Slashdot | Who Owns Weblog Content?

Here's Slashdot | Who Owns Weblog Content? discussion on this Information Week article regarding copyright issues and inappropriate blogging. My opinion?

Most people who publish appreciate being properly credited for their ideas. They may primarily want to express themselves, but if that is all they wanted, they could do so anonymously and avoid the negative reactions of employers and others who disagree.

IMO, the primary reason to publish is to express one's ideas for others to see, interpret, and respond to. It is one unit of a public conversation. Most people who engage in public discourse do not publish to make money. Getting ideas out is primary, making money is of practical interest to only a minority. Obviously, being properly credited for your work is important if you are in the publishing business. But, the concerns of the publishing industry ( by that, I mean, writers, artists, performers, and all those who make a business of getting intellectual property sold) should not overide the interests of other people who create and use publicly expressed ideas.

With regards to the people who are punished for blogging stuff that their employer disapproves of, precedents exist in the "real world". The only difference is that now it is possible for employees to air the "dirty laundry" more easily and in front of a much larger audience. It is also easier for word to get back to the employer who can then easily access the offending expressions himself.

It would be smart for the blogger to be truthful and fair. If a problem is resolved, that should be reported. In return, the employer should only punish employers who are truly out to cause harm to the company. But, what constitutes harm?

Although most people take humor with a grain of salt, the butt of the joke may be much more sensitive, especially if he thinks real money is at stake. With time, bloggers and employers will settle on standards of acceptability much as has happened with journalists and other professional communicators. Since the bloggers are frequently not professional communicators, the employers will probably have to settle for a lower standard if they want to come across to the blog reading public as fair and not stuffy or prickly.

Surely a truly harmful employee can be fired. If he has libeled someone, he should be put on paid administrative leave at least. If he has committed a crime, he should be prosecuted. But, if the employee has made a legitimate complaint, the employer should enable him to communicate more directly. The employee, in turn, should report on these efforts to resolve the problem.