U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world

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

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

Your point is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

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?

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

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

Vince Brannigan wrote:

Im a law professor. I teach this stuff.

If you are, the students shold chip in and buy you a keyboard with an
apostrophe key.

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

And the rest of us are bothered by someone claiming to be an expert on
something spouting obvious falsehoods...

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby wrote:
Vince Brannigan wrote:


Im a law professor. I teach this stuff.


If you are, the students shold chip in and buy you a keyboard with an
apostrophe key.


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


And the rest of us are bothered by someone claiming to be an expert on
something spouting obvious falsehoods...


Im licensed to practice law in Maryland and D.C. Where are you licensed?

Vincent Brannigan

Subject: U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world
From: Vince Brannigan
Date: 9/12/03 4:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:



Chad Irby wrote:
Vince Brannigan wrote:


Im a law professor. I teach this stuff.


If you are, the students shold chip in and buy you a keyboard with an
apostrophe key.


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


And the rest of us are bothered by someone claiming to be an expert on
something spouting obvious falsehoods...


Im licensed to practice law in Maryland and D.C. Where are you licensed?

Vincent Brannigan
..

What is your position on Barron vs Baltimore? Was justice done?. Did John
Marshall fail in light of the Commerce Clause?

Arthur Kramer
2nd year student History of Constitutional Law UNLV

Subject: U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world
From: Vince Brannigan
Date: 9/12/03 4:38 PM Pacific

Im licensed to practice law in Maryland and D.C. Where are you licensed?

Vincent Brannigan

If John Marsshall had refused to hear Madison vs Marbury and judicial review
had never been establishe, would Gore v. Florida been possible?

Arthur Kramer
2nd year student Con Law UNLV

"ArtKramr" wrote

If John Marsshall had refused to hear Madison vs Marbury and judicial review
had never been establishe, would Gore v. Florida been possible?

Yes. It was a purely Constitutional issue, that only a Supreme Court would
have jurisdictiction in.

In article ,
Vince Brannigan wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:
Vince Brannigan wrote:

Im a law professor. I teach this stuff.

If you are, the students shold chip in and buy you a keyboard with an
apostrophe key.

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

And the rest of us are bothered by someone claiming to be an expert on
something spouting obvious falsehoods...

Im licensed to practice law in Maryland and D.C.

Well, since you claim to be a lawyer, you should know by now that even a
layman can find out things about laws that most lawyers don't bother to
find out. Like the basic ins and outs of copyright laws. And what
"fair use" is (or is not).

You, obviously, need to have one of your associates look this up for you
and prepare a short brief.

Where are you licensed?

I'm not. I just learned how to read and write at an early age.

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby wrote:
In article ,
Vince Brannigan wrote:


Chad Irby wrote:

Vince Brannigan wrote:


Im a law professor. I teach this stuff.

If you are, the students shold chip in and buy you a keyboard with an
apostrophe key.


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

And the rest of us are bothered by someone claiming to be an expert on
something spouting obvious falsehoods...

Im licensed to practice law in Maryland and D.C.


Well, since you claim to be a lawyer, you should know by now that even a
layman can find out things about laws that most lawyers don't bother to
find out. Like the basic ins and outs of copyright laws. And what
"fair use" is (or is not).



Well chow down on this

TITLE 17 CHAPTER 1 Sec. 107. Prev | Next

Sec. 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.

Remember news stories are not copyrighted newspapers are. so on all of
the above the copying news stories for the purpose of criticizing the
reporting is fair use.

Oh, and if you do your homework, the Courts of appeal in Md. and DC
maintain lists of those licensed to practice.

Vincent Brannigan








You, obviously, need to have one of your associates look this up for you
and prepare a short brief.


Where are you licensed?


I'm not. I just learned how to read and write at an early age.