"ADHD" - A subjective diagnosis

"Brunibus" wrote in message
...

(...)

More bizarreness.
How is it unfair to ANYONE ?

It is unfair to the copyright owner. For example, the copyright owner might
be missing out on advertising revenue from his web page.

Plus the copyright owner might not want the article to be read outside of a
larger context (perhaps a web page).

The point is that it is not for us to decide how the copyrigted material may
be viewed or used. That is up to the copyright owner.

For example, some organizations, like those who publish the SATs and other
academic tests, use the copyright laws to prevent unauthorized distribution
of their tests.

Jeff

"Brunibus" wrote in message
...
(...)

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 ...... ?

You raised the issue of fair use when you claimed that using the
copyrighted material in the manner you used it is fair use.

Fair use would include quoting a paragraph or a few paragraphs and
commenting on them. Fair use does not include copying the entire article.

Jeff

"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?

So it is up to the copyright owner to crawl through the web, every home and
library to see if his material is unfairly used?

That is like saying someone is stealing electriciting by tapping into the
power lines around a meter, and that is ok because no one notices.

Jeff

"Hagrinas Mivali" wrote in message
news

"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.

Actually, whether a copyright owner objects is not relevent either. It is
ilegal to copy copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright
owner. Period.

As Hagrinas Mivali pointed out, the copyright owner objected when he put his
copyright message on the article.

Jeff

"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?

The way I would know is that the author put a copyright notice on his
article.

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.

No, it is not considered fair use to copy an entire newspaper article. A
paragraph or a few paragraphs in a review is considered fair use, but not
an entire article.

"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.

Correct. however, the OP didn't copy it in accordance with fair use laws.

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.

You're making the claim that this is within fair use. Prove it.

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.

No. The entire work is the article. Are you going to claim that you can copy
a chapter in a multi-author book? Or an article out of Science magazine
without permission?

Jeff

"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.

Then the OP would have stated that in the article (a statement like "this
material copied with the express, written permission of the copyright
owner").

Jeff

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
...
"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.

Idle speculation.

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.

The clear intent of that site is that one does not report an entire article
and rely on fair use.

BTW, Condi Rice was responsible for that Stanford site.

How nice.

"Jeff" wrote in message
...

"Brunibus" wrote in message
...

(...)

More bizarreness.
How is it unfair to ANYONE ?

It is unfair to the copyright owner. For example, the copyright owner
might
be missing out on advertising revenue from his web page.


Copyright owners get paid for reprints. If the OP's audience needed the
information, that's a source of revenue for the author.

Here's a simple way to find out. Go to the magazine that published the
article and ask them. Tell them you would like to distribute the article
for free to an unlimited number of people and see what they say. If they
say no, ask them how much money they want for each reprint.

"Jeff" wrote in message
...

"Hagrinas Mivali" wrote in message
news

"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.

Actually, whether a copyright owner objects is not relevent either. It is
ilegal to copy copyrighted material without the permission of the
copyright
owner. Period.

As Hagrinas Mivali pointed out, the copyright owner objected when he put
his
copyright message on the article.


It is relevant for other reasons, but probably not relevant to this
discussion. Copyright law does not even require that a copyright notice be
posted. Copyright law does not require a copyright holder to actively look
for violations. But not doing those makes it much harder for a copyright
holder to win in court. If a copyright holder goes for many years without
objecting to open and blatant copying, and no copyright notice was ever
given, and people had a reasonable basis to believe that it was in the
public domain, then it will be in the public domain for practical purposes
and a court will not consider claims actionable.