"ADHD" - A subjective diagnosis

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

"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.

Depends. If the copyright owner is the New York Times, the Times will get
paid for reprints and for people viewing the article over your website. In
addition, the Times gets advertising revenue from its website. The author
might get a lump sum payment. Other authors, depending on the contract,
might get paid for each instance that their material is sent out. Plus, you
can buy access for a period of time.

Other organizations might want you to view their material over their website
because they want you to see other messages (e.g., religious groups might
want you to see their religious information or their request for donations).
So conmmercial reasons are not the only reasons why people want to enforce
their copyrights.

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.

That's a good way.

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:17:38 -0400, "Jeff" wrote:

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

"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.

Depends. If the copyright owner is the New York Times, the Times will get
paid for reprints and for people viewing the article over your website. In
addition, the Times gets advertising revenue from its website. The author
might get a lump sum payment. Other authors, depending on the contract,
might get paid for each instance that their material is sent out. Plus, you
can buy access for a period of time.

It has nothing to do with the author's potential revenue from the work.

It has to do with taking the material--another person's property--without
permission.

Arguing that the owner hasn't complained or filed a lawsuit is specious.

Joe Parsons


Other organizations might want you to view their material over their website
because they want you to see other messages (e.g., religious groups might
want you to see their religious information or their request for donations).
So conmmercial reasons are not the only reasons why people want to enforce
their copyrights.

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.

That's a good way.

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:08:52 +0000 (UTC), "Brunibus"
wrote:


"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
et...

"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.
How is it unfair to ANYONE ?
Maybe I'm just a lame-brain, but I'm having severe trouble seeing exactly
who the loser in all this might be.


The newspaper loses advertising revenue when you don't read their
on-line site or their paper.