Hello Charles,
Not to enter into a vehement argument with you or others here, but as a GTR subscriber I'd like to air some observations concerning this subject, if I may.
Your asked,
".. since you you don't mind ripping off copyright holders, how 'bout posting the Gilder report. Or, is it somehow OK to violate the [fac edit: "publication's"] copyright but not GG's?"
If pressed to the wall, I'd have to say that I don't condone ripping off materials from anyone , especially where the originator doesn't fully expect it to be ripped off and tacitly agrees to it through ignoring infractions. Or, where the sheer number of infractions makes it impossible to continue any expectation of being able to enforce against them, as it now seems to be nearly, if not in actuality, the case right now on the 'net.
In most of these cases, I'd imagine that most dailies have developed some very thick skins in this respect, although it's still not proper. On the other hand, many a new subscription has been executed by those who've only read a single GTR, or Cook Report, or Forrester forecast, for that matter, when excerpts from those publications have been posted over the 'net.
There's a perverse kind of irony which exists when examining these issues: The "sell" aspect for the publication which is engendered by these "illicit" postings is usually much higher when they are distributed illegally in their native pdf or other full-blown cosmetically appealing form, than where they exist in snippets or paraphrased passages.
Information, especially good information that is packaged in an enticing manner, is highly infectious and contagious. [See my allusion to GG's use of the Metcalfe's Law metaphor, below.]
But that still doesn't exonerate those who improperly taketh, and giveth what doesn't belong to them. Granted.
In the case of the GTR report, I think that the unspoken rule is that we just don't do it, especially right away. But, is it the intent behind GTR to be extremely protective about its unauthorized distribution, and is it truly a copyrighted publication as you say, to the same extent as the other which you cite?
I can't speak for GG, but I can read between the lines. I sense a form of gentleperson's agreement here where it is fully expected that a level of decorum exists without the need for formal sanctions. A way of extracting deserved fees from subscribers who'll be the first recipients of each month's report, but which reports are fully intended for the world at large during subsequent moments in time.
Further reading between the lines, one can see some mild tensions which exist between protecting what subscribers see as their sole rights, and the more altruistic issues surrounding the dissemination of good information to the world at large. And then there is the sell aspect I cited above, too, which I'm sure gets inserted into the calculus at some point, by those at the helm who must contend with all of these issues at GTR. There must have been plenty of discussions about these issues, I'd imagine.
------
The dissemination of GTR materials, and other of George's work, in open forums by reposting them has been a subject discussed by subscribers for as long as I can recall, both here in SI and on the Gildertech board, itself.
I may as well say that I personally do see pluses, as well as minuses, to the practice of eventual reposting, even if within a short time of publication, since I feel that the more readers it reaches, the better for all concerned. I believe that George would agrees with some of these views himself, as he recently commented, in kind, when citing Metcalfe's Law on his own board.
I'll PM those highly enlightened statements by him, IMO, to anyone here wishing to see them. But right now, I see no purpose in gaining too much of an advantage here in this discussion, so I'll defer for the moment from posting it here.
Now, doesn't this position of mine which I just stated in the prededing sentence say something relevant to the topic at hand? -grin-
There are some rules of decorum that are obvious, and some that need to be spelled out. I think that in this case, Gilder expects his subscribers to honor the obvious ones, without a need for enforcement. I'm quite certain that if I'm mistaken about any of this, George will speak up and let me know, either here or in PM.
The only other guarded aspect of the publication's dissemination, which speaks to yet another level of unspokenness, is how to regard the release of the emailed version at the time of initial release.
Here I would vote on the side of not, without any compunctions at all, solely in deference to George and his subscribers for reasons having only to do with still another unspoken (but increasingly written about) effect. That being, the leverage which many see in the "pick" value of each Issue at the time of its publication.
Which pick value, itself, is not the primary intent behind making ascendant technology assessments according to George, at least not from a market timing indicator viewpoint. And I'm sure that there are some unspoken aspects that can be said about that, too.
-----
There's nothing overly heartfelt here, only voicing some observations as a GTR subscriber, myself, since I, too, have had concerns about how and when to share the information contained within the monthly reports.
Personally, I share their contents only with senior in-house staff, as they relate from time to time to matters at hand, and with family. And if a topic is timely, selectively, with another colleague or two who might be a client or a close fellow netizen. After the report has had some time to ferment, but not at the time of email release. Just for the record.
Regards, Frank Coluccio |
