Did any of the unpublished work contain comments from the community?

Re #187 "If half of what you said about BoingBoing was true, this thread wouldn't exist at all."

Hey, just because this thread exists *now* doesn't mean it won't get "unpublished" next week. It's the right of Boing Boing -- a right to remove information (and to remove entire community discussions) now exercised by precedent.

Shall we infer that Boing Boing now felt that all comments and discussions on the removed stories were not credible as well? I ask rhetorically.

And, just because we think Boing Boing wouldn't do anything *that* evil to the cool people reminds me of the points around the FISA debate -- that we shouldn't place our trust in people, we should trust standards and ideals and put a framework in place that doesn't rely on the goodwill of those in power.

Is it hyperbole to attribute this must discussion over some insignificant old posts? Maybe -- but I guess we're all insignificant in the big picture and if Boing Boing -- or some other blog -- were ever "unpublished" in toto by those they pay for hosting. It would just be the loss of an relatively insignificant point-of-view in the massive world, and thus nobody should care.

That's why I speak out.

I'd never say that Boing Boing didn't have the right to delete whatever they want. They also have to right to post glowing reviews of Exxon Mobil gas stations and tell us that Mike Huckabee is a visionary worthy of our support.

Clearly Boing Boing has the right do do wrong things. Just as we have the right to voice disagreement if they do.

"What part of, 'They have the right to do so' are people not getting?

I totally get that they have the right to do it. I just disagree with it and am saying why. Is that OK?

Editorial decisions are usually about changing the future, or at least the present. Trying to change history is something different. History shouldn't be subject to editorializing, should it? Saying you'll not "lend her any credibility or associate with her" going forward? That's defensible. Trying to make it seem like you never did in the past? That's not very Boing Boing-y. Or, maybe it is and I was just projecting my hopes and dreams on to you. :-)

If you're in favor of transparency, you can add notes/updates to posts in the past clarifying your lack of endorsement.

"Unpublishing" is now a creepy euphemism.

Just my two cents.

Of course, if you never went to Iraq in the first place, I suppose you could get a shiny new case of PTSD if you saw this fresh...

..and then they could claim that they have to send you to the *real* Iraq to help you get over it.

Tell me that's not the real plan?

Is there a tombstone for when the CueCat died? That should totally have a barcode....

Thanks to Google cache, we can see that this post was at one time a very disturbing, yet hilarious, yet brilliant joke involving Isaac Asimov, the FCC vs EFF, kittens, Condi Rice, a tugboat, a broken Amazon Kindle, photographers rights, and -- very oddly for this blog -- anal sex. The brilliant part is that the joke was written with words entirely made up of vowels....

You know what happened....

What's sublime about the Morning News piece is how it proves the point by being written equivalent of a 12-minute bass solo -- ouch.

The anti-three strikes amendment, condemning policies that would throw citizens off the Net, has cleared the European Parliament!

There are so many negatives in this sentence, my head is now on backwards! Is this good or bad?

Let me get this straight, there's a guy who drills into your brain with a power drill, and his "colleague" is named IGOR??!

Seriously... this story is nothing if not for Igor.

Cue mob of villagers in 4... 3... 2...

Unfortunately, the "point" of inane measures is not even to create a security spectacle. The true purpose is to create an atmosphere where any action by a traveller can be called in to question at almost any time. While I don't much care for it, I do see how such a climate can be effective for certain administrative purposes. If for some reason there is a legitimate reason to suspect someone -- then the current system means they can be "investigated" for any number of behaviors that 99% of the time would be considered completely normal.

Yeah if he moves here to to L.A. people will be asking how he got that done and what cosmetic doctor he saw. I'm with bizkit. I think it's kinda cool.

Thank goodness they are professionally hollowed out.

All you loudmouthed amateur hollowers can suck it! Leave it to the pros!

That fact that there isnt footage of some kids coming back with a baseball bat and just demolishing the thing kinda proves that you're dealing with the gentlest .01 % of today's extant youth. Most places would see this thing crushed at the house being spraypainted for good measure. I'd be happy with those rare harmless-type kids if I were you.

The author of the post writes "They verbally sparred about the subject of fair use, and eventually DePalma's producer jumps on stage to defend him."

Actually the producer appears to back up Bowles at least as much as defending DePalma.

The producer makes the cogent point that laws around "fair use" are ineffective and that there is a legal risk here.

When #2 says "There's no basis to assume that the photographs, at this point in time, would need to have any clearance at all" they're being naive. There is also no basis to assume that you don't need clearance. There are very real risks here, and real dollars behind those risks.

As for me, I'm in favor of DePalma being able to release the film. I think that his use of the photographs fits *my* interpretation of fair use. But, I completely understand Magnolia's hesitancy to basically roll the dice without some protection that someone won't come out of the woodwork and win all the profits from the film for the rest of eternity. Althoguh as a photographer, I'd be pissed if one of my photographs was used without attribution - not pissed enough to think I deserved authorship of the motion picture, but stranger cases have brought... and won!

I need to listen no further than Richard Ashcroft losing all songwriting credit to Bittersweet Symphony to realize that Magnolia could very easily lose everything here based on a whackadoo interpretation of fair use and/or copyright.

- Mick O