Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
without blog person's knowledge. have you seen this? have you heard about this?
things like this are why I don't understand why people want to put so much of their private lives on the internet
presumably wordpress or whoever it is have the same terms and conditions as things like facebook - i.e. stuff posted on there automatically becomes their property and unless they get annoyed about it there's not much she can do
she owns her content
I'd still guess the MoS hasn't done anything illegal - essentially they're just reporting on something put into the public domain.
Surely thats the proof to her colleagues that she wasn't being bitchy about them...
or the content could be construed as her being a bitch....if you ignored her disclaimers at the beginning of her blog
pretty blatant attempt at discrediting the current air traffic controllers strike in ireland. what a crock of shit, she should sue.
but they really have torn apart that poor woman's life, unfortunately I don't think she'd have much of a case, the blog being in the public domain and all. However I'd still seek legal advice if I were her.
by starting a thread about it.
that was a strange one, finding that. they didn't rip my life apart though, though just took it word for word. reason?
"Crashing Sound of Insanity Impacting Reality by Mark Shields is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.5 UK: Scotland License."
but that looks REALLY useful.
cant you use the sarcmark?
I've heard of it and thought 'oh, well that sounds nice in a slightly hippyish way, but i'm not sure if it'll really take off/be much use to me'
but, presumably, if she'd stuck that on, then she could currently be sueing for breach of copyright? And anyone who blogs, etc could be sticking it on as standard?
(what's the sarcmark? some sort of tiny 'sm' at the end of the sentence?)
and yeah, i stuck it up after being worried about other things. the creative commons thing is actually really good, and works, because it's tailored for the country in which you reside. i stuck it up to make sure i dont get shafted, and the DoM would be breaching my copyright if they'd done it to me. namely the "No Derivative Works — You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work." part. :)
that looks really usefulsm
Sarcasm thing aside, it would be pretty handy if sites like wordpress (maybe twitter?) stuck in the CC thing as standard. With blogs/twitter/internetz being used as sources in so many news stories these days (or even using them as the entire basis of articles) there should maybe be some sort of legal background to it all.
Is it that you're retaining all your © rights but with the concession that people may reproduce as long as they give written credit (thus inviting exposure in lieu of immediate remuneration for simple reproduction)?
Kind of like saying to a someone who got run over by a reckless driver that it wouldn't have happened if they'd not gone near the road.
I need to cross a road at some point. I don't need to put inane personal information up on a forum which is by definition public. This woman clearly did bitch about her workmates at points, even if she has been misrepresented.
It's really more like saying you should cross a really busy road which is infact some nightmarish super-junction on which you know drunken, reckless boyracers speed up and down all the live-long day. What happened to this women is unpleasant and an example of very poor journalism, but it's also a case of her releasing personal information into the public sphere and then being unhappy when the public sphere takes it and moulds it into what it wants.
Plus, it wouldn't have happened if she didn't blog about inane bullshit.
I've not read what she wrote so I can't comment on that. The fact remains she didn't just decide to post inane bullshit:
"In November, I wrote a blogpost called “Women? In Air Traffic Control?”. I wrote it in response to people on Twitter and in my life who wanted to know what it was like to do my job. "
It clearly doesn't fall into the pit of navel-gazing stuff on a blog and, in my view, it probably had direct interest for women in roles dominated by men.
Your argument is a straw man one, the idea that fundamentally it's her fault for doing something you personally want to feel superior to. And regardless of what you (or I, because broadly agree with you) think of people blogging the inane nature of their lives for no one to care about it doesn't make this sort of crass, deceitful journalism okay, surely?
My argument is primarily that if she hadn't written a blog, that blog couldn't be misused. It's a proxy argument for my actual argument that blogs are, the vast majority of the time, a load of old balls. That I think blogs are a load of old balls is not tantamount to me thinking that blogs shouldn't be written or that crass, deceitful journalism is the way to go. That's you filling in imaginary gaps.
That said, I don't see that there's much wrong with what I've said- she released information into the public sphere willingly and essentially gave up control of what happened with that content. She's well within her rights to be upset at the shoddy journalism but no law has been broken, has it?
Also, she was pretty bitchy about workmates so I'm dubious as to how far she has been misrepresented. Who knows?
You came into the thread and your only comment was that if she didn't have a blog it wouldn't have happened. I was asking you to clarify that you did actually think such journalism was a load of shit too, hence the question mark at the end of that sentence.
I wasn't implying any laws had been broken because they obviously haven't but again, a discussion as to what is or isn't morally right should never come down to simply what the law says.
you'd think the Daily Mail would have learnt something after that Dunblane shitstorm they caused, would you not? i think people who blog stuff just don't expect 'journalists' to stoop so unbelievably low. who READS that fucking rag? oh wait, my housemate does, yeah. figures as well, cos she's a tool
well still. you'd think all the gutter press would have taken a lesson from that, right?
you do realise that with no journalists, there'd be no news, magazines, tv current affairs and similar programmes?
here comes the bamnan "yes that would be a good thing because i like extreme viewpoints that disagree with people on here" argument..
let him have this one
'oh my god look at how offensive this daily mail article is' threads. Imagine that.
too much Noam Chomsky, Hunter S Thompson, Edward Said and time spent in a bleakly desperate office environment.
I am still working in Finance due to a) I was naive to the point of delusion b) the media doesn't necessarily allow its staff to make social change for the positive c) the 'search for truth' and the 'fight against injustice' are noble ideals harshly crushed in a soul destroying environment where any ethics or morals you hold will be tested severely.
And the wages were shit.
A combined love of gossipping and schmoozing with bands was her job basically. She was a serial bullshitter and never let the facts get in the way of a good story. It even appeared she was seen as being good at her job, which always amazed me.