Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not sure why so many people in this thread want to play moderator.
If you think the OP's post goes against the forum rules, simply report it and allow the actual moderators to determine if it should be edited or deleted.
It's not that hard.
Well said. I should report them for derailing my thread from the original topic.
I'm not sure why so many people in this thread want to play moderator.
If you think the OP's post goes against the forum rules, simply report it and allow the actual moderators to determine if it should be edited or deleted.
It's not that hard.
Devil's Advocate: Maybe...just MAYBE...the OP didn't realize that what they did was against copyright law. So we share information that helps them learn that.
We get a snarky response.
Maybe...just MAYBE...the OP didn't read the Forum Terms and didn't know how to get to them. So we share information that helps them get to the terms and understand why what they did is inappropriate.
We get a snarky response.
Maybe...just MAYBE...the OP doesn't comprehend the idea of sharing snippets, rather than blatantly cut-and-pasting entire paragraphs across. So we share information that helps them learn this.
We get a snarky response.
At that point we've done our due diligence. Blindly reporting the thread doesn't help the OP learn why the behavior is wrong. We at least make an effort to see it from another angle.
Now that people have tried to help the person understand the issue and see that they intentionally disregarded the rules, now it's appropriate to report, which we did.
Back in the days when UseNet was still viable, before blogging was invented, it was accepted practice under Fair Use that one could indeed quote whole articles so long as the source was properly credited. The laws regarding Fair Use perhaps were modified over the past 10 years or so? Or maybe as a result of lawsuits, a lot of places are being more strict about quoting. I've had a post or too deleted here by The Powers That Be for "posting copyrighted material" even though what I posted were excerpts properly credited and formatted in the manner described above.
Devil's Advocate: Maybe...just MAYBE...the OP didn't realize that what they did was against copyright law. So we share information that helps them learn that.
We get a snarky response.
Maybe...just MAYBE...the OP didn't read the Forum Terms and didn't know how to get to them. So we share information that helps them get to the terms and understand why what they did is inappropriate.
We get a snarky response.
Maybe...just MAYBE...the OP doesn't comprehend the idea of sharing snippets, rather than blatantly cut-and-pasting entire paragraphs across. So we share information that helps them learn this.
We get a snarky response.
At that point we've done our due diligence. Blindly reporting the thread doesn't help the OP learn why the behavior is wrong. We at least make an effort to see it from another angle.
Now that people have tried to help the person understand the issue and see that they intentionally disregarded the rules, now it's appropriate to report, which we did.
Report: Mods thread derail from this poster******************************************** *
Devil's Advocate: Maybe...just MAYBE...the OP didn't realize that what they did was against copyright law. So we share information that helps them learn that.
We get a snarky response.
Maybe...just MAYBE...the OP didn't read the Forum Terms and didn't know how to get to them. So we share information that helps them get to the terms and understand why what they did is inappropriate.
We get a snarky response.
Maybe...just MAYBE...the OP doesn't comprehend the idea of sharing snippets, rather than blatantly cut-and-pasting entire paragraphs across. So we share information that helps them learn this.
We get a snarky response.
At that point we've done our due diligence. Blindly reporting the thread doesn't help the OP learn why the behavior is wrong. We at least make an effort to see it from another angle.
Now that people have tried to help the person understand the issue and see that they intentionally disregarded the rules, now it's appropriate to report, which we did.
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work.
The safest course is to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission. When it is impracticable to obtain permission, you should consider avoiding the use of copyrighted material unless you are confident that the doctrine of fair use would apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine whether a particular use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
While I believe the doctrine of fair use would apply here - the op didn't even acknowledge the source of the copyrighted material - and that's the problem.
Devil's Advocate: Maybe...just MAYBE...the OP didn't realize that what they did was against copyright law. So we share information that helps them learn that.
We get a snarky response.
Maybe...just MAYBE...the OP didn't read the Forum Terms and didn't know how to get to them. So we share information that helps them get to the terms and understand why what they did is inappropriate.
We get a snarky response.
Maybe...just MAYBE...the OP doesn't comprehend the idea of sharing snippets, rather than blatantly cut-and-pasting entire paragraphs across. So we share information that helps them learn this.
We get a snarky response.
At that point we've done our due diligence. Blindly reporting the thread doesn't help the OP learn why the behavior is wrong. We at least make an effort to see it from another angle.
Now that people have tried to help the person understand the issue and see that they intentionally disregarded the rules, now it's appropriate to report, which we did.
Even if you meant well, it was first the way you guys called the OP out (as if they were such an evil person for not posting a link to the article), then it was the way you all subsequently dog piled them. None of this was unnecessary.
To make things worse, the OP's thread has now been effectively derailed as a result (maybe that was you all's intent in the first place though?).
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work.
The safest course is to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission. When it is impracticable to obtain permission, you should consider avoiding the use of copyrighted material unless you are confident that the doctrine of fair use would apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine whether a particular use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
While I believe the doctrine of fair use would apply here - the op didn't even acknowledge the source of the copyrighted material - and that's the problem.
The citation has long been corrected by OP and yet you continue to derail this thread and harass posters on an issue that is a moot point.
Report has been mad to Moderators for you constant derailing of this thread****read the rules
Even if you meant well, it was first the way you guys called the OP out (as if they were such an evil person for not posting a link to the article), then it was the way you all subsequently dog piled them.
It was all unnecessary.
Thank you. It was ridiculous and of course it was not meant well. It has been long corrected and they continue go on and on. Like I just embezzled their entire life savings..Truly pathetic
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
