thought experiment on importing

[charmian]

Poll #4361 thought experiment on importation

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 44

View Respondents

1. What if someone created a Facebook App that would allow LJ users to import their own journals, AND comments left on those journals to Facebook. Assume that the entries and comments would be imported in their entirety, with comments attributed to the LJ usernames of those who posted them. Assume that non-public entries would remain non-public, and filters would be assigned to filtered entries. What would you think about this? Assume that you were able to delete content left by you that you have access to.

View Answers

I'd oppose it/be offended by it.
16 (36.4%)

I would have no opinion/be indifferent.
23 (52.3%)

I would be very pleased by this.
2 (4.5%)

I would use this FB app to import my journal to Facebook.
1 (2.3%)

Other (please specify)
6 (13.6%)

2. What if someone created an FB App which could import LJ comms to an FB group. Assume similar conditions to the above.

View Answers

I'd oppose it/be offended by it.
18 (40.9%)

I would have no opinion/be indifferent.
24 (54.5%)

I would be very pleased by this.
1 (2.3%)

I would use this FB app to import my comm to Facebook.
1 (2.3%)

Other (please specify)
4 (9.1%)

edit: ugh, grammar fail. I forgot a question mark. -_-

Comments

[daweaver]

Specifically importing to The Facebook? Utterly against, on the grounds that The Facebook is owned and operated by lying weaselly toerags who are only in it for their own glory and profit, and couldn't give a flying chuff about their users. More generally, I would be more in favour if there were a simple procedure to delete all content from the remote server, whether publicly accessible or not, and to ensure it would not come back.

I think the nub of the problem is that importing someone's comments is implicitly forcing them to accept the basic ground rules of the new destination. For Wordpress, comments are anonymous-with-bells, so the term of service is trivial. For Dreamwidth, for Livejournal, for The Facebook, the legal agreement is significantly more complex. It's complete overkill when the only thing someone wants to do is go in and delete their content.

Perhaps this is another part of the resistance to Dreamwidth's mass importation tool - not only do some people believe the current owners are lying weaselly toerags who are only in it for their own glory and profit, but also they don't wish to sign up to the terms and conditions required by Dreamwidth, even to withdraw their consent.

The current owners of Dreamwidth permit importing other people's work, and base the defence of their actions on an interpretation of their local law. I can see where they're coming from, it's legally defensible, but it feels morally wrong.

And the defence only works locally. For those of us in Europe, the EU Database Directive (1996) specifically eliminates the "compilation copyright" concept, replacing it with a "database right". It's reasonably clear that a Livejournal-or-clone journal can be a database under this meaning, and hence can only be copied with the owner's permission. But there is a grey area: if an EEA national or resident can assert that their comments or contributions form an independent work, and hence that they hold database rights, then there's trouble. It's a high hurdle, but I can see certain circumstances (particularly in communities with only a couple of posters) where it could be met.

(goes off to make similar points in News)