t byfield on 16 Feb 2001 17:30:12 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: <nettime> Usenet archives sold, whay about README! ? |
[email protected] (Fri 02/16/01 at 09:17 AM -0500): > Right. or a slightly more accurate, like the_first_author at al. In > this particular case, nettime or nettime moderators credit might be > less misleading. by and large, most commentaries on the digitalization of bibliography are very positive: wider distribution of info, easier searching, more sharing, etc., etc. (one notable exceptions that i know of was a 1994 article by nicholson baker that appeared in the _new yorker_; you can see how much it was appreciated by poking around these links.[1]) but you have hit on something interesting: 'analog' bibliography was much more amenable to nonstandarized data. and _readme!_'s data isn't nor- mal at all--that's why ultra-rationalized systems like amazon's can't grok. 'filtered by' isn't in their pulldown menus but 'edited by' is, so their broken system gives excessive weight to josephine bosma. not a big deal, imo. [1] http://www.google.com/search?q=%22nicholson+baker%22+%22card+catalog%22+librarians > The main issue still remains... Pushing things to the extreme, lets > assume that cnn, fro example, decides to spam its viewers with past > and *future* nettime messages and hands out an offer that is difficult > to refuse. Hand offer to whom? To nettime moderators? And who decides > what should be done? FYI, nettime does occasionally receive requests for permissions. these are very straightforward: we refer them to whoever sent the message as shown in the From: line (the Sender: line can be diff of course). this is a very minimal approach, which mostly works fine, and even accounts for the fact that an email address isn't necessarily one person. there are other benefits in handling it this way--for example, it avoids the kind of expansionist mission creep that often happens when lightweight functions get bureaucratized through, say, pushes to re-purpose stuff. nettime's footer *does* say it's a moderated list; it doesn't say that the moderators are a rights clearinghouse. > I foresee that corporate media will soon start doing what corporate IT > industry has done already. As IT companies have incorporated into > itself lots of anarcho/hackers, networks will start handing out high > $$ jobs to anarcho activists / practitioners /interventionists. What > will make lists like nettime a real commodity. What then? systematic policies (for example, like rhizome adopted early on) tend to privilege the categorical status of a message ('content') over the more complex matrix of other info that's generated by email; in doing so, they also tend to continually reaffirm the centrality of the org- anization as a fiduciary entity. this whole approach is totally back- wards, imo: it produces a single point of control thus a single point of failure. the fact that these kinds of terms are expressed in *law* itself is proof positive of that fact: jurisprudence is by definition a backward-glancing, formalized, and conservative approach the world. so far, nettime's hands-off approach has worked quite well. i haven't seen any need to change it. its weakness is a sort of P2P problem: to do anything en bloc with the archives would require that everyone who has contributed to the list assents, so such an effort would be mind- bogglingly complex and inefficient. but that's also its strength: the rights, to the extent that they can even be pinned down, are distrib- uted. as would be the responsibility to enforce those rights. that doesn't solve the potential problem of a situation in which net- time's moderators began to regard themselves as 'spokespeople' and/or representatives. but that's just corruption 101; there is no solution for it. cheers, t # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [email protected] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]