Parenting & kids - Info on copyright articles

Bob Officer wrote:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 08:29:34 -0400, in misc.health.alternative,
dr_jeff wrote:

Bob Officer wrote:
On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 15:54:18 +1000, in misc.kids.health, "carole"
wrote:

"Bob Officer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 10:58:25 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
"carole" wrote:

"Bob Officer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 06:36:11 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
"carole" wrote:

"Bob Officer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 22:24:30 +1000, in misc.kids.health, "carole"
wrote:

"Bob Officer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 15:44:56 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
"carole" wrote:

"pautrey" wrote in message
...

July 12, 2010

How Microbes Defend and Define Us
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/sc...pagewanted=all
Carole this was a copyright article.

What compelled you to steal it? Well rpautrey stole it and has been
reported. but now you are accomplice in his crime.
Bob, I hope you marked your message to be deleted in 6 days as per
usual,
although I don't know how you'd do that in outlook express.
Why? you did just as I said. By reposting, you became his accomplice
in thief of intellectual property. and Not only across little
internal state lines, but international boarders. You do know the UK
courts come down hard on this sort of stuff as does the US federal
courts?
I've never heard of it.
Reposting article for discussion is ok from what I can see. Why not?
The article belongs (copyright) to someone else. Just becuase it was
published on the web, doesn't make it public domain.
Did somebody take out a copyright in all countries where the article will
appear?
Basically yes. Berne Convention is a starting place to read. It
basically says if a thing is copyright or patented in one country all
other countries accept the copyrights of the author.

If you Repost a copyright article all that does is make you an
accomplice in someone else's crime.
You mean "if you respond to a copyright article ..."
No, you're wrong.
I only included one para of the original article in my reply although did
forget to make a distinction between that para and my response.
Yes, you screwed up, then Carole.

No if you repost, like you did a total copy of a copyright
article....

If you notice I cut the copyright abuse, totally.

The proper why to cites an article is to post the URL, and a some
excerpt (usually less than 10%) which you want to discuss, never the
entire article.
OK, that is easy.
Yes but you would be surprised how many people do not get it.

You should have learned that in grammar school, Carole.

I guess you missed the copyright notice at the bottom of the page:

cite
© 2010 The New York Times Company
/cite
I guess I did.
I bet you didn't even look becuase it is something you just don't
care about.
Must admit I've never been overly concerned.
There is reason to start. that is the point between all the little
"" they tell people who said what and in what order (context).

One should also detail their citations as accurate as possible.

Lately all the copyright owners have been pushing the issue of their
copyright very heavily. As they increase their online presents [sic], they
will become more and more hard-assed about the issue.

Thanks for the info.
I saw a demand letter last night from a friend which is a fairly
prolific political blogger. It appear he is going to pay out about
$50,000 us dollars to defend himself from an AP copyright lawsuit.

I don't think they have a case but the cost of defense will not be
recoverable he was told. It may be cheeper to settle. $15,000 offer
vs. $50,000+. His lawyer is even suggesting trying to negotiate a
smaller settlement. It will still cost him his own Lawyers hours plus
the AP Lawyers hours. All over copyright violation.
The content of the news articles is AP's, the NYT's and other newpapers
bread and butter. They pay to create it, it is theirs.

They are doing the right thing by going for copyright violations.

My feeling exactly.

The latest news, the blog article they objected to was commentary on
their published piece of 2000+ plus words. He cited the URL and 247
words of their "content". He wrote about 800 of his own words of
commentary. Well within the current guidelines for citations. They
are calling his work a derivative work which is not allowed under the
TOS of their web page.

I am not sure that they are correct. It is ok to quote some passages of
an article as part of a commentary of an article.

A few years back I saw a comedian Louis Black on stage. He opened his
wallet and read the funniest newspaper article. Sadly if the current
rounds of lawsuits hold up, It would be considered a derivative work
and wouldn't be allowed.

70 years ago, one Missouri radio station on Sunday morning would read
the comic strips to people over the radio. Each panel was described
and the readers would use different voices for each character. That
type of performance would no long be allowed becuase it was a
derivative work.

I am not so sure about this. Describing something and reading in voice
is different that copying it. Depends on the circumstances.

Think of all the different things today which could be considered
derivative works. this could be a creative disaster in the end.

If you just copy from everyone else without permission, there is no
incentive for people either. Nor, any way to pay for dinner, which some
people seem to enjoy.

There is a large difference between cutting and pasting an entire
article, and using part of the content so people know exactly what
you are commenting upon.

Again, depends on how much. THere is no need to cut an paste, however.
You can just put in a link and the people can go and read the original
article. There is no reason why people can't click and read, either.

Someday it might even be wrong to use a URL which refers to an
article if your comments are considered a derivative work.

How so?

Today I referred back to an article you wrote here last month. The
citation fir in a discussion of what the differences was between real
evidence based medicine and alternative medicine. Your phrasing was
so good I remembered it. I gave full credit.

IIRC, it pushed the gray area if one was to get technical. It might
have been about 35% of your content and about 50% of what I added,
which is generally over the accepted limit.

It is more like what percentage of the original article that was copied
as well as the length of the original article. Context is also important.

THanks for the compliment about my post.

Jeff