A day in the life of our Friend...

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

I was well within the fair use criteria and I gave you full credit.

Quoting an entire entry is not fair use, nor do you satisfy the other
criteria for fair use.

That's an opinion, and not a very qualified one either... as usual.

Additionally, a glance at the site reveals
that it contains advertising. By infringing on the copyright you
deprive the author of revenue from that advertising.

spit take Your traffic has likely quintupled. You've received a
favor, and have failed to express your gratitude.
-----

- gpsman

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Quoting an entire entry is not fair use, nor do you satisfy the other
criteria for fair use. Additionally, a glance at the site reveals
that it contains advertising. By infringing on the copyright you
deprive the author of revenue from that advertising.

I'm not an attorney, but I have been involved in copyright infringement and
patent cases in the past as a witness, and have some understanding of US
Copyright law.

The OP posted your entry for the purpose of news reporting and
comment/criticism. This is EXACTLY in line with Fair Use, which I have
quoted below for clarity. Unless you could evidence that his posting
actually cost you to lose revenue (ie: reduced the market value of your
work) I don't think you would have a case.

=================

From http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

"§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a
copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes
such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple
copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement
of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any
particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of
a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair
use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."

=================

1) He did not use the posting for commercial or profitable purposes.

2) Your blog is essentially a free publication, with advertising revenue
produced from affiliate ads in the sidebar. However, it would be easy to
demonstrate from your own admissions that there is little or no revenue
produced from your website. And of course, logs are easy to produce to
verify it.

3) Your blog contains many entries. He did not post the whole blog.

4) I suspect that the OPs posting here probably produced as many or more
hits on your blog since the last time it was propogandized on this forum.
This would have increased the potential value of your blog. Again, the
stats are easily quantified from the logs of the site host...


I suspect that in a court of law, it would be a clear case of Fair Use.

gpsman writes:

That's an opinion, and not a very qualified one either... as usual.

You cannot compensate for dishonesty and a total lack of ethics with
personal attacks.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com wrote in message


I don't feel sorry for him. He causes his own problems and then
refuses to take any responsibility for them. No wonder he's a loser.

... France is welcome to him.

No kidding.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

Mxsmanic wrote:
gpsman writes:

That's an opinion, and not a very qualified one either... as usual.

You cannot compensate for dishonesty and a total lack of ethics with
personal attacks.

Wah. There's no dishonesty; you were quoted, you were credited. My
opinion is honest; you are fond of speaking of that which you don't
know.

As far as ethics, whether your copyright has been infringed is a matter
best left to be determined in court. What damages have you sustained
that you can substantiate?
-----

- gpsman

gpsman writes:

There's no dishonesty; you were quoted, you were credited.

The infringer knew what he was doing, and knew it was illegal, but he
did it, anyway; and then he tried to rationalize his infringement to
protect himself when he was called on it.

He also was lacking in ethics in undertaking such an infringement to
begin with. Apparently he feels that some targets aren't entitled to
protection under the law, or that they won't pursue him legally for
his infringement, or both.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
gpsman writes:


There's no dishonesty; you were quoted, you were credited.


The infringer knew what he was doing, and knew it was illegal, but he
did it, anyway; and then he tried to rationalize his infringement to
protect himself when he was called on it.

He also was lacking in ethics in undertaking such an infringement to
begin with. Apparently he feels that some targets aren't entitled to
protection under the law, or that they won't pursue him legally for
his infringement, or both.

Wow, Anthony, you're a lawyer too?! Do you specialize in French, US, EU,
or international law?

Hit the books, Jack, and don't come here no more, no more.

Rip

"Judah" wrote in message
.. .
Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Quoting an entire entry is not fair use, nor do you satisfy the other
criteria for fair use. Additionally, a glance at the site reveals
that it contains advertising. By infringing on the copyright you
deprive the author of revenue from that advertising.

I'm not an attorney, but I have been involved in copyright infringement
and
patent cases in the past as a witness, and have some understanding of US
Copyright law.

I thought about weighing into this from the perspective of a published,
professional writer who is both knowledgeable and sensitive to copyright,
trademark and other issues regarding protection of intellectual property and
derives significant income from the craft.
However, it is my observation and experience that unless you agree with
Mr. Atkielski anything you say is wrong regardless of how correct you may
be. So, regardless of how correct you and GPSMAN may be, let him spew.

Mxsmanic wrote:
gpsman writes:

There's no dishonesty; you were quoted, you were credited.

The infringer knew what he was doing, and knew it was illegal,

Spurious conclusion. You have no method of determining what he knew.

but he
did it, anyway; and then he tried to rationalize his infringement to
protect himself when he was called on it.

Spurious conclusion. He has nothing from which to "protect himself".

He also was lacking in ethics in undertaking such an infringement to
begin with.

Spurious conclusion. No infringement has been determined, except by
unqualified opinion.

Apparently he feels that some targets aren't entitled to
protection under the law, or that they won't pursue him legally for
his infringement, or both.

Spurious conclusion. You don't know what he feels.

You have no damages, just a very high-pitched whine.
-----

- gpsman

Steve,

Mosts of his entries are pretty glum. I didn't see anything positive written
about anything, except his time spent with his new joystick.


I found amazing the capability to rationalize coming late to classes and not
caring about students as the fault of others.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)