E! Online cites Metafilter on Grammys March 1, 2002 6:02 PM   Subscribe

E! Online used MetaFilter as a source for quotes to sum up their article on the Grammy's and the Recording Academy President's comments on Internet piracy in particular.
posted by redleaf to MetaFilter-Related at 6:02 PM (23 comments total)

It is illegal to post that without the thread and comment link ;-)
posted by RobertLoch at 6:08 PM on March 1, 2002

Here. The link in the E! story is broken. I didn't see or comment on the original thread, just saw this story on My Yahoo!. Thanks for keeping the peace.
posted by redleaf at 6:13 PM on March 1, 2002

Are right so the quote was from emptyage's second post.
posted by RobertLoch at 6:29 PM on March 1, 2002

Did they ask permission or at least e-mail the commenter about it?
posted by geoff. at 7:10 PM on March 1, 2002

wow, freaky.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:55 PM on March 1, 2002

Be that as it may be, mathowie, I like "Internet community site". ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:19 PM on March 1, 2002

Don't need permission. A public comment is fair game. Posting here is like standing on a street corner and shouting.

Um, I didn't mean that like it sounded.... ;-)
posted by fraying at 10:31 PM on March 1, 2002

MetaFilter: Even Derek sez posting here is like standing on a street corner and shouting.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:50 PM on March 1, 2002

Comments here are "(c) their original authors." Anybody know if E! bothered to ask emptyage for permission to quote? If they didn't, the gym teacher oughta make 'em do laps, because E!'s as guilty of ripping as the 6000-song-collecting surfers.
posted by realjanetkagan at 11:22 PM on March 1, 2002

I do not think using a quote is anyhow a violation of copyright. It's just like adding a quote to a research paper, and they even gave attribution. It would be another matter if they reproduced the entire thread or worse packaged it in a book/magazine and sold it.
posted by owillis at 11:36 PM on March 1, 2002

This ripping of quotes is pervasive, out of control and oh so criminal. DSLReports had a similar thread. But I guess E! journalists don't read them. =O
posted by redleaf at 1:50 AM on March 2, 2002

The Toronto Star either.
posted by redleaf at 2:03 AM on March 2, 2002

I'm with owillis on this one. It was one line out of a roughly 2 paragraph post, they mentioned what site it was said on, and they even attempted to provide a link. Sounds like fair use to me.
posted by 10sball at 7:01 AM on March 2, 2002

I guess since we can pretty much verify that the quote didn't come from Shawn Fanning or some other major participant in this controversy it seems far to use it.

If it were discovered somehow that the person quoted had a significant interest in the outcome of this controversy, I think some kind of journalistic ethic would have been compromised.

Oh, wait, it's E! Online, nevermind.
posted by yonderboy at 2:27 PM on March 2, 2002

I do think it's fair use. But even if it were not, I wouldn't mind. I'm glad it was picked up, in fact. I think more interesting than the question of whether it was a copyright violation, however, is whether or not the quote should have been attributed, and to what degree.

And I don't say that just because I was the one quoted. It's come up before here. And I've had discussions about it with varous reporters and editors, some of whom have different onionions and policies. I'm going to look in my AP stylebook (which I don't have handy) on Monday and see what it says exactly. But matter what AP, or Chicago, says, every publication does things its own way.
posted by emptyage at 3:23 PM on March 2, 2002

Opinions and policies, that is.

I'm not quite sure what an onionion is, but I don't think they're in season this time of year.
posted by emptyage at 3:46 PM on March 2, 2002

"It would be another matter if they reproduced the entire thread or worse packaged it in a book/magazine and sold it."

There's a book coming out shortly from Perseus that does just that, but they asked for permission. From me at least - I assume every one else on the thread in question was asked for permission to publish as well. And granted it...
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:19 PM on March 2, 2002

I didn't grant it. The comment they wanted to use from me was stupid. We'll see what happens.
posted by rodii at 6:47 PM on March 2, 2002

Yeah and now they want a small biography as well! I'm commissioning J.D.Salinger but the fuck won't answer my emails.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:56 PM on March 2, 2002

Same here rodii, mine was a tiny snark, and not worth the paperwork.
posted by machaus at 9:04 PM on March 2, 2002

~Curse you spoilsports! I wanted a free book.~

(My small biography began : "I'm one of Portugal's most successful writers...")
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:54 PM on March 2, 2002

I've been notified, rather than asked, that a thread I was in or a comment I made was going to be included in some article or some such.
Not that I care particularly, if you have the stones to print out loud that you're quoting some dingus named dong resin, I certainly won't stand in your way, but the assumption already seemed to be made that my compliance was granted.
posted by dong_resin at 10:31 PM on March 2, 2002

Well, I ain't no high powered suit-wearin' legal eagle, no sir - *horks, spits* - but I reckon that "All posts are © their original authors" means just that.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:46 PM on March 2, 2002

« Older New Window for Links in MetaTalk?   |   The Globe and Mail on community blogs Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments