Obama hires #5 RIAA member in the DOJ.

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
For the record I'm not tring to come acrossed anti-Obama, my comments are simply some things I've noticed standing on the sidelines here. You may now continue on with blaming Bush for everything and holding Obama up as a minor diety.

Well I prefer a minor "diety" to a major douchebag

Well lucky you, with Obama you get both.

He's kind of like the BoberFett of politics.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Shawn
Should be fined however much the song is worth plus 50%. So $1.50 per song?

That's not much of a disincentive.

Eye for an eye punishment is probably good deterrent for violent crime. And the death penalty would probably be an excellent deterrent for speeding. That doesn't mean these punishments are right, though.

I understand the reasoning behind punitive damages. I just think they take it way too far for copyright infringement.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
For the record I'm not tring to come acrossed anti-Obama, my comments are simply some things I've noticed standing on the sidelines here. You may now continue on with blaming Bush for everything and holding Obama up as a minor diety.

Well I prefer a minor "diety" to a major douchebag

Well lucky you, with Obama you get both.

He's kind of like the BoberFett of politics.

I can live with that.

 

[OCGuy]

We need to stop all of these threads about pirates. There are like 10 of them going right now!

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: OCguy

We need to stop all of these threads about pirates. There are like 10 of them going right now!

But... but... but... It's the Arrrrr-IAA! :laugh:

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: amdhunter

Topic Title: Obama is a douche. #5 RIAA member in the DOJ.

Somebody call the WAHmbulance. :roll:

Harvey
Copyright and Patent Holder

Maybe you should start speaking out against the copyright violations in nearly every thread in this forum.

Creative artists, producers, publishers and distributors typically have contracts defining royalties for each licensed use of their works. There is no such defined fee or royalty for reposting text from news articles on a forum. Maybe you could provide some meaningful info about the amount of money lost in such posts.

Then, there's the question of "fair use" of freely available news information in discussion settings such as the forums. Most of us who cite articles include links to our sources so, if the question is about lost revenue, each such link brings more hits to the source page.

And if you still think such use is, or should be, prohibited, what makes you think two wrongs make a right? Are you one of those morons who thinks they can justify the Bushwhackos' war of lies in Iraq because Clinton didn't return his fly to its full upright position on landing? :roll:

Oh my mistake, I didn't realize that your principles went out the window when there is no money involved. Citing articles and posting excerpts is fair use. Posting entire articles is not.

Where did you get the idea that I think two wrongs make a right?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Shawn
Should be fined however much the song is worth plus 50%. So $1.50 per song?

That's not much of a disincentive.

Eye for an eye punishment is probably good deterrent for violent crime. And the death penalty would probably be an excellent deterrent for speeding. That doesn't mean these punishments are right, though.

I understand the reasoning behind punitive damages. I just think they take it way too far for copyright infringement.

You made quite a leap of logic there from what I said to what you heard. I never said the fines/damages prescribed by law are reasonable. In fact I said in another post that they're unreasonable, but essentially irrelevant because no one ever ends up paying that much.

What I said here is that $1.50 per song is insufficient. And that's all I said.

 

[frostedflakes]

Fair enough. After posting that I realized my assumption may come back to bite me in the ass.

And yes few people end up paying $150k per song. A few thousand per song isn't unheard of, though, and IMO this is still way too much.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Fair enough. After posting that I realized my assumption may come back to bite me in the ass.

And yes few people end up paying $150k per song. A few thousand per song isn't unheard of, though, and IMO this is still way too much.

Maybe we should have a sliding scale for fines, in the form of a fibonacci sequence

Relatively painless if you only have 5-25 songs, but if you have a library full of shit, you = fucked

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Fair enough. After posting that I realized my assumption may come back to bite me in the ass.

And yes few people end up paying $150k per song. A few thousand per song isn't unheard of, though, and IMO this is still way too much.

Maybe we should have a sliding scale for fines, in the form of a fibonacci sequence

Relatively painless if you only have 5-25 songs, but if you have a library full of shit, you = fucked

I don't think many people stop at 25. :laugh: Though so far they have only sued people for uploading as far as I know. So the number of tracks they sue people for is relatively low compared to their full collection. The guys who download 10s of thousands of song (most of which they don't even listen to once) would be screwed if they got nailed for every download and any kind of reasonable damages were imposed.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: mugs
I don't think many people stop at 25. :laugh:

Which is why the fibonacci sequence would work perfectly

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: mugs

Maybe you should start speaking out against the copyright violations in nearly every thread in this forum.

Creative artists, producers, publishers and distributors typically have contracts defining royalties for each licensed use of their works. There is no such defined fee or royalty for reposting text from news articles on a forum. Maybe you could provide some meaningful info about the amount of money lost in such posts.

Then, there's the question of "fair use" of freely available news information in discussion settings such as the forums. Most of us who cite articles include links to our sources so, if the question is about lost revenue, each such link brings more hits to the source page.

And if you still think such use is, or should be, prohibited, what makes you think two wrongs make a right? Are you one of those morons who thinks they can justify the Bushwhackos' war of lies in Iraq because Clinton didn't return his fly to its full upright position on landing? :roll:

Oh my mistake, I didn't realize that your principles went out the window when there is no money involved. Citing articles and posting excerpts is fair use. Posting entire articles is not.

Where did you get the idea that I think two wrongs make a right?

Yes, it most certainly WAS your mistake. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, states:

The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

The entire intent of patents and copyrights is to encourage creative works by allowing those who create intellectual property to have a clear first right to benefit from their works. One of those benefits is the right to benefit financially from the value of the works they create.

As a general example, posting the entire text of a book that is otherwise only available for sale would violate that principle. Posting the text of an article that can be viewed freely on the copyright holder's own site, including proper attribution and a link to the site would not.

A discussion of the rights and privileges afforded to holders of copyrights and patents to license and restrict the use of their works and the limitations on those rights and privileges go far deeper than we can present in a forum thread like this, but protecting the security of financial reward is one of the intended main benefits of those rights.

So, try again to tell us how quoting openly available text with attribution is a "wrong" equal to stealing the recorded works of musicians or recording and selling the copyrighted works of a composers or manufacturing and selling the patented works of inventors or openly posting the written works of an author that are otherwise only legally available for sale.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: mugs

Maybe you should start speaking out against the copyright violations in nearly every thread in this forum.

Creative artists, producers, publishers and distributors typically have contracts defining royalties for each licensed use of their works. There is no such defined fee or royalty for reposting text from news articles on a forum. Maybe you could provide some meaningful info about the amount of money lost in such posts.

Then, there's the question of "fair use" of freely available news information in discussion settings such as the forums. Most of us who cite articles include links to our sources so, if the question is about lost revenue, each such link brings more hits to the source page.

And if you still think such use is, or should be, prohibited, what makes you think two wrongs make a right? Are you one of those morons who thinks they can justify the Bushwhackos' war of lies in Iraq because Clinton didn't return his fly to its full upright position on landing? :roll:

Oh my mistake, I didn't realize that your principles went out the window when there is no money involved. Citing articles and posting excerpts is fair use. Posting entire articles is not.

Where did you get the idea that I think two wrongs make a right?

Yes, it most certainly WAS your mistake. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, states:

The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

The entire intent of patents and copyrights is to allow those who create intellectual property to have a clear first right to benefit from their works. As a general example, posting the entire text of a book that is otherwise only available for sale would violate that principle. Posting the text of an article that can be viewed freely on the copyright holder's own site, including proper attribution and a link to the site would not.

The rights and privileges afforded to holders of copyrights and patents to license and restrict the use of their works go far deeper than we can present in a forum post, but protecting the security of financial reward is one of the intended main benefits of those rights.

So, try again to tell us how quoting openly available text with attribution is a "wrong" equal to stealing the recorded works of musicians or recording and selling the copyrighted works of a composers or manufacturing and selling the patented works of inventors or openly posting the written works of an author that are otherwise only legally available for sale.

My mistake was the assumption that you have principles. Your mistake is your belief that copyright protections do not apply equally to creative works that don't have a price tag. The words are right there in the passage you quoted, you just choose to ignore them.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: amdhunter
http://blog.wired.com/27bstrok...4/obama-taps-fift.html

Man, there is no end to this guys douchebaggery. First he hires someone who wants ISPs to release information without a subpoena, then he hired someone who wanted to uphold a $200k punitive fee for a few mp3s.

Now we get yet another RIAA dick in the Justice Department. Yay for change! I wonder how much the RIAA is paying him under the table?

This may be hard for laymen to understand or fully appreciate, but a lawyer does his client's bidding, within the constraints of the legal system. So, we really don't know the personal views of these lawyers on the issue of stealing mp3s and other copyrighted material. For all we know, they may go home at night and download movies from Pirate Bay.

-Robert

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: mugs

My mistake was the assumption that you have principles.

NO! Your mistake was assuming you know jack shit about the principles of intellectual property.

Your mistake is your belief that copyright protections do not apply equally to creative works that don't have a price tag. The words are right there in the passage you quoted, you just choose to ignore them.

There is an ongoing debate about the extent and limits of "free use." Legislatures and courts may very well have imposed further restraints against quoting otherwise freely available text, and I know old Rupert Murdoch has been making noise complaining about others' use of the trash he publishes, but you have yet to provide a source to one qualified authority stating that such use violates established copyright law.

Do it, and I'll thank you for the information. If you can't, I hope you enjoy the interior view of your gluteal cheeks.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: manowar821
Why exactly are there people who deserve to be hit by a car working in our government?

You work for the Government?

I was talking about the people with ties to the RIAA and MPAA... And don't you and I usually get along?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: mugs

My mistake was the assumption that you have principles.

NO! Your mistake was assuming you know jack shit about the principles of intellectual property.

Your mistake is your belief that copyright protections do not apply equally to creative works that don't have a price tag. The words are right there in the passage you quoted, you just choose to ignore them.

There is an ongoing debate about the extent and limits of "free use." Legislatures and courts may very well have imposed further restraints against quoting otherwise freely available text, and I know old Rupert Murdoch has been making noise complaining about others' use of the trash he publishes, but you have yet to provide a source to one qualified authority stating that such use violates established copyright law.

Do it, and I'll thank you for the information. If you can't, I hope you enjoy the interior view of your gluteal cheeks.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf
Read the whole first page. If you feel that reproducing a copyrighted work in its entirety without permission falls under fair use exceptions, go ahead and post your reputable source.

Your contention seems to be that it's not a copyright violation because the creative work is not being sold. That right there makes your statement that I "know jack shit about the principles of intellectual property" laughable. But you must recognize that monetary gain is the ultimate goal of organizations that produce news articles, even if that monetary gain is not achieved through a direct payment by readers. Posting an article in its entirety, even if a link is provided, removes the need to read the article in its original location. So how can you differentiate between posting articles on the Internet and other copyright violations? Why does the source of the monetary gain make a difference?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: mugs

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf
Read the whole first page. If you feel that reproducing a copyrighted work in its entirety without permission falls under fair use exceptions, go ahead and post your reputable source.

Your contention seems to be that it's not a copyright violation because the creative work is not being sold. That right there makes your statement that I "know jack shit about the principles of intellectual property" laughable. But you must recognize that monetary gain is the ultimate goal of organizations that produce news articles, even if that monetary gain is not achieved through a direct payment by readers. Posting an article in its entirety, even if a link is provided, removes the need to read the article in its original location. So how can you differentiate between posting articles on the Internet and other copyright violations? Why does the source of the monetary gain make a difference?

Thanks for that. It's a start towards more than your opinion, which is what I asked for. In my post, I typed "free use," instead of the correct term, "fair use." Sorry about that.

The third full paragraph on the first page at your link says:

It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright. These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. Sections 107 through 121 of the 1976 Copyright Act establish limitations on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of ?fair use,? which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act. In other instances, the limitation takes the form of a ?compulsory license? under which certain limited uses of copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of specified royalties and compliance with statutory conditions. For further information about the limitations of any of these rights, consult the copyright law or write to the Copyright Office.

Here's more from the copyright office:

Copyright | Fair Use

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of ?fair use.? Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered ?fair,? such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
   
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
   
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
   
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
   
   The distinction between ?fair use? and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
   
   The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: ?quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.?
   
   Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.
   
   The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
   
   When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of ?fair use? would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered ?fair? nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
   
   FL-102, Revised July 2006

1. 
   
   This addresses a number of the issues we've been discussing. The first criterion addresses the issues of whether the use (posting on the forums) "is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes." Clearly, no one is posting here for commercial purposes. Hopefully, the information is educational with respect to the thread in which it's posted.
   
   The fourth criterion addresses the issue I raised regarding the financial interest of the copyright holder. If the text is freely available on the publisher's site, the only real financial issue is the advertising revenue from hits on the site. If so, posting links to the articles we quote would increase the number of hits, which directly benefits the publisher in exactly the way it was intended.
   
   The third criterion addresses the issue you raised regarding whether the article is quoted in part or in full. There are two issues within this:
   • Partial vs. complete quotes of articles:
     
     If you check my posts, you'll find that I often quote relevant parts of articles, rather than complete articles, when I think that's the best way to illustrate a given point, but I have quoted entire short articles when I believe that it is the only way to do it, and I know it's true that others only quote entire articles.
     
   • The nature of the publisher's copyright -- Specifically, does the publisher/site copyright the entirety of their site or journal as one complete work, or is each article copyrighted separately?
     
     If the publisher copyrights the entire site under one application, then copying the entirety of any one article constitutes only a partial use of the copyrighted material. If each article, blog, opinion piece is independently registered, the whole article is independently covered.
   As I noted, this is an ongoing discussion in publishing circles, and I think the criteria have to be viewed as a whole and in context. On the forums, we quote articles to support our points, which is educational and not for profit. The publisher/copyright holder makes the work available to be viewed at no charge so there is no financial loss, per se, and anyone who clicks the link in a forum post ehnances the publishers revenue stream as intended.
   
   For those reasons, I believe quoting even entire articles in our P&N discussions can be seen as "fair use." The only questions I see are whether copying entire articles is beneficial or detrimental to the intentions of the publisher how the work was protected (one or multiple copyrights).
   
   Thanks for the link and for making me do my homework. This just turned into a good discussion. Let's keep it going if you, or anyone, has more to add.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Shawn
Should be fined however much the song is worth plus 50%. So $1.50 per song?

That's not much of a disincentive.

If someone has one or two thousand pirated songs that would mean they'd owe $1500-$3000. That's a fair disincentive, especially if you also have your hard drive confiscated and must buy your whole music collection in order to rebuild it.

I have quite a few MP3's on my hard drive. However, over the last 10 years and multiple moves, I have lost a number of the original CD's they were ripped from. How are they going to prove I didn't own the originals? Or worse, if these RIAA jerks get their way, how am I going to prove that the songs were, indeed, ripped from original CD's owned by me?

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: Harvey
...
The entire intent of patents and copyrights is to encourage creative works by allowing those who create intellectual property to have a clear first right to benefit from their works. One of those benefits is the right to benefit financially from the value of the works they create.

As a general example, posting the entire text of a book that is otherwise only available for sale would violate that principle. Posting the text of an article that can be viewed freely on the copyright holder's own site, including proper attribution and a link to the site would not.
...

IIRC, a few years ago ATOT itself banned (or was it merely discouraged?) posting entire news articles for awhile precisely because doing so deprives the original newspaper/magazine website of revenue. If an article is posted in its entirety, how many people actually bother clicking through to the original article unless there's an interesting picture or video?

To my knowledge, which is admittedly out of date, quoting an entire article DOES violate copyright law. "Fair Use" (as used here) usually only allows exceptions for education or de minimis usage.

In law school, my professors were meticulous about getting written permission to reproduce articles to distribute to the class. Even though you would think that the education exception would apply, they obviously disagreed.

I would like to point out the ad banner that sits above every AT forum page. You are most certainly generating revenue and profiting to some extent from the articles quoted on your site. Articles which you are not paying for. This is not entirely an "education-only" use of the articles then.

I think that while your argument has merit, a copyright court might not agree.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: tk149

I would like to point out the ad banner that sits above every AT forum page. You are most certainly generating revenue and profiting to some extent from the articles quoted on your site. Articles which you are not paying for. This is not entirely an "education-only" use of the articles then.

I think that while your argument has merit, a copyright court might not agree.

Understood. I was referring to each member's posts and financial interests.

I don't know the exact current state of the matter. I just wanted to post the legitimate points to the discussion as I understood them and get beyond mugs' challenging my ethics on the issue.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: tk149
I have quite a few MP3's on my hard drive. However, over the last 10 years and multiple moves, I have lost a number of the original CD's they were ripped from. How are they going to prove I didn't own the originals? Or worse, if these RIAA jerks get their way, how am I going to prove that the songs were, indeed, ripped from original CD's owned by me?

A valid point, even if you were to buy DRM free mp3's.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Thanks for that. It's a start towards more than your opinion, which is what I asked for. In my post, I typed "free use," instead of the correct term, "fair use." Sorry about that.

The third full paragraph on the first page at your link says:

It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright. These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. Sections 107 through 121 of the 1976 Copyright Act establish limitations on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of ?fair use,? which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act. In other instances, the limitation takes the form of a ?compulsory license? under which certain limited uses of copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of specified royalties and compliance with statutory conditions. For further information about the limitations of any of these rights, consult the copyright law or write to the Copyright Office.

Here's more from the copyright office:

Copyright | Fair Use

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of ?fair use.? Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered ?fair,? such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
   
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
   
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
   
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
   
   The distinction between ?fair use? and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
   
   The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: ?quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.?
   
   Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.
   
   The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
   
   When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of ?fair use? would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered ?fair? nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
   
   FL-102, Revised July 2006

1. 
   
   This addresses a number of the issues we've been discussing. The first criterion addresses the issues of whether the use (posting on the forums) "is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes." Clearly, no one is posting here for commercial purposes. Hopefully, the information is educational with respect to the thread in which it's posted.
   
   The fourth criterion addresses the issue I raised regarding the financial interest of the copyright holder. If the text is freely available on the publisher's site, the only real financial issue is the advertising revenue from hits on the site. If so, posting links to the articles we quote would increase the number of hits, which directly benefits the publisher in exactly the way it was intended.
   
   The third criterion addresses the issue you raised regarding whether the article is quoted in part or in full. There are two issues within this:
   • Partial vs. complete quotes of articles:
     
     If you check my posts, you'll find that I often quote relevant parts of articles, rather than complete articles, when I think that's the best way to illustrate a given point, but I have quoted entire short articles when I believe that it is the only way to do it, and I know it's true that others only quote entire articles.
     
   • The nature of the publisher's copyright -- Specifically, does the publisher/site copyright the entirety of their site or journal as one complete work, or is each article copyrighted separately?
     
     If the publisher copyrights the entire site under one application, then copying the entirety of any one article constitutes only a partial use of the copyrighted material. If each article, blog, opinion piece is independently registered, the whole article is independently covered.
   As I noted, this is an ongoing discussion in publishing circles, and I think the criteria have to be viewed as a whole and in context. On the forums, we quote articles to support our points, which is educational and not for profit. The publisher/copyright holder makes the work available to be viewed at no charge so there is no financial loss, per se, and anyone who clicks the link in a forum post ehnances the publishers revenue stream as intended.
   
   For those reasons, I believe quoting even entire articles in our P&N discussions can be seen as "fair use." The only questions I see are whether copying entire articles is beneficial or detrimental to the intentions of the publisher how the work was protected (one or multiple copyrights).
   
   Thanks for the link and for making me do my homework. This just turned into a good discussion. Let's keep it going if you, or anyone, has more to add.

1. 
   
   I agree that the use of articles here passes the first and second fair use tests. You make an interesting point about whether an article can be considered an excerpt from a larger set of articles. I don't think it should be. Judges have to use common sense when evaluating these criteria, and I think they would consider an article to be a work in and of itself, even if part of a larger work. In the same way, a song is protected even if it is part of an album.
   
   Regarding the fourth criterion - quoting a section and linking is definitely beneficial to the publication; quoting the entire article and linking may be beneficial, but there will be a lot of people who no longer have the need to read the article in its original location if they have already read it on a forum.
   
   For more than a decade, this has been considered a reliable source on the application of copyrights to the Internet: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html (it is somewhat dated now, but still applicable)
   
   

   Fair use is generally a short excerpt and almost always attributed. (One should not use much more of the work than is needed to make the commentary.) It should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another reason why reproduction of the entire work is a problem.) Famously, copying just 300 words from Gerald Ford's 200,000 word memoir for a magazine article was ruled as not fair use, in spite of it being very newsworthy, because it was the most important 300 words -- why he pardoned Nixon.

   
   That was a short excerpt, but it wasn't fair use because it eliminated the need for some people to buy the book. In the same way, posting an article eliminates the need to browse the website that it came from. I think the lengths to which those websites go to generate more hits would strengthen their case. When they break an article up into multiple pages to generate more ad impressions, then someone concatenates it and posts it elsewhere, they're eliminating multiple potential hits per reader.
   
   I think quoting a short, relevant section (which many people do) is really the way to go. I just don't see the need to post the entire article when it's only one click away.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: mugs

I agree that the use of articles here passes the first and second fair use tests. You make an interesting point about whether an article can be considered an excerpt from a larger set of articles. I don't think it should be. Judges have to use common sense when evaluating these criteria, and I think they would consider an article to be a work in and of itself, even if part of a larger work. In the same way, a song is protected even if it is part of an album.

The point I raised is a legal issue. Do publishers copyright the entire content of each day's publication, or do they copyright each independent article? I'm aware that multiple songs can be protected within the copyright protetion of an album. I don't know how courts handle this, but it could make a difference, specifically regarding what constitutes "fair use" of an "exerpt" of a larger work.

That said, I'm glad you understand that I wasn't in any way promoting or approving of violating anyone's intellectual property rights.

Can I send you a bill for copying my entire post?

 

[ericlp]

Obama Sides With RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Music Track

He's gotta be on drugs to support that.