tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983372.post6161336186224116156..comments2023-11-05T04:04:12.442-05:00Comments on Short Schrift: Email and Blogging, Copyright and Test PrepTimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13026955797817424956noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983372.post-74240605475342071662007-01-26T14:44:00.000-05:002007-01-26T14:44:00.000-05:00Yeah, one thing about email these days is that it ...Yeah, one thing about email these days is that it is the 'dark matter' of internet discourse. In many cases, you WANT your argument to be out there, in full, on the record. Even if it does seem awfully indirect sometimes.Robin Sloanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14544600054056664342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983372.post-78140894065755472892007-01-26T10:24:00.000-05:002007-01-26T10:24:00.000-05:00This is the craziest thing in the context of the m...This is the craziest thing in the context of the main point of this post. Which is that instead of emailing Cory, if I'd just blogged about it, and said in full form what I thought, I might have gotten linked to. It's strange that that's where a lot of the misunderstanding comes from.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13026955797817424956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983372.post-21932810360268923722007-01-26T09:58:00.000-05:002007-01-26T09:58:00.000-05:00Sorry, Cory. I believe that you get 200 emails a d...Sorry, Cory. I believe that you get 200 emails a day, and you can't respond to them all. But your position on this is totally wrong. <br /><br />First, it's exactly what ETS is saying. It seems clear that your friend took the clause as equating <i>cheating</i> on the test as a copyright violation, when the clause is quite clear that it's that the <i>reproduction</i> of course materials is what they're willing to sue over. Your point then that ETS "can sue their competitors for infringement" is exactly what the clause says that ETS will do. <br /><br />Reproducing test questions, whether in print or on the web, isn't an effective way to cheat on a test. ETS won't give the same test twice for exactly that reason. The only reason you would reproduce test questions is to give someone the idea of the kinds of questions that are on the exam. And it's that intellectual property that ETS is trying to protect.<br /><br />If you read this post -- and I admit that I didn't spell this out in my email -- my position is that you can make a stronger case for the copyright-perversity of ETS using this information. <i>ETS does not make you sign a long statement promising not to cheat. It makes you sign one saying that you won't undercut their test prep business.</i> It's obvious that this is where their priorities really lie. But your headline AND your friend's comments actually obscure this. And that's a shame.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13026955797817424956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983372.post-66330889059267527202007-01-26T09:43:00.000-05:002007-01-26T09:43:00.000-05:00I didn't respond because I think you're wrong. Fir...I didn't respond because I think you're wrong. First of all, the GRE *says that copying it is a copyright violation* -- which is what I reported on. <br /><br />Second of all, what does it matter if they don't want their competitors to copy from them? <br /><br />1. That's not what they're saying<br /><br />2. If it's true, then they can sue their competitors for infringement<br /><br />3. Or, if it turns out that tests aren't a copyrightable subject matter, then tough shit, compete or die -- the law sets out innumerable copyrightable subject matters, pick one and go into business publishing it<br /><br />Just because I didn't post your comment doesn't mean I didn't read it, consider it, and make a decision about it. I answer in excess of 400 emails a day. But I don't answer every email I get -- particularly when it doesn't seem to contain anything substantive ("They don't mean what they say, besides, other companies rip them off" isn't very relevant IMO).doctorowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14366961969843843570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983372.post-45765367104516177422007-01-25T14:11:00.000-05:002007-01-25T14:11:00.000-05:00Again, I said I don't want to judge Cory too harsh...Again, I said I don't want to judge Cory too harshly. If anything, it bumps up my respect for Xeni Jardin, who somehow manages to stay on top of everything and print gabs of reader comments too.<br /><br />And this goes back to my original comment on Snarkmarket -- we're used to a divide between ourselves and famous figures, authors, celebrities. Celebrity bloggers are just a brand new species.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13026955797817424956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983372.post-16829718066229304242007-01-25T14:04:00.000-05:002007-01-25T14:04:00.000-05:00I agree with Robin. Boing Boing gets so much traf...I agree with Robin. Boing Boing gets so much trafiic/email that your missive is probably just overlooked.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983372.post-89946072182269233482007-01-25T13:59:00.000-05:002007-01-25T13:59:00.000-05:00I feel like you picked the toughest possible case ...I feel like you picked the toughest possible case to start with -- an internet celebrity constantly being bombarded with links, counter-links, and pitches. I feel like it'd be easier to get a more mainstream celebrity on the line, even if they were much larger -- Doctorow is so immersed in the world of Heavy Information Flow that I suspect it's very hard to get classified as 'signal' in his world instead of 'noise.'Robin Sloanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14544600054056664342noreply@blogger.com