The suggestion has in the past been made that I have behaved illegally, or at the very least unethically, by quoting things which people have posted on home education lists. A few days ago, somebody here compared me to a mugger, while another commented that I was like somebody who intercepted a private letter and broadcast the contents. It might be as well to look at these ideas, because the thinking behind them is distorted and irrational.
The first thing to bear in mind is that precisely the same rules and laws apply to communications on the internet as apply elsewhere. These cover both letters and general publications. The writer of any letter, email, article or book has the copyright for that thing, whether on the internet or anywhere else. This does not mean that people cannot quote the writer, as long as the quotation is within the bounds of 'fair use'. We shall look at this idea in a minute. Before we do so, let us ask ourselves what category posts on a subscriber only list like HE-UK might come under. Are they letters? If so, are they ordinary letters or are they either commercial letters or private and confidential letters? They are very rarely commercial letters and can hardly be regarded as private and confidential. One does not send a private letter to thousands of strangers! They are not really letters at all. The only sensible way of viewing them is as articles in a newsletter which is being distributed to many subscribers.
In ordinary life, the best comparison for lists like this is perhaps a church newsletter or one for a group with a specialist interest. Such things are not really private, many other people read them apart from those to whom they are sent. The copyright position is clear. The writers of the contributions retain their ownership of the copyright and nobody can take their work and try and pass it off as their own. One can quote from it and summarise the contents for others. One should also attribute the thing to whoever wrote it. This sort of thing comes under fair use, which is designed to allow people to comment on articles, review books and so on. As long as an extract is short and one does not try pretend it is one's own work, this is quite legal. If somebody quoted from one of my articles or books, I would have no case against her for breach of copyright in general.
So much for the legal aspects of the thing. What about ethical considerations? Does quoting from such a piece in a newsletter really put one in the same class as a mugger? It is hard to see how. Just as the law on copyright is the same on the internet, so too are the rules of common sense. How much information would one include in an article to the church newsletter? Would one be shocked or surprised if an anonymous piece on one's parenting problems in the church newsletter was mentioned elsewhere; say in the local newspaper? If you wrote for the newsletter under a pseudonym, would it be unethical for others to say, 'Oh, I bet that's Mary Smith'? How angry would one be if one gave details of some personal problem anonymously in the church newsletter and later saw that a newspaper had mentioned that a member of some church had such and such problem?
In short, the legal position for anybody posting on an internet list is clear. They retain the copyright for what they are writing. This also applies for emails in general, although there are special cases. If somebody quotes a piece that you have published on the internet, this is quite acceptable, although they should usually attribute it to you. If you are posting anonymously, there is nothing to stop anybody trying to guess your true identity. There are exceptions to this. In the case of wide publication on an internet list; you must take your chances. If I were to post anonymously and then be unmasked, I would hardly be in a position to complain; I would have done better to be honest and open in the first place.
I hope that this has made things a little clearer for readers. Legally and ethically, the same rules apply on the internet as apply in everyday life. If one considers it unethical to pass on an anecdote from a local church newsletter, then of course one will view a similar action on the internet in the same light. Few of us have such a scrupulous moral code as this! There is always a hazard in publishing an article anywhere, whether on the internet or in a magazine. One of the hazards of publishing an anonymous piece is that people will figure out who you are. This can be awkward for one, but is hardly criminal or even unethical behaviour on the part of the person doing the guessing! Simply use the same rules of common sense on the internet as you would in ordinary life and you will not go far wrong. There are no special rules for home educators in this respect; they have to go by the same code and take the same chances as everyone else.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This isn’t about plagiarism; no one has accused you of passing off as your own work comments made by other people on membership-only internet lists. It’s about privacy. And the privacy issues are not analogous to the content of a newsletter sent to subscribers, where, once published, who sees the contents is by definition outside the control of the publisher or contributors.
ReplyDeleteA better analogy would be comments made in a private gathering, whether it’s a committee meeting or a dinner party, and where there’s an implicit assumption that what is said is intended only for the ears of the people present. It is not technically illegal for remarks made at such meetings to be made public, unless there’s a formal agreement on non-disclosure, but people take a dim view of comments being put in the public domain without the permission of those who made them, because if people are aware that everything they say could end up broadcast to all and sundry, it undermines their confidence to speak freely. In addition, there’s the problem of comments taken out of context being misunderstood by people who weren’t present at the time.
Internet lists have a well-established etiquette regarding offensive words, personal remarks, not quoting without permission etc. and I would say you’d have to do some serious mental gymnastics to justify posting material from a members-only list in the public domain, because a members-only list is by definition for the use of members only and material posted on it intended only for the eyes of members.
I completely agree that legally and ethically, the same rules apply on the internet as apply in everyday life. But in everyday life, people who make public information intended only for the ears of the bowls club committee, or the content of a conversation they overheard at a dinner party, are not generally viewed with approval, because they have contravened some important social rules. To be sure, the bowls club committee and the people having a private conversation at a party should be aware that there is a risk that their comments might be broadcast far and wide, but they are making the not unreasonable assumption that those present abide by the same social conventions. Anyone who does broadcast the content of the conversations has made an active choice to break a social convention. Those who have criticised you for doing so are not thinking irrationally nor in a distorted manner - they simply recognise a widely accepted social convention for which you appear to have no regard.
the content of a conversation they overheard at a dinner party, are not generally viewed with approval,'
ReplyDeleteCompletely different thing from sitting down and typing one's thoughts out and then sending them off to be read by thousands of strangers; people unknown to you. Eavesdropping on a private conversation at the bowls club is one thing; mentioning a bit you read in a copy of their newsletter is quite another.
OK, let's look at the analogy in more detail. Let's say in your neighbourhood there's a well-attended playgroup. The playgroup committee plus regular helpers meet once a month for a planning meeting. At one meeting, a parent makes a comment about her child and a few days later she, and other people present at the meeting are a bit taken aback to find a reference to her comment in an article in a local newspaper. She can't correct, defend or put her comment in context without publicly identifying herself, which for a variety of good reasons, she might not want to do.
ReplyDeleteComplaints are made to the newspaper editor who responds that the article represents ‘fair use’ of the information and that people should be aware that comments they make at meetings are likely to get into the public domain.
Some months later, another playgroup parent (parent B) discovers that a comment she made at a playgroup planning meeting is also the subject of a newspaper article. When she mentions this at the next meeting, the first parent (parent A) responds, inaccurately, that in the first article her child was named. On hearing about this comment, the author of the articles, having worked with local children, is fearful for his reputation amongst playgroup helpers and in the community and writes a third article repudiating the claim and justifying his actions by drawing attention to an article in another newspaper in which parent A discloses details about herself and her family.
Do you think that such a scenario would go unnoticed by the local community? Or that the playgroup committee would not start wondering who was leaking information to the press? Or that a newspaper article in which material about a family is published with their consent justifies different information being put into another article without their consent? Or that disclosing information about one group of parents without their permission is not going to make another group of parents wary?
'At one meeting, a parent makes a comment about her child and a few days later she, and other people present at the meeting are a bit taken aback to find a reference to her comment in an article in a local newspaper. '
ReplyDeleteThis is not at all the same thing. A cosy chat with people you know is one thing. Writing down your personal information and sending it off to three thousand strangers, none of whom you have met is something else entirely. This is publication. Repeating the conversation of people at a private meeting, as you describe, would be a breach of trust. Quoting from the newsletter sent round by a playgroup or school would be another matter. This is because while we might speak unguardedly at a small meeting where we know all the people present, most of us realise that when a newsletter is going to be sent to thousands of people, not all of them will be known to us. We are thus a little bit more cautious with our information, writing only the sort of stuff that we would not mind anybody knowing.
I have been involved with schools where I have been told things by parents which I would not dream of repeating. If the parent concerned wished to put what she has told me into an article and allow the school to publish it in their newsletter, then I feel no sort of responsibility to keep this secret. Theoretically, the newsletter is a private one, sent only to parents. However, it gets left laying around and so visitors to homes may see it; I have even seen a copy in the local library! This is what lists like HE-UK are like. They have thousands of subscribers, not all of them home educators, some of them not even parents. It is a newsletter to which every member may contribute. They must though exercise common sense and not treat it as a personal conversation; these places are quite different from that. In a personal conversation, you know to whom you are talking. When you write stuff down and send it off to thousands of strangers like this, you have no idea at all of who will read it.
The point is that information on a members-only internet list is not 'left laying around'. It's not at all the same as a newsletter that might end up in the local library. In order to get into the public domain the content of a members-only internet list has to be actively sought out and made public by someone. You can't just happen across it when you are idly Googling.
ReplyDeleteIndeed people posting on such a list do risk their comments getting into the public domain, but that doesn't happen accidentally - only because unscrupulous people transfer them.
'In order to get into the public domain the content of a members-only internet list has to be actively sought out and made public by someone.'
ReplyDeleteI honestly think that you live in a different world from me. Things which come onto a family computer have a habit of being seen by others than the intended recipient. When five or six people share the same computer, it is inevitable. Sending a message to a 'private' group, you might hope that only those who have actually signed up to the group will see it, but this is unlikely. One member of the family will often see messages up on the screen as they pass by somebody else using the computer. People also talk to each other about what they are reading. Do you really suppose that nobody on the HE-UK list ever says to people at a local group,'Oh, I saw an interesting post on a list which I belong to'? It is enough to say that you do not know to whom you are sending your information on a so-called private list. That alone whould make you a little careful. When you consider that each of those three thousand members might mention what they have seen to their husband, children friends, other relatives, people at playgroups and anywhere else; this alone should be enough to make you cautious about how much you say. A private conversation is one between people you know. This is not the case here. In any case, as I have said before, in the case of the HE-UK list, Mike Fortune-Wood invites various professionals onto the list without telling anybody. These people, psychologists and so on, are also reading all the posts. This is not a private space, nor would anybody in their right mind treat it as such.
'This is not a private space, nor would anybody in their right mind treat it as such.'
ReplyDeleteNor is it a public space. Mentioning posts to members of ones family does not put them in the public domain. The fact that privacy might be abused does not make the abuse of that privacy right.
It appears that this is just your attempt to justify your unethical behavior. It does not excuse the underhanded manner in which you obtain emails from private lists and then proceed to vilify, ridicule and judge the author on your public blog.
ReplyDelete' Mentioning posts to members of ones family does not put them in the public domain. '
ReplyDeleteWell, yes it does. I have friends who I would not trust with sensitive information. This is because they are people who tell their husbands, children and twelve best friends about anything they hear. Once you know that somebody gossips to their family and friends about what they hear, you sometimes curtail the flow of information to these people. It does not take long for a story to make the rounds of one's neighbourhood if you let these people hear about it! The problem is, we don't know which of the thousands of people on an internet list are like that. This is because they are all strangers about whom we know nothing at all. Posting up information to a random bunch of strangers is in general a pretty good way of ensuring that this information is spread around! This is the case whether you put it on an internet list which anybody at all can join or put a card in the local newsagents window. What you really seem to be saying is that it would be a better world if people didn't gossip, which may well be true. Since people do gossip, the remedy is to be careful with whom you share information. At the very least, do not send a lot of personal information out to random strangers and then cross your fingers and hope that they will not speak of it to anybody else. This is a recipe for disaster, whether on the internet or anywhere else.
'Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteIt appears that this is just your attempt to justify your unethical behavior. It does not excuse the underhanded manner in which you obtain emails from private lists and then proceed to vilify, ridicule and judge the author on your public blog.'
Get a grip, Anonymous! I posted the piece today rather as a public service broadcast, to keep people up to speed with both the law of copyright and also the implications of posting personal information to strangers. Concern has been expressed on other lists of which I am not a member at the situation regarding copyright. Since nobody seemed to understand the concept, I thought I would say a few words about it. For example, some people had the impression that it was actionable to quote somebody's email without permission. This is of course absurd.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"Writing down your personal information and sending it off to three thousand strangers, none of whom you have met is something else entirely."
It it were a comment in a random blog I would agree. But the comments were made on an email list and email lists have rules, as suzyg says, there are social conventions attached to messages sent to email lists. The email list rules state that messages should not be used without the authors permission. Yes, there is a danger that someone will not abide by the rules or social conventions in other examples, but the email list member's awareness of this danger doesn't mean that it becomes ethical to then ignore the rules.
The list rules state that messages should not be repeated elsewhere without the permission of the author. When you sign up to a group you agree to abide by the rules. It is unethical to break rules you have agreed to abide by.
Comparison to a mugger: there is a law that people cannot mug others. If someone enters a dodgy area of town the know they are at an increased risk of being mugged. This still doesn't make it legal for a mugger to mug them. Obviously you have not broken a law but you have broken a rule. That's why I compared you to a mugger, though I also made the point at the time that there are obvious differences (that you hadn't broken a law). Analogies are never perfect.
With regards to Fair dealing (fair use as it is called in the USA). The situation concerning electronic mail clearly states:-
ReplyDeleteFair dealing ceases if:
the copy is made publicly available, such as on a website, without the permission of the copyright holder.
'With regards to Fair dealing (fair use as it is called in the USA). The situation concerning electronic mail clearly states:-
ReplyDeleteFair dealing ceases if:
the copy is made publicly available, such as on a website, without the permission of the copyright holder.'
This is quite true, if one posts the whole of anything written by another person without permission. Emails are not a special case. Quoting from them, just as from an article, letter or book, is fair use. So too, is discussing the contents of an email. This applies to personal eamils which one person sends to another. It is not relevant in the context of a mailshot or where somebody sends the same message to thousands of people at once; which is essentailly what is done on an internet list.
'The list rules state that messages should not be repeated elsewhere without the permission of the author. When you sign up to a group you agree to abide by the rules. It is unethical to break rules you have agreed to abide by.'
ReplyDeleteNow this really is Alice in Wonderland! Let's look at some of the rules for this particular list;
'This group is for the exclusive use of those who are home educating or are considering home educating their children.You will be sure of finding a welcome here.
You will find plenty of support and advice on all issues relating to home education.
This is your gateway to the HE community.
NOTE:
The following persons are not eligible for membership (the following list is not exhaustive):
Employees of local authority education departments
Employees of Social Services
Journalists
Researchers
Academics'
Now the first sentence of these rules is interesting. 'This group is for the exclusive use of those who are home educating or are considering home educating their children'
We all know perfectly well that the HE-UK list is full of people who are neither home educating their children nor considering doing so in the future. These are former home educators. I won't name names, but I can see at least a dozen regular posters in that category. Gosh, they are breaking the rules. How unethical is that! Does anybody care about this rule? What about the blaket ban on researchers and academics? Wait a minute, does that not include Paula Rothermel? Another rule broken!
The point I am making is that nobody really takes the rules of this group seriously. I have only quoted a few minor points here; there are many others. Is anybody really suggesting that former home educators should be chucked off the list? No, I didn't think so. The only person whose violation of these rules ever bothers anybody seems to be me!
"The only person whose violation of these rules ever bothers anybody seems to be me!"
ReplyDeleteAnd thus reinforcing your feelings of victimization.
Other people breaking list rules are irrelevant (and debatable). Two wrongs do not make right. Many members of the list will have read the rules and posted believing that others would abide by those rules. You might just as well say, 'well lots of other people are muggers, so I don't need to abide by that law either'.
ReplyDelete"The only person whose violation of these rules ever bothers anybody seems to be me!"
Maybe because you are the only example of someone openly violating the rules in order to harm others and harm home education.
Amazing how often you return to the HEUK list despite stating several times over the years that 'this is my final word on the UKHE list', or words to that effect. Why the obsession, Simon?
ReplyDelete'And thus reinforcing your feelings of victimization'
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, it is only a couple of days since I was accused of being a bully. Now you seem to be suggesting that I am a victim.
'Other people breaking list rules are irrelevant (and debatable). Two wrongs do not make right. Many members of the list will have read the rules and posted believing that others would abide by those rules. You might just as well say, 'well lots of other people are muggers, so I don't need to abide by that law either'.'
ReplyDeleteSo, does this mean that you think that anybody who has finished home educating for good is ethically obliged to leave the list or not? I can't quite understand your point of view about this.
'Why the obsession, Simon?'
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that obsession is precisely the word. I keep an eye on many home education lists, but HE-UK is, on a number of levels, in a class of its own. Returning to it regularly is a bit like picking at a scab or squeezing a spot. It is disgusting and you know you shoudn't do it and yet there is a horrid fascination which compels you onwards!
"So, does this mean that you think that anybody who has finished home educating for good is ethically obliged to leave the list or not?"
ReplyDeleteOf course I do, if that were the intention of that rule. I suspect however that this was not the intention, that this is an accidental wording, and that the listowner would consider home educators who have children older 16 as home educators. If it were disputed, I'm reasonably sure he would change the wording.
"To be fair, it is only a couple of days since I was accused of being a bully. Now you seem to be suggesting that I am a victim."
ReplyDeletePerhaps you would fall into the 'victim bully' category then.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"you know you shoudn't do it and yet there is a horrid fascination which compels you onwards"
Sounds like an obsession to me:
Obsession: Compulsive preoccupation with a fixed idea or an unwanted feeling or emotion
'Sounds like an obsession to me:
ReplyDeleteObsession: Compulsive preoccupation with a fixed idea or an unwanted feeling or emotion'
Well, perhaps you have a point, Anonymous!
Not this same old shit again, how repetitive.
ReplyDeleteDarren
"Not this same old shit again, how repetitive."
ReplyDeleteI agree, this blog is very repetitive. Not sure why he feels the need to write something (anything) every day. I've managed to fit the last 23 posts into 5 categories and suspect the very few extra categories would be needed for the whole blog (600+ articles).
8 - Attacking individual home educators and/or the UKHE email list
2 - Anti-school post/anti-negative reasons for HE (!)
6 - Pro monitoring and/or home visits/LAs having greater powers
5 - Links to articles of interest (often anti-HE)
2 - Anti-supporters of the campaign against Schedule 1
'I agree, this blog is very repetitive. Not sure why he feels the need to write something (anything) every day. I've managed to fit the last 23 posts into 5 categories and suspect the very few extra categories would be needed for the whole blog (600+ articles).'
ReplyDeleteWhoa, some people have way to much time on their hands! Seems to me Anonymous that you are spending more time looking at my blog and categorising the contents than I do in writing the thing.
Here's a little hint for those who find themselves on a blog which they find to be boring or repetitious. You can either do what I do, which is to avoid that blog in the future, or you can keep reading it and complaining that it is boring and repetitious. Perhaps readers who have other methods for dealing with boring and repetitious blogs would like to share them to help out those who are apparently at a loss to know how to avoid being bored and reading the same type of article over and over again?
ReplyDelete"Seems to me Anonymous that you are spending more time looking at my blog and categorising the contents than I do in writing the thing."
ReplyDeleteTook a few minutes - hardly an age.
"Here's a little hint for those who find themselves on a blog which they find to be boring or repetitious."
You've been told before by others - one of the reasons people continue to read you blog is because they don't want your lies and/or sloppy thinking to stand unchallenged.
If there is no privacy on the internet can your daughter really complain when her college reads her Twitter messages and is not very happy about them?
ReplyDeleteIs it sensible for her to make public the fact the she drinks in pubs even though underage and gets hungover?
Maybe she should protect her tweets? Maybe you should show her your blog posts on this very topic and advise her as part of your public service. One rule for all, no exceptions (apart from for your family, of course, to which a whole different set of rules seem to apply).
Ultimately, if you want to keep something private, keep it completely away from the internet. That means don't put it in an email, don't put it in a blog post, don't put it on Facebook or Twitter or any other social media site. It will come back to haunt you one day if it's that important to keep quiet.
ReplyDelete'That means don't put it in an email, don't put it in a blog post, don't put it on Facebook or Twitter or any other social media site. It will come back to haunt you one day if it's that important to keep quiet.'
ReplyDeleteSound advice indeed!
'One rule for all, no exceptions (apart from for your family, of course, to which a whole different set of rules seem to apply).'
ReplyDeleteIf you have such a bleak life that you have nothing better to do than follow a teenage girl on twitter, then that's fine by me! Blimey, a seventeen year old girl drinking alcohol; Hot stuff indeed!
"It will come back to haunt you one day if it's that important to keep quiet."
ReplyDeleteAnd of course, you can never be sure what will be important to keep quiet about in future. Simon has queried the use of 'anonymous' in comments quite often. Part of the reason I don't use a consistent name is because I do want to use parts of my life and experiences to make points but I don't want to risk all the points being added together making me and my children identifiable. But maybe I'm fooling myself and everyone knows who I am anyway?
"Ultimately, if you want to keep something private, keep it completely away from the internet."
ReplyDeleteAgree 100% and have been aware of this issue for many years. But this still doesn't justify taking advantage of people you know are unaware of the dangers.
'But maybe I'm fooling myself and everyone knows who I am anyway?'
ReplyDeleteInitials J P perhaps????
"If you have such a bleak life that you have nothing better to do than follow a teenage girl on twitter, then that's fine by me!"
ReplyDeleteSounds like quite an accurate description of yourself lurking on HE internet lists.
"Initials J P perhaps???? "
ReplyDelete'Fraid not. But then I would say that, wouldn't I? But really, I'm not J P. Don't even know who you mean so I don't know if I should feel pleased or insulted.
It is clearly not against the purpose of the list for people whose children have turned 16 to stay on it, offering support and information around that transition, whether or not they still home educate, and even if the rules don't explicitly state they are welcome. That is very different from someone who uses information gleaned from a support list to mock either an individual or a group of people in a public blog or newspaper.
ReplyDeleteRL
'It is clearly not against the purpose of the list for people whose children have turned 16 to stay on it, offering support and information around that transition, whether or not they still home educate, and even if the rules don't explicitly state they are welcome.'
ReplyDeleteThe rules specifically state that such people are unwelcome;
''This group is for the exclusive use of those who are home educating or are considering home educating their children.'
If you are not home educating or considering home education, then this group is forbidden to you.
"If you are not home educating or considering home education, then this group is forbidden to you."
ReplyDeleteSo if you are considering HE in the future, you can join. It states that people who are considering home education for 'their children' which obviously includes future, unborn children or grand-children (it's common usage that parent/carer are interchangeable and grand-parents have and do home educated grand-children). The requirement is a serious interest in home educating in the future, so I can't agree that currently being an ex-home educator disqualifies you from membership because you could easily become a home educator again at some point in the future.
But I still think it was just carelessly worded. I doubt Mike intended that people would have to leave the list once their youngest child reaches school leaving age, especially as many continue to HE for longer even when their child attends college part of the time.
ReplyDelete