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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Info on copyright articles
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. Jeff |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
All new articles.... | Shawn Henning | Child Support | 0 | February 8th 06 05:01 AM |
All new articles.... | Shawn Henning | Foster Parents | 0 | February 8th 06 04:48 AM |
All new articles.... | Shawn Henning | Spanking | 0 | February 8th 06 04:37 AM |
Mike broke COPYRIGHT law DIAPER pictures claimed of me!! | [email protected] | Solutions | 10 | February 1st 05 03:43 PM |
Parenting Info plus Articles | PhatDad | Solutions | 0 | November 7th 03 01:18 AM |