Leslie Swartz wrote:
There is indeed an obvious difference between "quoting a relevant excerpt"
and "reproducing the entire document."

its not the entire document. its a single story in a newspaper




Your point is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.


Dont think so

As a personal aside, what would drive a person to do this? I've never
understood that phenomenon- the use of an inappropriate counterargument in
refutation of a position- but I do agree it is effective, as many people are
too weak-minded or are inattentive to the discussion to notice. I, for one,
have never even considered the use of such misdirection to state a case. I
just fundamentally don't understand how anyone would consider using such a
ploy. Was it an accident?


Im a law professor. I teach this stuff.

im bothered by anyone who misuses the limited monopoly provided by the
copyright law

Vince


Steve Swartz


"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" wrote in message
...


Alan Lothian wrote:


In article , John
Mullen wrote:


Richard Bernstein, NYT
Reprinted in the International Herald Tribune.

U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world

snip of loads of stuff distributed around the Net in gross breach of
copyright

On this point I have to disagree. It is clealry being distributed for the
purpose of comment and reaction, which is classic "Fair use" under the
copyright law.

BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF
LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS (Paris Text 1971)

Article 10

(1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has

already

been lawfully made available to the public,
provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their

extent

does not exceed that justified by the purpose,
including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form

of

press summaries

Vince