-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Copyright Violations
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Fern
Elite Member
The case you cite is in the Western federal district/cuircut. While my profession is tax law, not civil law, I'm fairly certain that the different district AT is in is not required to follow precedent of the Western district.
A precedent from our district here would be more compelling.
A policy change here at AT based soley on this case seems premature to me.
Fern
Matthias99
Diamond Member
*cough*NFS4*cough*.
Just adding comments, generally, is not enough to allow you to repost an entire article. Just don't copy/paste the whole article -- provide a link to the source, and quote a relevant section if you think it is needed.
My understanding is also that you cannot reproduce (online or otherwise) a copyrighted work in full (or in any amount basically beyond a few paragraphs of written text), even if you 'give credit' for the work. Scale is irrelevant -- reprinting an AP news article is still illegal, even though rebroadcasting the Super Bowl (example given above) would have a bigger monetary impact.
The user would definitely be at fault. The forum might also be held responsible if they knew it was going on and didn't make a reasonable effort to stop it or tell the user not to do it. This has been an ongoing problem with copyright law on the Internet; it is VERY unclear what a service provider can be held responsible for, and what steps they are allowed/required to take to police their users.
IANAL, but federal court rulings are, AFAIK, still federal rulings, and doesn't federal law apply everywhere in the US? If a court in another district rules differently, or the ruling is appealed, a higher federal court (possibly the Supreme Court) would have to sort it out, but until then their ruling should be considered authoritative. Keep in mind that this is a federal court ruling on federal law, not a federal court providing a ruling on a state law.
Fern
Elite Member
Take tax law for example - it is federal law and aplies everywhere, similar to this federal copyright law. When we are looking at a set of facts and attempting to apply the law we look for similar cases. If the case is a Supremem Court we MUST follow its precedent (or hope to find a fact peculiar to our set of circumstances which allows us to claim our case is therefore different).
If the precedent is from OUR District appeals court, we MUST follow it (notwithstanding any differences in fact). The reason we must follow it is because our case will end up in front of our District Court and we already know how they interpret the law. If our facts are basically the same the court will not even hear it. We lose automatically.
If the precedent is from another District, we do NOT need to follow it because we will not end up in that other District Court. We get to take the case to our District and they may well rule differently. This happens quite often.
In other words, it is entirely feasable that our District Court would take exactly the same set of facts and rule the exact opposite. When this occurs, the losing parties only avenue is the Supreme Court. Most parties, including the IRS, often opt to drop it at that point. Its extremely expensive to pursue it at that level, and there is no gaurantee SCOTUS will even grant to hear it.
The case cited above is from a lower court in another District and therefore means little to us in our District.
Fern
Matthias99
Diamond Member
...and they also might rule the same way. It seems somewhat wrong (again, IANAL) to knowingly act against a federal court's ruling just because the federal court in your area hasn't made a ruling one way or the other on that issue.
In any case, I don't think this is an area where another court is going to find significantly differently. Completely reproducing a copyrighted work just to 'comment on it' is very unlikely to be allowed under fair use doctrines IMO; allowing this would mean you could basically distribute any copyrighted material you want as long as you commented on it in some way, and that is not going to happen.
Fern
Elite Member
While it may seem wrong to you, it is done all the time. A regular practice. Note that the courts do not MAKE laws (that is the domain of Congress). Courts INTERPRETE law.
Also note that this sword cuts both ways. For example in my profession I may want to rely on a favorable case from the Western District. However, the IRS is not compelled to agree, and often they don't. They would do exactly what I am suggesting here.
I.e., while the IRS may have the lost the case in the Western District, nothing stops them from re-trying it in my own District. And they often do.
In other words, the IRS does exactly what I am suggesting in my posts here. If the US gov does it, so can we 😉
Don't let the analogy with tax law confuse you. It is part of the Federal statutes just like civil or criminal law, it's just in a different section of the code. We use the same court system, with the same rules etc.
And I repeat, this appears to be only a lower court ruling (and in another district). A different set of attorneys arguing the same case before a different set of judges may produce a different outcome. Thats the way the system is supposed to work. Different attorneys and judges may have new/fresh thoughts on the application of law to even the same set of facts. It's all a big "review process" to help ensure nothing was left out of the analysis.
To rely exclusivey on a lower court ruling ( or an appeals court in another juristicton) is misguided, otherwise we wouldn't even need a Supreme Court. Once any court ruled on a matter, we wouldn't need to revisit it. And we know thats not the case because cases are over-turned all the time. Especialy out of this district.
I remind you that this is the district that ruled the "Pledge of Allegiance" was unconstitutional. Now that's not the "law of the land" is it? It was overturned. No-one needed to comply with it.
EDIT: Whats "IANAL" mean?
Fern
Michael
Elite member
DrPizza,
I complained about this practice years ago and eventually the mods told me that the issue was closed and they were allowing it. I am certain that posting the entire article is a copyright violation, but the policy here is to allow it (but to ban people who copy/steal software and the site gets outrages if an article from here is just copies onto another site).
As you can tell from the tone of the response from some of the Elite members in this thread, the chances of getting this practiuce to stop are just about nil.
One day a member who is mad at the site will email thread links to a bunch of newspapers and a cease and desist letter will get sent out, but it doesn't appear to have happened yet.
Michael
I complained about this practice years ago and eventually the mods told me that the issue was closed and they were allowing it. I am certain that posting the entire article is a copyright violation, but the policy here is to allow it (but to ban people who copy/steal software and the site gets outrages if an article from here is just copies onto another site).
As you can tell from the tone of the response from some of the Elite members in this thread, the chances of getting this practiuce to stop are just about nil.
One day a member who is mad at the site will email thread links to a bunch of newspapers and a cease and desist letter will get sent out, but it doesn't appear to have happened yet.
Michael
Matthias99
Diamond Member
Yeah, I understand the whole appeals process, but it just seems counterintuitive that you can ignore the other court's ruling entirely. Logically, it seems like that ruling should stand until there is an appeal or a ruling by a higher court that says otherwise. Of course, that leaves a big grey area in terms of what to do if two 'equal' courts in different regions rule differently.
However, once again, I must emphasize that IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer), and legal things don't always make a lot of sense from a purely logical perspective. 😛
Need4Speed
Diamond Member
make it stop....no one cares
Michael
Elite member
JEDIYoda,
If you don't think that CNN, NY Times and others would not react to complete copying of their text here if they were alerted to it, then your grasp of "logic" and reality is poor.
Fair Use laws do not allow for reprinting an entire article.
However, the mods have told me that the official pliocy is to let it keep occuring and asked me not to argue it. As such, I limit my discussion to threads like this one when someone else brings up the topic. I complained and received a personal reply that it wasn't going to change. I still think they're wrong, but I respect their request.
Michael
If you don't think that CNN, NY Times and others would not react to complete copying of their text here if they were alerted to it, then your grasp of "logic" and reality is poor.
Fair Use laws do not allow for reprinting an entire article.
However, the mods have told me that the official pliocy is to let it keep occuring and asked me not to argue it. As such, I limit my discussion to threads like this one when someone else brings up the topic. I complained and received a personal reply that it wasn't going to change. I still think they're wrong, but I respect their request.
Michael
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Why does who care? If you're referring to me, it's because I enjoy this site and appreciate the efforts of everyone who have allowed this site to be here for us. As such, I noticed a problem which could potentially have a future impact on this site. Thus, I brought up the topic. It's not up to me to make policy here; I'll leave that to those in charge. I simply supplied some information which they can use in consideration of possibly changing a policy or two. The decision is theirs.
Need4Speed
Diamond Member
saw this on CNN si today:
HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. (AP) -- The New York Jets slashed their payroll Wednesday by cutting Pro Bowl cornerback Ty Law and a host of other veterans, including quarterback Jay Fiedler, offensive tackle Jason Fabini and fullback Jerald Sowell.
The team is about $26 million over the salary cap and must be at or under the salary cap by March 3, the opening day of free agency.
The Jets have been negotiating with quarterback Chad Pennington, who twice in the last two years had rotator cuff surgery, in an attempt to reduce a cap number that could be as high as $12 million.
New York has shaken up its staff and is trying to rebuild under new coach Eric Mangini. These latest moves came a day after the Jets designated defensive end John Abraham their franchise player at $8.3 million, although they may try to trade him.
Also cut were three reserves: linebacker Barry Gardner, defensive tackle Lance Legree and wide receiver Harry Williams Jr.
The Jets and Law agreed to not exercise contract options for the next three seasons that were part of the deal when he signed last year. The 32-year-old cornerback spent his first 10 seasons with New England and tied for the NFL lead with 10 interceptions last season.
"We were very fortunate to have a player of Ty's caliber in 2005," general manager Mike Tannebaum said. "Ty is a warrior and a class act and we appreciate his contributions this past season."
Fiedler, who signed with the team last season, injured his shoulder seven plays after Pennington was hurt in the third game last season and did not play again.
Fabini and Sowell are longtime starters -- Fabini started his first 114 games at offensive tackle until he tore a chest muscle Nov. 18 and was lost for the season. Sowell played for nine seasons.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. (AP) -- The New York Jets slashed their payroll Wednesday by cutting Pro Bowl cornerback Ty Law and a host of other veterans, including quarterback Jay Fiedler, offensive tackle Jason Fabini and fullback Jerald Sowell.
The team is about $26 million over the salary cap and must be at or under the salary cap by March 3, the opening day of free agency.
The Jets have been negotiating with quarterback Chad Pennington, who twice in the last two years had rotator cuff surgery, in an attempt to reduce a cap number that could be as high as $12 million.
New York has shaken up its staff and is trying to rebuild under new coach Eric Mangini. These latest moves came a day after the Jets designated defensive end John Abraham their franchise player at $8.3 million, although they may try to trade him.
Also cut were three reserves: linebacker Barry Gardner, defensive tackle Lance Legree and wide receiver Harry Williams Jr.
The Jets and Law agreed to not exercise contract options for the next three seasons that were part of the deal when he signed last year. The 32-year-old cornerback spent his first 10 seasons with New England and tied for the NFL lead with 10 interceptions last season.
"We were very fortunate to have a player of Ty's caliber in 2005," general manager Mike Tannebaum said. "Ty is a warrior and a class act and we appreciate his contributions this past season."
Fiedler, who signed with the team last season, injured his shoulder seven plays after Pennington was hurt in the third game last season and did not play again.
Fabini and Sowell are longtime starters -- Fabini started his first 114 games at offensive tackle until he tore a chest muscle Nov. 18 and was lost for the season. Sowell played for nine seasons.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
imported_Mike
Lifer
Do you record anything on a VCR? I could understand if someone is copying an article from a site you have to be a registered user to access. If its just CNN...I don't see the problem?
Need4Speed
Diamond Member
ill take option C ... I am childish, I dont care, and I am clever
vegetation
Diamond Member
Not quite the same. If you record a tv show you can do so as long as it's only yourself that is watching it. If you distribute it then it's no longer fair use. There's also a sticky issue of a venue earning profit off the media which further complicates things. Since most forums are commercial for-profit entities (through advertising) then the use of the media can be seen as earning income, something that the copyright holder could use against you.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
