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

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 22:10:10 GMT, 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...

Much as I hate to say it, Vince is absolutely correct on this issue.
There is also an academic exemption. Fair use has been around for many
years.

And Vince, I know that you do not need me to support your thesis, but
I just wanted to stick my two cents worth in :-)

Al Minyard

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 04:33:18 GMT, (Brian Allardice)
wrote:

In article , says...

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

This could be fun... what about public schools run by for profit education
companies? Is it Philadelphia, among others, where such a thing is going on?

Cheers,
dba

Not a problem. Private universities have been using the academic
exemption for many years without a conflict.

Al Minyard

Vince Brannigan wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

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.

And it still doesn't invalidate the copyright for the individual article.

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

Actually, the Harper and Row case was on the right of first publication
("confidentiality and creative control"), and went to use, not
substantiality (even though there was a good substantiality argument
because of the relevance of the quoted pieces). And even at that, the
quoted piece was less than 400 words out of an entire *book*, much less
than the 100% of a newspaper article quoted here.

It depends on where the copying took place.

According to US law it doesn't as long as you're in the US when you did
it.

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.

Nope. As long as it's still under copyright, it's covered.

"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.

Princeton University Press versus Michigan Document Services, Inc.

A company that made "coursepacks" for teachers got dinged on this one,
despite only using bits and pieces of many smaller works.

And I'm sure that if you really knew what you were talking about, being
a lawyer and all, you'd be able to find a case that *didn't* go in favor
of the plaintiff in fair use, instead of one that supports *my* point...

--


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

In article ,
Alan Minyard wrote:

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 22:10:10 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

Much as I hate to say it, Vince is absolutely correct on this issue.

Not according to the law that he quoted.

There is also an academic exemption. Fair use has been around for many
years.

But not for entire articles, except under very specific constraints (in
libraries and similar collections). Republishing the contents of an
article on the Internet is completely out of that area.

Under the academic exemption, he could probably get away with a
more-substantial quote in an academic journal than if he was printing it
in a local paper as part of a critique, but it's still very clear that
reproducing an entire piece breaks substantiality.

You'll also note this is a "rec" newsgroup, not an "ed" or "sci" one.

--


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

Alan Minyard wrote:

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 04:33:18 GMT, (Brian Allardice)
wrote:

In article , says...

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

This could be fun... what about public schools run by for profit education
companies? Is it Philadelphia, among others, where such a thing is going on?

Not a problem. Private universities have been using the academic
exemption for many years without a conflict.

....under very specific restrictions, and they have to retain some
control of the work. They're also restricted in the number of copies
they can make at any one time.

Some of them have been caught with this, too, in making "sourcebooks"
for teachers with large numbers of copyrighted works in a compilation.
Many of the smart ones ante up the fee for reprinting the pieces
(usually a nominal fee for this use), and pass the costs on to the
students. Often, a local bookstore will make the arrangements for
printing and fees.

Read this, for a start:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyrigh...w/chapter9/9-c
..html#1

The Religious Technology (Scientology) Center vs Lerma case is one of
the most famous examples of someone getting in trouble for republishing
materials on the Internet. The Religious Technology Center vs
Pagliarina case is an example of *not* exceeding fair use.

--


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

"John Mullen" wrote in news:KMd8b.5371$YL.2063@news-
binary.blueyonder.co.uk:

Richard Bernstein, NYT
Reprinted in the International Herald Tribune.

U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world

Do we give a rat's hinder?

"Come the three quarters of the world in arms
And we shall shock them"

Shakespeare

IBM

__________________________________________________ ____________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - FAST UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

"Jim McLaughlin" wrote in
news:S2A8b.431325$Ho3.69216@sccrnsc03:

Saudi royal funded Wahabbist crazies

Since they are *Saudi* funded crazies, just why are you doing asking the
rest of the world to march on Iraq rather than on Saudi Arabia?

--
Coridon Henshaw / http://www3.sympatico.ca/gcircle/csbh

Coridon Henshaw ) wrote:

:"Jim McLaughlin" wrote in
:news:S2A8b.431325$Ho3.69216@sccrnsc03:
:
: Saudi royal funded Wahabbist crazies
:
:Since they are *Saudi* funded crazies, just why are you doing asking the
:rest of the world to march on Iraq rather than on Saudi Arabia?

Why are Lefties so unutterably stupid?

I suppose you also wonder why we don't invade North Korea and
Pakistan, right?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Not quite sure what your syntax was meant to convey ("...just why are you
doing asking...") as it seems quite meaningless.

Can you try again in a language actually understandable by other
humans?



--
Jim McLaughlin
************************************************** **************************
************************************************** **************************
I am getting really tired of spam, so the reply address is munged.
Please don't just hit the reply key.
Remove the obvious from the address to reply.
************************************************** **************************
************************************************** **************************
Special treat for spambots:
, ,

************************************************** *************************
"Coridon Henshaw @ (TH+ESE) sympatico.ca)" (chenshawREMOVE wrote in
message ...
"Jim McLaughlin" wrote in
news:S2A8b.431325$Ho3.69216@sccrnsc03:

Saudi royal funded Wahabbist crazies

Since they are *Saudi* funded crazies, just why are you doing asking the
rest of the world to march on Iraq rather than on Saudi Arabia?

--
Coridon Henshaw / http://www3.sympatico.ca/gcircle/csbh