Be careful out there people

[Beerball]

Las Vegas-based Righthaven has begun buying out the copyrights to newspaper content for the sole purpose of suing blogs and websites that re-post those articles without permission. And he says he’s making money.

[Fezmid]

Welcome to the good ol' USA, where people who can't contribute to society make money by suing.

 

(which I guess is better than taking handouts....? )

[ieatcrayonz]

Welcome to the good ol' USA, where people who can't contribute to society make money by suing.

 

(which I guess is better than taking handouts....? )

Says the guy whose signature is a link to a cookbook with OTHER PEOPLE'S recipes.

[Fezmid]

Says the guy whose signature is a link to a cookbook with OTHER PEOPLE'S recipes.

 

Other people who willingly posted them for everyone to see.

 

That was a weak response. I expected something better from you. Try again.

[ieatcrayonz]

Other people who willingly posted them for everyone to see.

 

That was a weak response. I expected something better from you. Try again.

I would, but there isn't a smiley with an airplane flying 30,000 above the yellow guy.

[GG]

Other people who willingly posted them for everyone to see.

 

That was a weak response. I expected something better from you. Try again.

 

Ok, says the guy who doesn't believe that people's original ideas and intellectual work are not their property.

[Fezmid]

Ok, says the guy who doesn't believe that people's original ideas and intellectual work are not their property.

I've never said that either.

 

Here, I'll make it easier for you. Pasting an entire article onto a forum like this one is not stealing. It's copyright infringement. Stealing has a requirement of depriving the original owner of the original work. Making a copy of an article does not deprive the original author of the words they wrote. Both are illegal.

 

And here's the legal basis proving my point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_inf...arison_to_theft

 

"Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not (for the purpose of the case) constitute stolen property, and writing:"

[ieatcrayonz]

I've never said that either.

 

Here, I'll make it easier for you. Pasting an entire article onto a forum like this one is not stealing. It's copyright infringement. Stealing has a requirement of depriving the original owner of the original work. Making a copy of an article does not deprive the original author of the words they wrote. Both are illegal.

 

And here's the legal basis proving my point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_inf...arison_to_theft

 

"Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not (for the purpose of the case) constitute stolen property, and writing:"

So you steal someone's words and post them to the board to prove that stealing words and posting them to the board isn't stealing?

[GG]

I've never said that either.

 

Here, I'll make it easier for you. Pasting an entire article onto a forum like this one is not stealing. It's copyright infringement. Stealing has a requirement of depriving the original owner of the original work. Making a copy of an article does not deprive the original author of the words they wrote. Both are illegal.

 

And here's the legal basis proving my point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_inf...arison_to_theft

 

"Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not (for the purpose of the case) constitute stolen property, and writing:"

 

I like the legal contortions you go through not to equate copyright infringement with theft.

[ieatcrayonz]

I like the legal contortions you go through not to equate copyright infringement with theft.

That's just the high level. The whole thing is a lot longer. Maybe he'll burn a CD of it for you for free plus optional tip.

[The Dean]

Welcome to the good ol' USA, where people who can't contribute to society make money by suing.

 

(which I guess is better than taking handouts....? )

 

 

Taking handouts is FAR more noble, IMO.

[Fezmid]

I like the legal contortions you go through not to equate copyright infringement with theft.

 

I like how you don't care about legal definitions and just use whatever word makes you feel better to use.

[Steely Dan]

I've never said that either.

 

Here, I'll make it easier for you. Pasting an entire article onto a forum like this one is not stealing. It's copyright infringement. Stealing has a requirement of depriving the original owner of the original work. Making a copy of an article does not deprive the original author of the words they wrote. Both are illegal.

 

And here's the legal basis proving my point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_inf...arison_to_theft

 

"Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not (for the purpose of the case) constitute stolen property, and writing:"

 

Are you saying that if a link to a copyable CD were posted that it wouldn't be theft? I disagree if so. Whether it's making the words for an article or making something tangible, like a HDTV. Theft is theft. Just because one is a lot easier to steal than the other doesn't mean it isn't stealing. JMO

[Jim in Anchorage]

Feel free to copy my older posts.

Reason of the public domain status: Registered in the year it was made, but not renewed.

[stuckincincy]

"Fair use" of copyrighted material is a murky area...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

 

 

Here is what I do:

 

. Clearly state the article title. Italicize it for emphasis.

 

. Cite the author, source, and date of the original publication (e.g. by John Doe, Cincinnati Enquirer, 7/26/10).

 

. Display a few lines of the articles' text (in quotes), to give the reader an idea of the content. Back in my day - before the inet - I was told that quoted text should be less than 100 words - the less, the better. Reflecting complete text here is wrong. And tedious to scroll through, If I may say.

 

. Provide the original link (none of this "linky" masking stuff, please).

 

 

It's my opinion that most authors don't object to the dissemination of their works, as long as it is just a "snapshot", to pique interest. The out-and-out full or substantially full re-publication is infringement.

 

There is the occasional cry from this or that one to be allowed to add attached photos from 3rd parties to their postings. That's a big copyright no-no.

 

stuck

[Fezmid]

Are you saying that if a link to a copyable CD were posted that it wouldn't be theft? I disagree if so. Whether it's making the words for an article or making something tangible, like a HDTV. Theft is theft. Just because one is a lot easier to steal than the other doesn't mean it isn't stealing. JMO

 

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's not theft, it's copyright infringement. Why do people have such a hard time understanding that...?

 

And in fact, copyright infringement has (I believe) a penalty of up to $150,000/instance, whereas theft is MUCH lower. You'd be better off breaking into Best Buy and stealing the CD than you would be following the link to the copyable CD in your example.

 

In no way am I condoning copyright infringement -- but it's NOT the same as theft/stealing. They're different. One is tangible, one is not.

 

I'm done arguing it - if people want to believe it's theft and don't care about the proper definitions (despite the court case and other documentation to the contrary), that's fine with me. I must not be explaining myself very well if nobody sees the differences I'm pointing out.

[The Tomcat]

If you post an entire article with the author and a link, is it still infringement?

[The Dean]

If you post an entire article with the author and a link, is it still infringement?

 

 

Sure it is. At least it usually is, I think. If you post the entire article (even when citing the author and giving a link) you have deprived the rights-owner the benefits that come from viewing/reading the article at the original source.

 

I can imagine some instances where the original rights-owner receives no benefits from his/her work in the original format (no charge, no ads, etc ). In that case, you may be infringing technically, but what damage have you actually incurred? Still Cincy has the right take on this, I think.

[Beerball]

Still Cincy has the right take on this, I think.

GET OFF MY LAWN!?

[stuckincincy]

GET OFF MY LAWN!?

 

"Good fences make good neighbors."