Windley's Technometria - Latest Comments in Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

Nic Windley - Biz Dev Strategy — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 03:31:11 -0000

we've been mashing up for years in films, book, magazines and all other media so why not the web and why not let the user decide the outcome.....

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

Phil Rees — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 16:16:06 -0000

Actually we do have those rights.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/...

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

gyardley — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 09:16:06 -0000

Of course publishers can and do control how their content is used. If you wanted, you could easily arrange it so this site wouldn't display on IE6, required Flash to view, couldn't work with a particular Firefox plugin (to use a Google-specific example, you can't watch a YouTube video while blocking AdSense), and so on. Blocking scrapers and robots is a fairly common thing, both through robots.txt and through simple detection of robot-like behaviors. Sites also generally come with a contract attached - some implicit (the view-through), some explicit (the click-through) - and these contracts, done correctly, are generally enforceable.

This whole post mystifies me, because you don't have the the right to mash-up, remix, annotate, augment, and otherwise modify Web content - it's not your content. The publisher might choose to give you that right, but it's the publisher's choice.

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

Phil Rees — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 02:10:54 -0000

I'm kind of surprised that mine is the only Sidewiki comment on this page. Those of you who don't have the plug-in installed are welcome to read the post at:

http://www.google.com/sidewiki/entry/phrees/id/...

BTW Great article. I love the phrase "Purpose-Centric Web", though I think it's going to take a while for people to move from the idea of "publishing" to that of "processing". Content should be used, not venerated.

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

cgerrish — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:48:10 -0000

A well-tempered scale would be the equivalent of phonemes, or 1s and 0s in Dave's example. Any "tune" picks up on previous tunes - inverts them, varies them within a theme. The question about control of content becomes one of control of meaning-- as in Alice in Wonderland, Humpty Dumpty says: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." Words (content) always mean more than we intend.

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

jeremy — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:24:51 -0000

But isn't that like saying that all the notes in the western tonality scale (C, C#/Db, D, D#/Eb, E, F, etc.) already exist, therefore there is no such thing as an original composed tune? Any "new" tune is just reusing notes that other people have already used?

I don't buy it.

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

Phil Windley — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:36:45 -0000

Nice thought Cliff. We're all rewriting something else all the time.

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

cgerrish — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 00:34:17 -0000

No one controls their own content. Every sentence you write is filled with the language that preceded it. It's not the web that's an illusion, it's language -- a stream created out of phonemes. The reader rewrites your content in the act of reading it. The objection seems to be to sharing the transcription publicly. There's no such thing as a content endpoint -- it always connects to something else. The only way to prevent connection in a public network is to be completely uninteresting.

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

Phil Windley — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:17:27 -0000

Now that's a good analogy.

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

VHF — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:59:34 -0000

... And these are not even changes, really. They are accompanying commentary.

Could the author of a widely-distributed picture reasonably complain if the picture's prints were accompanied in every store with a chalkboard to its side, one on which visitors could write what they thought of the picture?

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

jeremy — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:26:25 -0000

True. But that's because no browser extension yet has the large distribution of a MS-backed push. (And also only because ads are simply being removed, rather than supplanted :-)

But on the same point: Things like Sidewiki have existed for years. It's only when it finally acquired the large distribution of a Google-backed push that the blogosphere is erupting.

So does that mean MS can now push their stuff with a lot more ease? After all, they already tried this in 2001 and got smacked down for it. Is Google opening the door for them now?

http://news.cnet.com/Google...

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

Phil Windley — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:18:07 -0000

Whether 8.2 applies or not depends on whether rending content in your browser is creating a derivative work, I suppose. As far as I know, Google hasn't tried to stop ad blocking browser extensions.

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

Nathan — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:13:41 -0000

I think the better analogy is that Google is allowing people to write comments on the back side of your glasses - and that changes depending on what you are looking at. You can wander around Google city and everything is at it is, but your experience is different for you than for another because you choose to look at the city through *.*-colored glasses.

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

Nathan — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:10:13 -0000

Dave, what about translation tools on the web? Are you opposed to Google/Babel Fish, etc. turning the content of a site into another language to be read by someone who does not speak English? As a site owner, if you don't do it yourself, you obviously have no control over the accuracy of the translations. In every sense it truly is 'changing the words' of the website into something the reader likes (understands) better. Curious what you think.

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

marc — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:06:34 -0000

Thank you for keeping things so simple and correct.

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

jeremy — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:01:14 -0000

Yeah, maybe the MS example is taking it to an extreme case. But not to an edge case. MS and Google, and how they mitigate our experiences of the net, are "extremely core" cases right now. Not edge at all.

But if item 5.3 of the TOS doesn't disallow it, what about item 8.2?

http://www.google.com/accou...

8.2 You should be aware that Content presented to you as part of the Services, including but not limited to advertisements in the Services and sponsored Content within the Services may be protected by intellectual property rights which are owned by the sponsors or advertisers who provide that Content to Google (or by other persons or companies on their behalf). You may not modify, rent, lease, loan, sell, distribute or create derivative works based on this Content (either in whole or in part) unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google or by the owners of that Content, in a separate agreement.

The list of search results is the content in the Google search service. And in item 8.2 they explicitly say that you may not modify or create derivative works from that content. My G/Y/B mashup is a modification/derivative work, is it not? My tool for hiding the ads from a Google search, or replacing them with MS ads, is a modification, is it not?

Whether or not they sue, they are in principle against it. And principles matter.

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

Phil Windley — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:43:31 -0000

Yeah, point 1 is probably something that is better dealt with elsewhere. I'm not trying to distinguish between user controlled and opt-in, just saying user controlled might be a better, more flexible phrase. Not important to this discussion.

On point 2: No, I don't think the TOS disallows it. Would Google care? Maybe. I think they'd have a tough time suing given their current stance.

I think your idea about combining search results is a great example and one that could easily be done with Kynetx, for example. Google can't "disallow" it. That train has left the station. Might they try and sue? Sure, but I think they'd lose and be badly hurt by the effort.

As for "what if MS did this?" that's taking the example to an extreme edge case where of course there would be a battle.

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

jeremy — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:38:14 -0000

Point 1: I don't fully understand the distinction that you're making between opt-in or -out in terms of user control. Something can be opt-out (or opt-in) and still be user-controlled, can it not? It's not like opt-in = user controlled and opt-out = user non-controlled. As long as there is a button to turn something on or off, isn't it still user controlled?

But.. it's a minor point, and it may not be worth it to go into a deeper argument right now.

Point 2: Are you sure this is not disallowed? The example that I tweeted to you yesterday was that of ad overlay. What if I create a toolbar that hides Google ads, and replaces them with MS ads? As long as that toolbar is "user controlled", Google would have no problem with that?

Actually, what I really want to do is mash up Google results with Bing results with Yahoo results. So I want to augment and refactor what I'm getting back from Google, and display the content that they're giving me in my own way. In the mashup, I might not put the top Google result at the top of my results list.

Furthermore, because I have a really wide screen, I might put all 10 results in 2-3 columns, above the fold, and then all the ads (if I choose to show them at all) below the fold.

Rendering the returned results in this manner would be extremely useful to me. You really think that Google would allow it?

And what if MS integrated this functionality into IE, in a "user controlled" way? Google wouldn't care?

I wish it were true. I'm not against it. But I don't share your confidence that it is.

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

Kevin Marks — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:28:11 -0000

Not true Dave, another way is to have the kind of semi-overlapping conversations we have on Twitter, we we all only see the people we follow. That's much more resilient against angry 14-year-olds, as only the people who follow them see their interjections.

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

Wade — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:09:41 -0000

Let's say I go to the art store and find a lithograph on the "give away" table. I then bring that lithograph home with me and change it, making it look more pleasing to me, while not altering the original "intent" of the piece. A bit of paint here, some pencil art over there... just enough to make it something that *I* like.

Is the producer of that lithograph going to cry "defacement"? First, how will they know? Second, do they care? Three, isn't it my prerogative to do with it what I want because it is in my house and will only be seen by me and those I share it with?

I for one LOVE the idea of being able to markup, repaint and rework what is presented to me on the web because how is the producer of content going to *know* what *I* want to see? Simple, there is no way for them to divine that unless I am able to tell them. I also love the thought of being able to show my changes to others, and have them show me their changes.

My .02 ..

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

Phil Windley — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:54:03 -0000

Point 1: I view opt-in as crucial, although that word may not be the best one. Better idea is user controlled. User control and freedom of choice for the individual is what legitimizes this.

Point 2: I'm not sure I read Google TOS as disallowing this. The user is accessing the site (be it Google or anything else) in exactly the way Google intends. The browser is merely modifying the returned content in a way that better suits the user's needs (see Point 1).

Note that I'm not claiming the right to access the site in ways the site owner does not allow or hacking the site. I'm merely a proponent of my right to render the returned content--legally and lawfully accessed--in a way that's useful to me.

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

craigburton — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:50:17 -0000

For me there are two questions that the release of sidewiki brings up in the context of the purpose-based web.

1. Are we moving towards where augmenting a persons web experience is going to happen based on that person's real or implied purpose?

The answer is yes.

2. Can we stop it from happening?

The answer is no.

In conclusion.

Q. Is sidewiki good or bad?

A. Try it. If you like it, continue to use it. If you don't, stop using it.

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

BB — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:53:47 -0000

The API doesn't seem to indicate that the comments are considered "less useful".

I used the toolbar to look at that page and I don't see any comments. You need to click a link at the bottom of the page to view comments "in the gutter", where you see the comments and this message:

"These entries may be less useful. Click an entry to tell us what you think. Learn more"

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

jeremy — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:26:16 -0000

I claim the right to mash-up, remix, annotate, augment, and otherwise modify Web content for my purposes in my browser using any tool I choose and I extend to everyone else that same privilege.

Bring it on, Phil! I love it! Fight the good fight. But a couple of points:

(Point 1) If this is the right that you are claiming, then the opt-in vs. opt-out issue is orthogonal to that right. Correct? It doesn't if something is on or off by default, as long as you yourself have the right to change it to suit your own purpose. So the fact that the Google toolbar is opt-in doesn't make it any better. It doesn't make it worse, but it doesn't make it better. Am I correct?

(Point 2) How far are you going to extend this fight? Does it apply equally to everyone?

For example, Google is giving you the tools to modify others' websites. But when it comes to its own website, here is what it has to say:

http://www.google.com/accou...

"5.3 You agree not to access (or attempt to access) any of the Services by any means other than through the interface that is provided by Google, unless you have been specifically allowed to do so in a separate agreement with Google."

So if you claim your right to mash-up, remix, annotate, augment, and otherwise modify Google's content (e.g. search results) for your purposes in your browser, Google strongly disagrees with you.

D'ya see the irony? Google provides you with a tool so that you can do what you want with other websites, but won't allow you to do what you want to their own website.

So does your fight include an attempt to remove this Google threat to your right to remix?

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

mterenzio — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:43:55 -0000

In other words, my point is that no matter where the change occurs, if it is done by a third party, it sounds like redistribution. If it is done by the end user, it sounds like fair use (or whatever the legal term for modifying a personal copy for personal use is)