works that can be copyrighted in the us must meet the following criteria: - be the EXPRESSION of an idea (ideas can't be copyrighted) - be ORIGINAL (be accomplished by the author) - be CREATIVE (involve at least a modicum of intellectual activity by the author -- an emotive grunt, even by an author, is not copyrightable) - be FIXED (be in some form that permits it to be reproduced) works do NOT have to be good, unique, or novel (new) -- or have any economic value. since 1978, copyrightable works are covered by copyright from the moment of production, even if there is no copyright notice and even if the work is not registered with the copyright office. (however, one cannot pursue copyright infringement without registration and notice.) e-mail, websites, etc., whether fortunately or unfortunately, generally meet these criteria. sandra braman
This raises for me an interesting aspect to the ethics struggle, which is that if something is copyrighted, we OWE it to the author to give full credit, which comes up against research ethic traditions of hiding identities of subjects when studying online discussion. I struggled with this with some of the more creative posts I quoted in my work and erred on the side of anonymity over credit. Nancy.
works that can be copyrighted in the us must meet the following criteria:
- be the EXPRESSION of an idea (ideas can't be copyrighted)
- be ORIGINAL (be accomplished by the author)
- be CREATIVE (involve at least a modicum of intellectual activity by the author -- an emotive grunt, even by an author, is not copyrightable)
- be FIXED (be in some form that permits it to be reproduced)
works do NOT have to be good, unique, or novel (new) -- or have any economic value.
since 1978, copyrightable works are covered by copyright from the moment of production, even if there is no copyright notice and even if the work is not registered with the copyright office. (however, one cannot pursue copyright infringement without registration and notice.)
e-mail, websites, etc., whether fortunately or unfortunately, generally meet these criteria.
sandra braman
Nancy Baym, Communication Studies University of Kansas NEW! email: nbaym@ku.edu NEW! snail mail: 102 Bailey, 1440 Jayhawk Blvd., Lawrence, KS 66045, USA NEW! url: http://www.ku.edu/home/nbaym
Nancy Baym wrote:
This raises for me an interesting aspect to the ethics struggle, which is that if something is copyrighted, we OWE it to the author to give full credit, which comes up against research ethic traditions of hiding identities of subjects when studying online discussion. I struggled with this with some of the more creative posts I quoted in my work and erred on the side of anonymity over credit. Nancy.
I wonder to what extent any anonymity can be provided anything on the Net, at least anything that has words which a researcher quotes at all accurately. All anyone has to do is plug quoted material into a search engine and, voila, there's the E-mail, or the home page, or whatever. To throw in yet another wrench, do we need to worry about maintaining anonymity when it is always entirely possible that the "John Smith" we are quoting could be any one of a thousand John Smith's out in the cybergalaxy. This kinda reminds me of when Paula Jones claimed that she was forced to come forward with her allegations because her "name" came up in an article regarding Clinton's sexual escapades as Arkansas's governor. As you may recall, the article only referred to a Paula in Little Rock. For pete's sake, isn't there more than one Paula in Arkansas? How could she claim that her anonymity had been breached? In the same way, how could we breach a subject's anonymity by citing even their full name when it is (usually) not attached to any locale, etc. and therefore could apply to thousands of persons? Along these same lines, one of the things that has been noted about the Internet is that it allows people to hide their true identities and take on new ones--even other peoples' real identities. How can we breach someone's anonymity by simply citing their name when anyone can sign any name to an E-mail with complete impunity--i.e., when someone can deny they were a researcher's subject by simply claiming that the researcher quoted an E-mail by someone who illegitimately used the name in question? I don't mean these questions to be taken as rhetorical--I'm not sure that they have obvious answers, nor do I think I have the answers, but I think these things are worth considering in the discussions so far. --Christian
To throw in yet another wrench, do we need to worry about maintaining anonymity when it is always entirely possible that the "John Smith" we are quoting could be any one of a thousand John Smith's out in the cybergalaxy.
A strange question, coming from Christian Nelson. http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=christian+nelson Your smiling mug pops up as the first hit on this particular search. Perhaps you (and Nancy Baym, and I, for that matter) are pareticularly priveleged. But it seems to me to be fairly clear that for works which leave behind a public archival text, and that are associateed with a real- or a net-identity, we are ethically compelled not to quote them word for word without proper citation and fair-use provision. Much as I wanted to show this example with some of Nancy's own work, Google Groups doesn't (yet) go back to the 1992 that her online work quotes[1], and I don't have a convenient copy of her book. This is different, I suppose, than interviews or discussions on private online social spaces, which are--er, "more" anonymous. [1] Say, in http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol1/issue2/baym.html, which includes several extensive, creative works quoted largely in their entirety.
How can we breach someone's anonymity by simply citing their name when anyone can sign any name to an E-mail with complete impunity--i.e., when someone can deny they were a researcher's subject by simply claiming that the researcher quoted an E-mail by someone who illegitimately used the name in question?
Because we shouldn't put people into the position of needing to deny that it was them that was quoted. ("Um, it came from my email, but really, that two year discussion about the kinky sex with the researcher HAD to be an intruder!"). This one seems fairly straightforward, to me: it is easy to generate more identities, but fairly hard to steal others'. Danyel who is glad he has a name that blends into the background and can't be found on google.
Danyel Fisher wrote:
To throw in yet another wrench, do we need to worry about maintaining anonymity when it is always entirely possible that the "John Smith" we are quoting could be any one of a thousand John Smith's out in the cybergalaxy.
A strange question, coming from Christian Nelson. http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=christian+nelson
Your smiling mug pops up as the first hit on this particular search. Perhaps you (and Nancy Baym, and I, for that matter) are pareticularly priveleged.
I'm not sure how priveledged I am to have a really bad picture of me on the net. Whatever the case, I do think that we're in a distinct minority. Nevertheless, it is certainly true that some people are more anonymous than others on the net. Then again, doesn't the fact that people can create E-mail messages with other peoples' E-mail addresses in the "from" line mean that the Internet always preserves "plausible deniability" (to borrow a phrase from Ollie North and company)?
("Um, it came from my email, but really, that two year discussion about the kinky sex with the researcher HAD to be an intruder!"). This one seems fairly straightforward, to me: it is easy to generate more identities, but fairly hard to steal others'.
But it is possible, no? --Christian
participants (4)
-
Christian Nelson -
Danyel Fisher -
Nancy Baym -
Sandra Braman