"ADHD" - A subjective diagnosis

"Vashti" wrote in message
...
It wasn't a dark and stormy night when Brunibus wrote:

Check your reading comprehension upthread. I did not *raise* the
issue of Fair Use, but commented on the fact that the OP, IMNSHO,
violated it.


And the difference is ...... ?

That the issue had already been raised by another poster and Mark
responded to the ensuing thread as you yourself did perhaps? A fair use
policy relates to copyrighted material, not specific unfairness which
you brought up.

Usually it would be considered fair use of a copyrighted article to
quote a paragraph or portion(certain percentage maybe?) of an article
while linking to the article in question and *not* the entire article as
the OP seems to have done.


ZZZZZZZZZZ





Vashti

"Joe Parsons" wrote:
The entire work is the newspaper. If someone copied the entire newspaper
without permission, then the newspaper could do something about it.
The OP only copied one article.
The property is the entire Mercedes dealership and inventory. If someone
boosted just one car out of hundreds, the owner of the dealership can do
nothing.

Yeah, if Congress ever passes a law allowing "fair use" of other
people's cars, then we'll have some disputes like that.

"Brunibus" wrote in message
...

"M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-April 11, 2004" M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
wrote in message
t...

"Brunibus" wrote in message
...

"M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-April 11, 2004" M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
wrote in message
t...

"Brunibus" wrote in message
...

"M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-April 11, 2004" M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
wrote in message
t...

"Brunibus" wrote in message
...

"Hagrinas Mivali" wrote in
message
. com...

"Psi" wrote in message
om...

FAIR USE: This site contains copyrighted material the use
of
which
has
not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner.
We
are
making such material available in our efforts to advance
understanding
of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic,
scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe
this
constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material
as
provided
for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance
with
Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is
distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest
in
receiving the included information for research and
educational
purposes. For more information, click here. If you wish to
use
copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your
own
that
go
beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright
owner.


It's never considered fair use under copyright law to quote
a
substantial
newspaper article in its entirety without the author's
permission.
A
disclaimer does not make it so. Since readers of this
newsgroup
did
NOT
request that information, the rest of your statement is
nonsense
too.
You
did not send it to individuals who requested it, but to a
public
forum.


Hello ..... ?
The poster's not making any money out of it.
In fact, he's doing the author a favour by increasing its
readership
for
free.
The source is quoted in the post.
What makes you think the author would have an issue with
having
it
posted
for free and with a reference ?
Your attitude is bizarrely anal, to say the least !
Unbelievable !

Actually, the attitude is right on. Whether one makes money out
of
it
or
not
is not the issue. The OP clearly violated Fair Use,


More bizarreness.

Only in your "mind."

How is it unfair to ANYONE ?

Strawman. Who said it was unfair?

Why did you raise violation of fair use ?

Check your reading comprehension upthread. I did not *raise* the issue
of
Fair Use, but commented on the fact that the OP, IMNSHO, violated it.


And the difference is ...... ?

Something that you failed to comprehend.

"Brunibus" wrote in message
...

"Vashti" wrote in message
...
It wasn't a dark and stormy night when Brunibus wrote:

Check your reading comprehension upthread. I did not *raise* the
issue of Fair Use, but commented on the fact that the OP, IMNSHO,
violated it.


And the difference is ...... ?

That the issue had already been raised by another poster and Mark
responded to the ensuing thread as you yourself did perhaps? A fair use
policy relates to copyrighted material, not specific unfairness which
you brought up.

Usually it would be considered fair use of a copyrighted article to
quote a paragraph or portion(certain percentage maybe?) of an article
while linking to the article in question and *not* the entire article as
the OP seems to have done.


ZZZZZZZZZZ

Yes, a very intelligent response. One that I expected all along.

Next....

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
news
"Hagrinas Mivali" wrote
No, it might very well be fair use. Has the copyright owner
complained? If the owner doesn't complain, then why should you?
So? Is the copyright owner objecting and not telling anyone
about it? If so, how would you know?
I know because the author placed a copyright notice with the work. That
made it clear that the author did not want it copied illegally.

If the OP copied it in accordance with fair use laws, then there
was nothing illegal about it.

Good. Now you are agreeing that if the OP did not copy within Fair Use, then
it was illegal. Thus, illegality is independent of whether the
copyrightholder knew of the use.

You said:
"It's never considered fair use under copyright law to quote a
substantial
newspaper article in its entirety without the author's permission."
That just isn't correct. It is often considered fair use to copy
an entire newspaper article.
Because you said so?

No, because it is the law. Go look it up yourself.

How about proof of your assertion? While you are at it, address why you are
right and

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyrigh...pter9/9-a.html

is wrong.

What would be the point of even having a copyright law if people
could just publish your entire work without your permission and you
could
do
nothing about it?

The entire work is the newspaper. If someone copied the entire newspaper
without permission, then the newspaper could do something about it.
The OP only copied one article.

Roger, your logic reached escape velocity.

"M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-April 12, 2004" M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
wrote
If the OP copied it in accordance with fair use laws, then there
was nothing illegal about it.
Good. Now you are agreeing that if the OP did not copy within Fair Use,
then
it was illegal. ...

No, I didn't say that. It might have been legal for other reasons.
Eg, the OP might have gotten permission.

You said:
"It's never considered fair use under copyright law to quote a
substantial
newspaper article in its entirety without the author's permission."
That just isn't correct. It is often considered fair use to copy
an entire newspaper article.
While you are at it, address why you are right and

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyrigh...pter9/9-a.html
is wrong.

That site says, "There are no hard-and-fast rules". Hagrinas tried to
give a hard-and-fast rule, and it is wrong.

BTW, Condi Rice was responsible for that Stanford site.

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
...
While you are at it, address why you are right and


http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyrigh...pter9/9-a.html
is wrong.

That site says, "There are no hard-and-fast rules". Hagrinas tried to
give a hard-and-fast rule, and it is wrong.


You are taking that out of context. There are no hard and fast rules in the
sense that nothing says that three lines is acceptable and four is not, or
that 22% is acceptable but 23% is not. But you don't need hard and fast
rules to know that copying a document in its entirety is not allowed.

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
...
"M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-April 12, 2004" M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
wrote
If the OP copied it in accordance with fair use laws, then there
was nothing illegal about it.
Good. Now you are agreeing that if the OP did not copy within Fair Use,
then
it was illegal. ...

No, I didn't say that. It might have been legal for other reasons.
Eg, the OP might have gotten permission.

You said:
"It's never considered fair use under copyright law to quote a
substantial
newspaper article in its entirety without the author's
permission."
That just isn't correct. It is often considered fair use to copy
an entire newspaper article.
While you are at it, address why you are right and


http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyrigh...pter9/9-a.html
is wrong.

That site says, "There are no hard-and-fast rules". Hagrinas tried to
give a hard-and-fast rule, and it is wrong.


As close as you can get to a hard and fast rule is that verbatim copying an
entire work is not fair use. In the context of newspapers and magazines, an
article is an entire work.

I am an attorney trained in copyright law and owner of a number of
copyrights.

CK

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
...
"M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-April 12, 2004" M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
wrote
If the OP copied it in accordance with fair use laws, then there
was nothing illegal about it.
Good. Now you are agreeing that if the OP did not copy within Fair Use,
then
it was illegal. ...

No, I didn't say that. It might have been legal for other reasons.
Eg, the OP might have gotten permission.


In which case the correct way to handle it is to include "reprinted or
posted with permission." When I such a tag line is absent, I don't assume
it. Every permission I've ever seen or given for copying a copyrighted work
has been conditioned on such a disclaimer.

CK

"CK" wrote
That site says, "There are no hard-and-fast rules". Hagrinas tried to
give a hard-and-fast rule, and it is wrong.
As close as you can get to a hard and fast rule is that verbatim copying
an
entire work is not fair use. In the context of newspapers and magazines,
an
article is an entire work.
I am an attorney trained in copyright law and owner of a number of
copyrights.

Yeah, I own some copyrights also. Big deal. Have you ever successfully
sued someone who copied a single newspaper article?

Forget the legalities. I'd rather see some comment on the content
of the article.