Archives
12:50:00 AM EDT
Hearing Nothing -- Everyone else is asleep.
Clarifications
Hey! I'm up after midnight. And yet, I've not turned into a pumpkin. Interesting.
This fellow is upset with me because he e-mailed me a question regarding AOL Journals and I turned his e-mail into a Journal entry. He's upset because I didn't write back, and because (if I read him correctly) he wanted to write about the question himself. He's also upset I didn't attribute the question to him. I take complaints seriously, since part of my job is to be responsive, so let's take each in order.
Not returning the e-mail is my bad; I cop to it fully. My only excuse is I get a lot of e-mail; sometimes responses get lost in the shuffle. I mention this possibility in my contact information.
However, I offer no defense for writing up the question as an entry. I'm happy to answer questions in e-mail, but unless e-mails are specifically marked as "personal" I'm going to assume they can be used (again, as noted in my contact information). Especially in the case of AOL Journal questions/comments/suggestions; part of what I do here is try to make it easier to use AOL Journals. In this case, it was an excellent question, so I elevated it to Journal entry status. Passing along the answer in an e-mail helps one person; passing it along in a Journal entry helps many more.
Now, I don't see why others can't write about something after I've written about it. That's one of the ways journals work -- continually sending information further into the Journal world. So please, feel free to pass along and comment on the information you find here. I hope you will.
As for not attributing the question to a specific person, this is something I should probably clarify: I generally don't publicly reveal identities of e-mail correspondents, even if I do use the e-mails for material. It's possible to answer a question generally without revealing from whom the question is from specifically, and many people prefer it that way. Now, I may occasionally slip from this policy -- I'm human. But it's typically what I do.
If you don't mind me mentioning you've sent along a question, comment or suggestion, just let me know -- I'll be happy to attribute thusly.
Written by johnmscalzi Blog about this entry |
Add to del.icio.us | 
digg this
-
a doctrine is obviously implied when not fully expressed, no matter what cerebral font is assumed. Under intellectual property law, an idea, itself, is not eligible to copyright--only its word-by-word expression. Or qualifies for patent under a process/method claim. There is also the merger-doctrine where a mathematical formula can not be viewed as
-
having been infringed upon, even when printed without the consent of its inventor, since the formulas unique way expressing an idea can not be expressed accurately in any other way.
F-Y-I, surgical procedures can no longer be infringed upon, for the better outcome of all humans under a scalpel---analogous to Scalzis clarification that the requested information and its solution, once disseminated as an entry -
on his own By The Way... Journal---AOLs official tutor---benefits all journals penned by AOLers. Since the accuser of our crime of the century was negligent in not including a non-discloser & confidentiality agreement in his e-mail---between Scalzi and himself---there is no basis for his pronouncement of plagiarize-ment, even amidst his plea that his revolutionary inquiry into having a second journal via
-
the same e-mail address was divulged in the chummy atmosphere of a private e-mail conversation. Such an indictment must be allowed to bask only in the warmth of its owner's imagination, though like all pain, it is real and clinically alive, roaming free, in the plaintiff's own sensory dodecahedron of reality. The crucial claim of intent, itself---of being scooped of breaking news by a fiduciary---
10/15/03 11:26 AM