Eagle-eyed regulars may notice that the heading to my blog page has been defaced with the ugly addition of a copyright notice.
The intention, in due course, is to make the blog public again, and it would be nice if that had little effect except to make life easier by cutting down on the restrictions.
I would like to think that copyright would be taken for granted, as it applies whether or not such a statement is made, but it doesn't always seem to be that way. Anyway, for the record, my position is that these are my private musings, which in the muddle of my head seem to become more possible and paradoxically more private the wider the readership (because individual readers are lost in a crowd, so I'm less conscious of them), but only as long as the writings stay where they are so that people have to specifically come to the blog to read it, and the content isn't forced on their attention elsewhere.
So it's a personal thing. I can live quite well without the notoriety of a platform for my thoughts which, even when they're worth saying, aren't worth shouting from the rooftops. Especially when such shouting hurts my family.
As I understand it, "fair use" covers quotation for a purpose. I doubt whether wholesale reposting elsewhere counts. In reality, I don't have the resources to do anything about anyone who does do that, but I'd hope they would have the decency to respect the combination of law and personal wishes, especially if they're already taking the moral high ground.
8 comments:
Dear Survivor, there are some at first sight obscure parallels between publishing ones' thoughts anonymously to an unseen audience on the net on the one hand and disclosing them in private to a therapist or a confidante on the other.In either case there is an implicit trust that the disclosure won't be misused and finding that to be true is therapeutic. However the internet is a no holds barred medium and my view is that you can't expect the kindness from the big world that you have taken for granted for most of your life.I consider your blog disarmingly honest, quite brave of you and educational and illuminating for your readers; but not free from the risk of adverse consequences.
I don't see much risk that you-know-who will copy the blog and reprint it for the faithful to digest!
Robert I think the survivor is referring to a website where his blog has previously not just been quoted but entirely reproduced in a forum that the survivor has no control over. This is over exposure. On this other forum as you know, unkind comments are often made and misinterpretations abound.
At least here on this blog Survivor can choose to moderate the comments and not publish any he does not want to publish. He has therefore some control over statements made by others.
I regret to say that you-know-who is saying that he will not desist from re-publishing as much of this blog as he wants to if it is made public again. And that coming from the owner of a site claiming to be there to help people leave is to me amazing and unethical.
Recently, in that other place, quoting someone talking about the Condoblin issue, they highlighted the expression of one person "If he has nothing to hide, why is he hiding?"
The same question might be asked about who runs that site.
WHat niggles me is that if this blog was public, all they needed to do was give the url and not copy and paste it - something they themselves tick people off for doing.
We have all benefited from said website at one time or another, so this episode has been rather thoughtless.
Unfortunately the age of electronic communication does make us vulnerable to misinterpretation, misunderstanding and misuse.
I'm not sure just what we can do. Perhaps the Brethren DID know best with their disapproval of computers! ;-)
It's OK, Lord Voldemort is now dead and won't be publishing anything of anybody's. And you can say his name freely on that account.
I have yet to moderate any comments, actually, but it does seem as though it would be polite to allow any comments that anyone wishes to make to be made here.
The real issue, as I have said before, is that I prefer my writing to be free of context and such that it is read only by those prepared to look for it and read it on purpose. It doesn't mean the same when surrounded by a site that has the stated aim of attempting to disrupt the brethren system. Who could help making assumptions when reading it there?
Besides, having made the point, I intend to stick to it.
And no, I have not benefited from the site at all. Dick Wyman's, yes, this one, no.
Sorry Survivor, just to clarify - it wasn't you I meant so much as most readers of your blog have gained knowledge or been able to request information.
The Exclusive Brethren's own web site is moribund and has no feed-back/contact button. Bruce D Hales, Daniel Hales, C Warwick John and EB neighbours don't acknowledge or respond to courteous letters and inquiries. Non-ex Brethren people therefore only have at their disposal the resources of the John Rylands Library, University of Manchester, and the internet.
Where I live, the EB are called 'The Frozen Chosen'. People need accurate information about this group in order to defrost them a bit. Those outside the whole EB and exEB circle may well have justifiable reasons for trying to understand the changes in the EB since the 1960s.
Post a Comment