[highroute]

This would appear to be a copyright violation:

http://priusonline.com/viewtopic.php?t=7947

No source is cited, unfortunately.

 

[mikepaul]

<sigh>

Elect me President, and I'll try to make sure that Copyright Violations go back to involve actual interference with selling something, rather than harmless quoting.

There should be a real loss, rather than a potential, vaporous one, before the word Violation comes into play.

You may now return to hunting down any excessive quoting...

 

[DanMan32]

Uh, it is a publication. Publications make money from readership, either through subscription charges or advertizing. Posting an entire article denies them their income in both forms.

Then there is giving credit where credit is due. Not doing so is plaigerizing. Someone took the time to write the article, so should get the proper recognition. Also, citing references to a quote allows one to verify its authenticity. We all know wierd claims are made firsthand even on this site. It wouldn't be nice if unverifiable claims were made anonymously.

Now posting a link would not be a problem.

 

[mikepaul]

Uh, it is a publication. Publications make money from readership, either through subscription charges or advertizing. Posting an entire article denies them their income in both forms.

Then there is giving credit where credit is due. Not doing so is plaigerizing. Someone took the time to write the article, so should get the proper recognition. Also, citing references to a quote allows one to verify its authenticity. We all know wierd claims are made firsthand even on this site. It wouldn't be nice if unverifiable claims were made anonymously.

Now posting a link would not be a problem.

Let's stick to copyright for a moment. "Vaporous" applies to money that might have been gained and still might be gained. Zero percent chance of proving actual loss. Nada. Zip. Applies to music downloads as well as anything else. Total fraud to say otherwise, unless you can prove you can see the future and in the future no money EVER ended up where it belonged. That's why copyright laws need to be changed to require actual monitary exchange (cash or credit or even barter) and the money (etc) doesn't go to the proper place, rather than the crap like we hear now where money ungained YET is called a loss.

Plagiarism is another story, but it's usually easy to see when something is provided, rather than created like it was the poster's idea...

 

[mikepaul]

Zero percent chance of proving actual loss. Nada. Zip.

I am no copyright attorney (although I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night)... but I wonder:

If one site copies and then posts/publishes a duplicate article, couldn't that deter/detour users from visiting the original site?

And if so, could it thereby reduce the number of hits to that website and thus the amount of money the original site could charge for their online advertising because of a lower number of hits??

Like I said, I don't know how this stuff works, but if a site's advertising revenues are based on their reported user activity, seems like this might be something to consider...

You mean the vaporous profit that still might be made? Nothing prevents a visit to the original page. Already having read something while surfing doesn't prevent seeing what might be an update (rather than the original) and reading that too. Repeating stuff that should only be seen by paid subscribers? While doing it on a constant basis should get a restraint-of-trade lawsuit, if people see that the content is good, it should increase subscribership. The fear might be that it looks bad and people will learn not to subscribe.

See, it's the mindset that unlimited gobs of cash will be yours if you 'entertain' or 'inform' people that has made criminals of people who share. Any day now, they plan to make video capture cards that pre-date digital copyright restrictions illegal to POSESS. The potential to deprive a copyright holder of that extra nickle or two will make criminals of people who paid good money for a tool and don't want to throw it away.

I expect buying a CD then allowing someone else to borrow it will eventually be made illegal, but it'll take at least another month or two...

 

[mikepaul]

You mean the vaporous profit that still might be made?

If 10,000 users hit your site and 10,000 users view the content somewhere else, you'd garner an advertising price of a website that gets 10,000 visitors instead of 20,000, right?

Assuming they never visit your site. Ass-u-me kicks in there...

Nothing prevents a visit to the original page.

True, and while some users might still go looking deeper for more info, I submit that many others might read the simple article and never drop by, thereby denying the original site's traffic and thus some revenue.

Laws shouldn't support punishing people for vaporous 'losses' resulting from ungained money. I recorded "Thursday" off cable, then bought a copy on VHS. Then, when I read that extra stuff was on the DVD, I bought that too. No extras, leading me to be wary of what DeepDiscountDVD has to say about any DVD from now on. At no point did I have a need to replace the original copy of "Thursday", but I did. Quality wasn't an issue going to DVD: extras were. To say someone was deprived of money by my original copy is wrong. If someone else had given me that copy, saying THAT deprived someone of money was wrong.

The current interpretation of copyright law involving sharing amounts to divining the future, and the law should be changed to ONLY involve money improperly exchanged NOW...

 

[DanMan32]

The second problem is credit. For the article in question, where it was posted was never mentioned, therefore nobody here would know where to get more "good stuff". It simply was cut and pasted, without any indication of where it originated from.

Suppose you wanted to comment to the editor? As is, you have no way of doing so.

But whether you believe it or not, copying without permission is STEALING. Now I will admit, I have obtained a few copyright items illegitimately, but I will admit I do posses stolen information.

 

[Emma]

It doesn't matter what someone thinks the law should be...it matters what the law is.

If I'm not mistaken, it's perfectly fine to quote a blurb from an article and post a link to back to the article. That would be fair use. Is it really that hard to click on a link?

The more I write and publish, the more I've come to understand and appreciate copyright laws.

 

[highroute]

If I'm not mistaken, it's perfectly fine to quote a blurb from an article and post a link to back to the article. That would be fair use. Is it really that hard to click on a link?

The US Copyright Office says the following about that:

How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?

Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances.

(Note that the text of US law is in the public domain -- no one holds copyright on it -- so it can be quoted freely!)

There is nothing in the copyright law that "gets the quoter off the hook" for citing the source (or linking to it).

The problem is that there is no "safe harbor" to qualify something as fair use; it is all a question of circumstances that can be resolved fully only by a court. The quoter says it's fair use; the copyright holder says it isn't and files a lawsuit.

So the responsible people and organizations behind this Web site have to be very careful about quotes from copyright sources.

My own preference in posting on line is to paraphrase the substance of the source document (to explain why I am referring to it) in a short sentence and then link to it.

 

[mikepaul]

It doesn't matter what someone thinks the law should be...it matters what the law is.

Good thing slavery ended back when people worried more about 'should be'.

Hopefully stuff that's legal now but bothers busibodies will stay legal because 'is' triumphs...

Ummm, other than the copyright laws being used to violate the rights of consumers, that is...

 

[Emma]

Completely nonsensical analogy....but whatever.
Copyright laws are in effect to protect people and their workproduct. It really isn't that difficult to abide by the laws - quote a small snippit, provide the source and link, and give credit to the author.

 

[mikepaul]

Completely nonsensical analogy....but whatever.

'Whatever' seems to be letting yourself be ripped off, but if that's OK with you, there's not much I can do about it. Enjoy it when they decide VCRs etc. need to be destroyed after Fair Use is completely ended, leaving you paying through the nose to save any content for later use.

Me, I'd prefer to try to avoid that, since I'm not a 'whatever' type...

By the way, here's what may be coming: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060424-6660.html

That's not all. Criminal enforcement of copyright violations will be extended to cover works not registered with the US Copyright Office at the time of the violation. Also, asset forfeiture will be used as a weapon against those infringing on copyright. That PC you use to rip a copy of The Empire Strikes Back to your hard drive could be confiscated and either destroyed or sold at government auction. Other criminal penalties for infringement would be toughened, including up to 10 years in prison for posting copyrighted material online if its value exceeds US$1,000.

 

[Emma]

A work does not have to be registered in order for a copyright to exist.

I don't understand why someone thinks s/he has a right to reprint someone else's work without the permission of the author or owner of the work.

 

[mikepaul]

I don't understand why someone thinks s/he has a right to reprint someone else's work without the permission of the author or owner of the work.

It's called Fair Use.

Normally it doesn't cover the entire work, but seems to work that way when you use a VCR to save "Desperate Housewives" for an indefinite period.

What I want would be like the following (quote for emphasis):

Intellectual Property has no value until money, credit, or barter is exchanged for it. When exchange of money, credit, or barter occurs, but that money, credit, or barter does not go to the Copyright holder, a Copyright Violation will be deemed to have occured. No other scenario shall be considered a violation.

Possible, vaporous, future-based value does not apply. Losses must be real, where money, credit, or barter has been misdirected.

Copyright holders may feel free to stop producing content under these rules, and go dig ditches instead. Others will fill the void, even if they need practice to achieve the same quality. "American Idol", anyone?

Sure, it's not what makes rich people richer, but in a time where the magic word 'digital' is being used to eliminate Fair Use, it's one proper response...

 

[Emma]

I'm well aware of Fair Use...which is exactly what I'm encouraging here. Quote a snippit of the article, give credit where credit is due, and provide a link to the entire article.

Since I rarely watch television, I really haven't given much thought who tapes what and keeps it for how long. But I am a writer. As such, the subject of copyright infringement of written works on websites such as this holds great interest, which is why I joined in on this thread... which I thought was simply requesting that people follow the law and respect copyright holders and the law as it exists.

 

[mikepaul]

Since I rarely watch television, I really haven't given much thought who tapes what and keeps it for how long. But I am a writer. As such, the subject of copyright infringement of written works on websites such as this holds great interest, which is why I joined in on this thread... which I thought was simply requesting that people follow the law and respect copyright holders and the law as it exists.

No, this thread was policing harmless postings which did not profit the poster and any actual loss to the copyright holder will never be proven.

If the law doesn't exist in a way that recognizes the lack of harm, it should be changed. I see it that way because my vested interest is not served by the current law. That's how change happens: a shift in where the most interest lies. When enough consumers realize what's going on, things will probably change...

 

[highroute]

If the law doesn't exist in a way that recognizes the lack of harm, it should be changed. I see it that way because my vested interest is not served by the current law. That's how change happens: a shift in where the most interest lies. When enough consumers realize what's going on, things will probably change...

And that's fine. If you think a law is a bad law, work to change it: convince your legislators of your case, write pamphlets, demonstrate in the streets, whatever. Until then, the law is the law and is to be observed. And I do make a exception for laws that violate a higher moral or ethical standard, such as ones supporting slavery, genocide, and the like, but please don't try to convince me that this is such a case; this is rather banal commercial law.

If I find that the law does not allow me to protect what I create as my own, then I will either stop creating or I will stop making what I create available to be stolen from me. Maybe "information wants to be free", but why should I or anyone else create any information for others to use if I can't protect it? Charity is nice but I can't live on what it pays.

Further, US Copyright Law is largely the same as international copyright law as agreed in the Berne Convention. So you'll have to convince its signers (most of the world) of your view on copyright to get very far.

 

[mikepaul]

If I find that the law does not allow me to protect what I create as my own, then I will either stop creating or I will stop making what I create available to be stolen from me. Maybe "information wants to be free", but why should I or anyone else create any information for others to use if I can't protect it? Charity is nice but I can't live on what it pays.

As previously stated, feel free to find other things to do.

Further, US Copyright Law is largely the same as international copyright law as agreed in the Berne Convention. So you'll have to convince its signers (most of the world) of your view on copyright to get very far.

Umm, I fail to see where an exclusion from prosecution for non-commercial sharing should require international support. As it stands, that's all I'm looking for.

Or are you saying that if US Copyright law was abandoned, international law would swoop in and do the punishing? Seems an odd idea, but probably in the best interests of copyright holders so it might be true.

Remember, I'm not asking for an end to copyrights, simply because greed seems to have driven some industry organizations insane. I'd start with a federal ban on copy protection of any sort before going THAT far...

 

[iggy1iggy]

well reguardless of your viewpoint on the topic

I replaced the article with a link to the original

 

[TJandGENESIS]

Wow, what a thread.
©2006 TJ Maher
All Rights Observed.