>I don't agree, I mean you pointing your journalist to what you think it
>relevant.
>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
occurred?
-- Mark Coniglio
================================================================
Mark Coniglio, Artistic Co-Director | troika@panix.com
Troika Ranch | http://www.art.net/~troika
================================================================