Here are some of the observations and insights that were shared via Twitter this past week.
Basically, social networking tools like blogging, or microblogging, that Bertrand mentioned above as examples, to open up our interactions, to free ourselves from the email and meetings yokes, to become more transparent on what we do, because as he mentioned on that article he put together, the more open and transparent we become in the workplace working out loud the much easier it would be for everyone else to help you when you would need it. This is, exactly, what I have been advocating for myself for a long while, along the lines of this quote: “How can I help you, if I don’t know what you are doing? How can I help you, if I don’t know you, your work, and what you are trying to achieve? Help me please to understand your work, so that I can do my fair bit and help out where I can”.
App.net is just an identity provider – via @pevenasgreenwood
App.net doesn’t provide decentralization. If one company has access over all of your “social media data” that’s not decentralized.
What we really need is an open standard that uses an also open protocol to manage all this data. If we take a look at E-Mail Servers, that’s could be one way to built a decentralized “Social Grid” that doesn’t depend on one company.
Copyright v creditright by @JeffJarvis via @DavidGurteen
* When copyright changes, the idea of plagiarism changes. As I said in the Medium post, the old sin was not rewriting enough; the new sin is not attributing *and* linking. All newspaper and magazine articles should carry footnotes to their sources. I learned that ethic of linking in blogs and the practice of footnoting in writing Public Parts. There’s every reason that other media should take it up. Readers deserve it. Sources and creators deserve it. The record deserves it.
* When creditright takes over, then fair comment becomes a different beast. No longer do we fight over how much — how long an excerpt – is necessary and fair for comment. Now, the more comment the better. Just credit.
While the Court provides guidance on all aspects of fair dealing, its decisions have also articulated three guiding principles to assist with the analysis.
“fair dealing is a users’ right that must not be interpreted restrictively”
“technological neutrality requires that, absent evidence of Parliamentary intent to the contrary, we interpret the Copyright Act in a way that avoids imposing an additional layer of protections and fees based solely on the method of delivery of the work to the end user.”
“Persons or institutions relying on the s. 29 fair dealing exception need only prove that their own dealings with copyrighted works were for the purpose of research or private study and were fair.”