"I never thought I would compromise." - Björk, Unison
I'm sure it has to do with my own work as a "pro-blogger" now that I'm thinking a lot about this but the gawker/durst legal situation has been on my mind a lot this weekend. Yesterday, my thoughts had to do with the privacy question and the ideas of rules, checks and balances, and the kind of cowboy lawlessness that governs (or doesn't govern) blogs right now.
Today, my thoughts are about the right to distribute materials. I started thinking about The Grey Album and how the blog and online music community as a whole decided to distribute it despite not having a legal right to do so. That was a form of protest, right? That was a conscious decision made by members of the online community to circumvent the law to make a point.
As a short-lived music blogger, I wilfully circumvented the law and disclaimed the site with that information (as many music bloggers do) in order to share and promote music. I knew I was legally wrong, that I was not within my rights to do so but felt that the ends - passing on music I liked to new ears - justified the means. I also knew that I was opening myself up to legal troubles should someone with publishing and distribution rights come calling.
Thinking back on it, it's a stupid risk to take, but I believe in the idea of sharing music to increase its exposure and I also think that record labels are going to see how this helps their product more than it hurts it.
That said, I had no right to distribute that music. I didn't create it. I might own my copy but putting it on the internet on a public site is distributing to a mass audience. The most massive of audiences and I don't have the right to do so.
Which brings me to the Durst video. The sites that have/are hosting the video don't own the video, don't have the right to distribute it, and, if it is stolen, are in posession of stolen material. And again, we might make light of it because the video is funny or disturbing or features people we generally don't like but it is not as if gawker media created the video or are seeking to say something by hosting it.
There's no question of free speech here.
The question is do we, as personal publishers (and, in particular, as "pro-bloggers") have the right to publish anything to our sites just because we can whether or not it is our original material?
I think not.
