Re: Swans' Release: February 16, 2004 (fwd)

Adam said most of the shit I was thinking, which either means I need a new tin-
foil helmet, or I gotta get me some original ideas. Probably the latter.


Quoting "Aaron S. Hawley" <[email protected]>:



> 
> Of late, our work has been hampered by people who endlessly argue with our
> reprint policy, and with scavengers. As the argument goes, we do not make
> Swans' Work fully accessible to the public. How more accessible can you be
> when you are just one URL away? 


Everything is just one URL away.  It's a matter of having free access to the
internet, and knowing the content exists.  I view the dissemination of 
information (with attribution, fine, acknowledge the author) as a supremely 
positive endeavor.  (Even information distributed in self-serving blogs, or in 
mailing lists.)  

The annoying part about posting links instead of articles is that links are 
often not static. Obvious, I know.  Browsing archives and clicking links may 
just get you a DNS error.  




>We do not know. Go figure. The issue is
> not about accessibility. It is about using someone else's content to one's
> endeavors. 

from Swan's:
*In a time of revisionism, faux-semblant, spinning news and skewed 
information, Swans is about thinking, questioning, observing and providing a 
forum for ideas that is lacking in the mainstream media.

*We reserve the right to edit your submissions.




>The issue is about stealing -- an endearing American pastime.  

Well, we'd rather steal your car, but web content is easier to handle. 



Quoting Gilles D'Aymery, Thursday, February 12th:

>When, for instance 
>(and this is a factual instance) Znet would post a Swans' Work on its 
>site, I would get around 30 or 40 referrers to Swans (people who 
>would visit Swans from the attributing link). However, when 
>CounterPunch put a direct link to a specific URL on Swans, I get 
>over 1,000 referrers. I chose to pass on the 30 or 40 referrers. They 
>are unsignificant (sic) for the development of Swans.

This statement has been bugging me for the last week. While I understand the 
thinking, what it really says to me is that once Znet readers got done reading 
the article, they weren't sufficiently interested in the content to visit the 
site.  






> If you are skeptical, just check the American Buddah web
> site<http://www.american-buddha.com/friend.feud.htm> and see for yourself
> the sheer hypocrisy... More to come on this subject of some importance, at
> least to the Swans' collective and to its editors. Mark Hand of Press
> Action<http://www.pressaction.com/> runs a "hero of the week" feature.
> Maybe we need to feature a "scavenger" of the week award.
> 

Let's nominate ourselves.  The fun could last for weeks. 

> As always, please form your OWN opinion, and let your friends (and foes)
> know about Swans.
> 
> -- 
> Swans
> 



Creative Commons licenses
http://www.creativecommons.org

Frankly, I'd rather read CounterPunch.

 
-x
_______________________________________________
heads mailing list
[email protected]
http://ballistichelmet.org/mailman/listinfo/heads/
http://ballistichelmet.org/donate/