U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world

Chad Irby wrote:
In article ,
Vince Brannigan wrote:


Chad Irby wrote:

Vince Brannigan wrote:


(the relevant law is attached to the end of this post)


Remember news stories are not copyrighted newspapers are.

Nope. Each story in a joint work is copyrighted separately.

but not sold separately.


Actually, yes, sold separately. This story is available for the
syndication market, by itself. And since you obviously don't know this:
a work does not even have to be *published* to be covered under
copyright.

It si still sold as aprt of a newspaper.


of course since this was the harpur and roe decsion involving the Nixon
pardon.



This newspaper is the "copyrighted work as a
whole" that is what has a market.


Sorry, that's not how copyright works.

It depends on where the copying took place.




Posting less-substantial pieces, maybe. Posting the whole article,
without previous permissions from the owner, is a copyright violation.


nonsense. There is also the test of immediacy.



So you're completely wrong about copyright on at least two points. Note
that the law does *not* say "pick one of these reasons and completely
ignore the rest," it says "shall include."

Its a common 4 factor test. How a court weighs one factor agsint another
depends on the Court. I dont think you will find any apellate decisons
holding that such a posting is a violation by the individual.


RIAA versus all of those people swapping MP3s. Since you contend that a
single song is not covered like a whole album, then someone bootlegging
songs on Napster would have been free and clear.

I siad in the tradtional view. it is clear that electronic copying has
changed both the technolgy and the law with regard to music.


You seem to think I care. I don't. Even if you're really a lawyer,
you're obviously not well informed about copyright laws.


As you point out, internet is an excellet palce for textaul analysis
and commentary. that is why users has a correspondingly large right
to "fair use"


"Fair use" would have been a paragraph, or a summary of the story
involved, with a link the the original. What you do is pretty much just
laziness.


its simply not required. if tehre was a respectable appellate cite
supproting your positon Im sure you would have presented it.

Vince