But, by posting in it's entirety Edmunds' stance on violating copyrights, haven't you, in fact, violated their copyright on their copyright stance? Shouldn't you link to it?
But, by posting in it's entirety Edmunds' stance on violating copyrights, haven't you, in fact, violated their copyright on their copyright stance? Shouldn't you link to it?
"There is no "social benefit" that is derived".
That's your opinion, since when are you a Judge, Jury and Executioner? You obviously don't value anything on the Internet as having any social value, then why are you here?
"I posted in that one and sent a PM to the mods."
You may not have been a Tattetale in 2nd Grade but you surely are now as an adult.
"I know that all it would take is one complaint to the legal department of the NY Times and CNN and Anand would receive a cease and desist letter from their legal department."
Maybe you should be served the "Cease and Desist Order".
"Most of that area of fair use is to allow for short excerpts to be quotes for review and critisism."
It is difficult if not impossible to have any real review, debate or critisism if you do not have all the facts in any case or in this case the full Monty (article). Many links are only posted for a very short time as everyone knows so the link is only for full and proper credit to the originatiing source and author as it should be.
When were you appointed onto the bench of the Supreme Court?
"I also started this thread to discuss it instead of "policing" every thread which isn't my responsibility"
You got that one thing right.
Originally posted by: sandorski
Michael is making a valid point that I think should be followed here. As long as a working clickable link is provided, those interested will still read the article, so I don't see what the big deal with going after Michael is for.
Wait for him to give an opinion on one of these subjects, then you'll have reason to go after him!
That is exactly the point. The "working link" as you put is only working for a short period of time, most of the time the debates review and critisicism which is covered under Fair Use by the Supreme Court continues in the Online Forum well beyond when the originating links no longer work.
No one is going after any one person, the decision of Fair Use as determined by the Supreme Court is what is being reviewed and debated in here that just happens to have been brought up by one person for some reason that only he knows why.
Touche
This is all as ridiculous as all of the proceedings going on related to the Computer/Internet. This is a perfect example of how the opinion of one person tries to "decide" how all of Technology will be handled.
And we're just talking about quoting the article (section) in question, not reprinting the whole paper.
OK, consulted with a Lawyer (No not the one from my case) and that the Supreme Court decision was 30 something years ago and did not take into account the new Internet Technology.
Back then if someone was to debate or review an article from paper in Atlanta for example the parties would have to physically purchase the paper in Atlanta to get a copy months or years later that may or may not still apply now. That is something the Supreme Court will undoubtedly have to re-visit once again. In the mean time Free Speech will have to somehow go on with only partial facts to go on which seems to throw a fly in the face of what Free Speech is all about to begin with but that is the current Laws of the Land. It would seem that all Laws need to be reviewed with new Technology in mind with new decisions and rules as needed.
I will create a disclaimer and have it at the bottom of anything I post very similar to other Journalists use now "that all the facts are not here for review and debate as you will have to purchase your own copy (which you are really only renting) the full facts from the Copyright Holder in order to fully review and debate the matter at hand."
I will try and find all of my own previous posts and snip them down to what would be considered OK as Fair Use "excerpts" as currently written in Law.
The website should also post similar wording to protect itself.
I feel sorry for anyone that is attacked by the actions of the "Tattletale" as well as for any "Tattletalers" themselves but I understand that if you are a Lawyer that you are an Officer of the Court and if you see legal violations and do not report them then you are a party to the crimes as well so they have no choice but to be a Tattletaler.
Post Disclaimer: All the facts are not here for review and debate as you will have to purchase your own copy (which you are really only renting) from the Copyright Holder in order to fully review and debate the matter at hand."
Back then if someone was to debate or review an article from paper in Atlanta for example the parties would have to physically purchase the paper in Atlanta to get a copy months or years later that may or may not still apply now. That is something the Supreme Court will undoubtedly have to re-visit once again. In the mean time Free Speech will have to somehow go on with only partial facts to go on which seems to throw a fly in the face of what Free Speech is all about to begin with but that is the current Laws of the Land. It would seem that all Laws need to be reviewed with new Technology in mind with new decisions and rules as needed.
I will create a disclaimer and have it at the bottom of anything I post very similar to other Journalists use now "that all the facts are not here for review and debate as you will have to purchase your own copy (which you are really only renting) the full facts from the Copyright Holder in order to fully review and debate the matter at hand."
I will try and find all of my own previous posts and snip them down to what would be considered OK as Fair Use "excerpts" as currently written in Law.
The website should also post similar wording to protect itself.
I feel sorry for anyone that is attacked by the actions of the "Tattletale" as well as for any "Tattletalers" themselves but I understand that if you are a Lawyer that you are an Officer of the Court and if you see legal violations and do not report them then you are a party to the crimes as well so they have no choice but to be a Tattletaler.
Post Disclaimer: All the facts are not here for review and debate as you will have to purchase your own copy (which you are really only renting) from the Copyright Holder in order to fully review and debate the matter at hand."
Step on a crack, break your Mother's back. Once you've been trained to eat with a knife and fork, you feel dirty eating with your fingers.
......a prison for your mind.
......a prison for your mind.
OK, I went through and shredded any posts I could find that I made with articles, if I missed any please let me know.
- Nov 19, 1999
- 5,435
- 234
- 106
Dave - You know from personal experience that I will help those that need help getting justice. I'm not the forum cop or a mod or a manager in any way, shape or form here. I am pretty sure that posting entire articles is breaking the law. I decided to post about it and then figured that contacting the mods would be something o do as well (which I did).
As tempting as it is with people posting that they know they're breaking the law, I have no intention of "tattling". That isn't my job. I'll say I could to bring up the fact taht someone could, but I have bigger fish to fry in my own life than to gett hat involved here.
Look at the quote in my sig - I picked it for a reason.
Michael
As tempting as it is with people posting that they know they're breaking the law, I have no intention of "tattling". That isn't my job. I'll say I could to bring up the fact taht someone could, but I have bigger fish to fry in my own life than to gett hat involved here.
Look at the quote in my sig - I picked it for a reason.
Michael
Nothing wrong here like you said. I believe everyone was good in here and no personal attacks. Like you said there is bigger fish to fry and hopefully no one in here becomes a fried fish. I already know that feeling all too well which is why I shredded anything I may have "unintentionally" done to break any Laws of the Land in regards to this "Fair Use" issue as you have brought up.
This thing doesn't work for the Internet the way that it is now. If the Copyright Holders do not want the articles posted on the Internet then they should not even be available there at all even for the 24 to 48 hours that they are. Then no one would have the ability of copying and pasting the articles to begin with unless they broke the Law by scanning the document from hard copy and posted it on the Internet much like MP3 files are being uploaded to the Internet. This is why I said that the Supreme Court will most certainly have to re-visit all this very soon before there are more fish fried whether intentionally or unintentionally.
Then the stories should not be available for viewing by anyone without paying for the access.
Just as with as you said someone posted a NY Times article that they had to pay to see the story and they copied the story here, that is clearly Copyright Infringement.
I agree with Michael. Technically, posting the entire original story is a copyright violation. You can argue Fair Use all you want, but according to (what I know of) existing case law, copying the entire article is illegal.
Now, you can argue that the law SHOULD BE different because of the new internet/computer technology, but until the Supreme Court and/or Congress decide otherwise, the old law still applies. If you don't like it, lobby to change it.
For those of you who don't care that you're violating the law, consider this: When Anand gets hit with a lawsuit and has to either pay a lawyer to defend his business or start enforcing draconian rules on the forums, you should feel like a jerk.
And WTF is up with the personal attacks on Michael? He brings up a valid point, and some of you start calling him names. I guess you've demonstrated your level of immaturity.
Now, you can argue that the law SHOULD BE different because of the new internet/computer technology, but until the Supreme Court and/or Congress decide otherwise, the old law still applies. If you don't like it, lobby to change it.
For those of you who don't care that you're violating the law, consider this: When Anand gets hit with a lawsuit and has to either pay a lawyer to defend his business or start enforcing draconian rules on the forums, you should feel like a jerk.
And WTF is up with the personal attacks on Michael? He brings up a valid point, and some of you start calling him names. I guess you've demonstrated your level of immaturity.
As tempting as it is with people posting that they know they're breaking the law, I have no intention of "tattling". That isn't my job. I'll say I could to bring up the fact taht someone could, but I have bigger fish to fry in my own life than to gett hat involved here.
-------------
That's English?
I have bigger fish to fry? Apparently not.
-------------
That's English?
I have bigger fish to fry? Apparently not.
- Nov 19, 1999
- 5,435
- 234
- 106
moonbeam - Even my garbled typing is clearer than your typical posts. A little pot calling the kettle black? <grin>.
And, yes, I have more pressing issues going on. This is just blowing off steam that is building up from the otehr projects I'm working on. You're local, want to swing by and help with the construction on my house that is suffering because of work pressures?
Michael
And, yes, I have more pressing issues going on. This is just blowing off steam that is building up from the otehr projects I'm working on. You're local, want to swing by and help with the construction on my house that is suffering because of work pressures?
Michael
Obviously we've confused inarticulate with profound.
I'm sure any pot I might be on could never actually call a kettle anything. I could at best just wave some ambiguous words in that general direction. It's nice to see you have time to defend yourself, though.
Yup, no time for work/house stuff, but all the time in the world to be the AT defacto junior copyright cop? Wow, that's something, isn't it? Look, I think we all got your point now, so let's let it go. No need to go all "holier than thou" on the rest of us, k?
I'm the whiner? Michael is the one starting threads and crapping in post after post ranting about his crusade to protect the NYTimes. If anyone was the "whiny bitch" in 2nd grade, it was him.
And if anyone was simply a "bitch" in 2nd grade, it was you. Thanks for sticking your nose where it doesn't belong, now shoo.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter