If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"ADHD" - A subjective diagnosis
"Roger Schlafly" 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 The first loser in this is the OP, since s/h/its credibility went down the crapper for violating fair use. No, it might very well be fair use. Has the copyright owner complained? If the owner doesn't complain, then why should you? Whether a copyright owner complains or not has nothing to do with whether a copyright holder objects. Obviously, a copyright holder would not place a copyright notice on an article if the intent were to put it in the public domain. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"ADHD" - A subjective diagnosis
"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? Whether a copyright owner complains or not has nothing to do with whether a copyright holder objects. So? Is the copyright owner objecting and not telling anyone about it? If so, how would you know? 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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"ADHD" - A subjective diagnosis
"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. I'm sorry, but you're just too out there to be normal. Aha, the fallacy of offensive diagnosis. Well done. Strawman first, then OD second. I just cannot wait for a red herring, or some other fallacious argument. And, I see that you stopped reading too soon, again. Maybe I'm just a lame-brain, but I'm having severe trouble seeing exactly who the loser in all this might be. You stopped reading my excellently written message too soon. I clearly pointed out who the first loser is. You can read the rest below. The first loser in this is the OP, since s/h/its credibility went down the crapper for violating fair use. If they cannot be honest in such simple things, then can they be honest in anything? I say not. and this reflects on the character and ethics of the OP. BTW, the OP is a long time re-poster of this type of material and is mindlessly anti-psychaitry. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"ADHD" - A subjective diagnosis
"Roger Schlafly" 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 The first loser in this is the OP, since s/h/its credibility went down the crapper for violating fair use. No, it might very well be fair use. Has the copyright owner complained? If the owner doesn't complain, then why should you? Roger, it is something called personal ethics and standards. As the old commercial said... "Try it, you'll like it." |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"ADHD" - A subjective diagnosis
"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message ... "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? Whether a copyright owner complains or not has nothing to do with whether a copyright holder objects. 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. It's absurd to argue that the author did not complain. The author included a NOTICE. That's stronger than a complaint. It's also absurd to think that the author will scour Usenet to see if the article was posted illegally. If the author did complain, it would be to the OP, and not in a public forum. 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? What you said and what I said are two different things anyway, but I'd just as soon go by what copyright law says instead of what you say. 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? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"ADHD" - A subjective diagnosis
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. Vashti |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"ADHD" - A subjective diagnosis
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:07:51 GMT, "Hagrinas Mivali"
wrote: "Roger Schlafly" wrote in message .. . "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? Whether a copyright owner complains or not has nothing to do with whether a copyright holder objects. 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. It's absurd to argue that the author did not complain. The author included a NOTICE. That's stronger than a complaint. It's also absurd to think that the author will scour Usenet to see if the article was posted illegally. If the author did complain, it would be to the OP, and not in a public forum. Roger's argument (that the copyright owner didn't complain, therefore unauthorized use of the material is okay) is equivalent to someone's stealing the property of another and not being discovered--therefore the theft is okay. Joe Parsons 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? What you said and what I said are two different things anyway, but I'd just as soon go by what copyright law says instead of what you say. 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? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"ADHD" - A subjective diagnosis
"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. 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. 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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"ADHD" - A subjective diagnosis
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 09:00:18 -0700, "Roger Schlafly"
wrote: [snip] 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. 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. *snicker* |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Study Links ADHD Drugs to Growth Delays | M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-April 5, 2004 | Kids Health | 3 | April 6th 04 02:27 PM |
New Here, Q's about Kindergarten - Tips from those who've been there??? | Jaime | General (moderated) | 50 | February 3rd 04 03:27 AM |
Ritalin Helps Beat Cancer Fatigue | Marciosos6 Probertiosos6 | Kids Health | 211 | December 31st 03 02:06 AM |
Letter to APA 5/03 dubunking BS ADHD | SickofCrazyBS | Kids Health | 0 | November 25th 03 05:48 AM |
50 Conditions That Mimic "ADHD" | Theta | Kids Health | 80 | September 25th 03 11:35 PM |