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol16/sableman/sablem
an.pdf
—————- excerpt —————–
B. Deep Linking
Perhaps the most curious of all anti-linking theories is the one that
holds "deep linking" unlawful. While this theory seems to loom large in
popular discussions, it does not yet have legal support in the United
States, and courts have addressed the theory with skepticism.
Most websites have a central "home" page to which all subsidiary pages
are linked. Website publishers probably expect users to visit their site
through this home page "front door," and to move around the website
using the website's own links to subsidiary pages. With this
expectation, many website publishers post introductory material-possibly
including third-party paid banner advertisements, and special teasers
and highlights relating to their own site-on that home page. Website
publishers expect that most website visitors will encounter those
advertisements or special highlights before going further into the
website's subsidiary pages.
In practice, however, anyone who reaches a subsidiary page may re-cord
the URL of that page and use it as a hyperlink, thus enabling others to
bypass the website's front door and go to the subsidiary page of
inter-est. Such links are known as "deep linking" because they link
directly to a subsidiary page "deep" within a website. Is such linking
unlawful?
————– end excerpt —————–
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-Cf
[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com
sci: http://www.askrom.com
biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
Dyske,
I don't mean to discuss "art" or "not art" in terms of "what is art?"
I mention "not art" in response to Alex's satement (found in the text
intro to Data Diaries) that Cory is "not a net artist."
Deep/Young has deep linked and recontextualized plenty of other works
by "non net artists," but this is the only time anyone ("non net
artist," "established net artist," or otherwise) has ever required us
to point to their funding credits. I find this ironic for a work
that claims to be outside of established art traditions.
If T. is right in his assessment of Cory's work vis the 'net art
canon' and Alex is exaggerating for dramatic effect, then the above
irony is certainly less pronounced.
peace,
curt
At 10:42 PM -0500 2/24/03, Dyske Suematsu wrote:
><quote>
>evidently "punk" is too open a term. so let's abandon it and move on to the
>idea of "not art" or "outsider art" or "art brut."
></quote>
>
>Curt,
>
>Forget it. If "punk" is too open, then discussing "art" or "not art" ain't
>gonna fly.
>
>Dyske
curt:
>Dyske,
>
>I don't mean to discuss "art" or "not art" in terms of "what is
>art?" I mention "not art" in response to Alex's satement (found in
>the text intro to Data Diaries) that Cory is "not a net artist."
>
>Deep/Young has deep linked and recontextualized plenty of other
>works by "non net artists," but this is the only time anyone ("non
>net artist," "established net artist," or otherwise) has ever
>required us to point to their funding credits.
++
twhid:
but Cory didn't ask you to remove it, the funder did. I don't see the irony.
curt:
>I find this ironic for a work that claims
>to be outside of established art traditions.
++
twhid:
I don't think the work or artist make's any claim like that. the
intro made the claim we don't know if Cory agrees with it. Also 'not
a net artist' isn't a statement that puts one outside of established
art traditions as in 'Rembrandt was not a net artist and neither is
Julian Schnabel' you get my point.
curt:
>
>If T. is right in his assessment of Cory's work vis the 'net art
>canon' and Alex is exaggerating for dramatic effect, then the above
>irony is certainly less pronounced.
++
twhid:
my argument is unassailable :-)
>
>At 10:42 PM -0500 2/24/03, Dyske Suematsu wrote:
>><quote>
>>evidently "punk" is too open a term. so let's abandon it and move on to the
>>idea of "not art" or "outsider art" or "art brut."
>></quote>
>>
>>Curt,
>>
>>Forget it. If "punk" is too open, then discussing "art" or "not art" ain't
>>gonna fly.
–
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
t. observes:
Cory didn't ask you to remove [the deep link to his work], the funder did….
I don't think the work or artist makes any claim [that he's not a net artist]. the intro made the claim. we don't know if Cory agrees with it.
curt concurs:
precisely! which is why i bypassed the funder's credits and the intro statement and deep linked straight to the piece itself in the first place.
Here's an interesting case: For a while now, I've run a little filtering site called http://firmament.to . It takes any HTML page you give it, uses Perl to turn (almost) every word into a link, and then when you click on that link, it redirects you to a page that Google says is the #1 search result for that word.
I've started receiving, occasionally, emails like this:
——
Subject: You are STEALING bandwidth of WorldTimeZone.com- remove links ASAP !
Hi,
please remove links ASAP to individual images (including time/date
image
data) on WorldTimeZone.com site from your link:
http://firmament.to/frameRender.pl?url=http://www.worldtimezone.com/
You are STEALING bandwidth of WorldTimeZone.com.
Please see WorldTimeZone.com Illegal User Alert on:
http://www.worldtimezone.com/worldtimezone.html
In recent days it has come to the attention of WorldTimeZone.com that
numerous unauthorized web sites are stealing bandwidth, re-presenting
the original WorldTimeZone.com information being hosted from our
server. This gives the impression that WorldTimeZone.com is a part of
their website. These violators enjoy showing our content without having
to pay for its delivery or advertising.
This stealing of bandwidth increases the amount of continuous activity
to the web servers, dramatically increasing the cost of hosting. We
have now taken action to discourage this type of abuse by hosting an
"Illegal User" message which will appear on any web sites which has
employed the method discussed above.
You may link to any html page within the WorldTimeZone.com web site for
any personal, organizational, or commercial pages, but please do not
link to individual images (including time/date image data) on our site.
Regards,
Alexander
——
I find this stuff amusing. Other than writing my own blacklist, I don't have that much control over what images are included in what my Perl scripts serve up. (I certainly didn't single out WorldTimeZone.com to take credit for their work.) I also like the idea of having a bot that reads your access logs, looks for image requests from other servers, does an automatic WHOIS lookup and then sends an automated cease-and-desist letter.
I don't like the idea enough to actually do anything, though …
Francis
hi francis,
you're talking about inlining, which is different than deep linking. worldtimezone says in their message that they don't mind you deep linking. Actually, your talking about user-directed inlining, so you are right that it gets weird. I wonder if Mark Napier gets the same auto-generated warning messages as you for his shredder and riot pieces.
[As a quirky side note, I'm the very user who visited worldtimezone.com via your piece. I remember doing it. But of course I didn't know they would send you a cease + desist.]
The topic is not uninteresting to me. I instigated a type of open html bulletin board mayhem with this project ( http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?2261 ). now people who do this type of bbs "hacking" will often import images from my sites. Which is a flattering allusion I guess.
BUT, occasionally someone on a bbs will use an image from my site as their "avatar" image, which means every time they post, that image appears, and my logs register the thread to which they posted as a referrer link. This means that every time anybody reads the thread, my image is requested and a hit shows up in my logs.
Now here's the fun part. Most of the people doing this are inlining some sort of abstract image that I made, and it's all part of their "cool" online persona in their particular community. The catch is, I have write permission to the very image that they are using to represent themselves in that community. So, rather than asking them to stop "using my bandwidith" (boo hoo), here's what I like to do:
1. I find out what their screen name at the bbs is (say it's "zanthus")
2. I find the image of mine to which they are linking (say it's "cubes.gif")
3. I can't simply remove the image, since a page on my site is using it as well. So I rename "cubes.gif" to "zanthus.gif", and then change the corresponding "img" tag on my html page to call in the new name. So my page remains unchanged, and if zanthus comes hunting to find out what happened to his old avatar image, he finds that it now has his own name. creepy.
4. Then, I go and search for some ridiculously dorky image (usually of some bollywood 70s love guy), crop it to the dimensions of the original "cubes.gif", name it "cubes.gif", and place it on my server.
5. So the next time that zanthus's buddies read his comments on their bbs, there will be his new cheezy avatar, looking like a hindu lounge lover, or scott baio, or whomever.
Without fail, the next day in my logs, the link to "cubes.gif" miraculously disappears. Yes, Zanthus can be taught!
+++++++++++++++++++++++
francis said:
> I also like the idea of having a bot that reads your access logs, looks for image requests from other servers, does an automatic WHOIS lookup and then sends an automated cease-and-desist letter.