Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: anonymous on August 31, 2004, 04:12:29 PM
-
skuzzy pointed out i did something bad. :) read the editors afterward from farenheit 451 if you get the chance.
-
Hmmm... aren't both works about the erosion of rights?
So... Moore digressed a bit... he's a witty guy. ;)
-
Just a heads up, but if this is copyrighted material and you did not get permission from the copyright holder to post it, then you now have an oppertunity to remove it.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Just a heads up, but if this is copyrighted material and you did not get permission from the copyright holder to post it, then you now have an oppertunity to remove it.
i never thought about that. its the afterward from his book. sorry skuzzy.
-
It's called Fahrenheit 451 (Coda).
It's easy to google.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
It's called Fahrenheit 451 (Coda).
It's easy to google.
thanks Shipmate. :)
http://members.iquest.net/~jswartz/jks/humor/451.htm
-
I'm not trying to quibble, but I thought attributed excerpts fell under fair use? Even in the wonderful world of the RIAA, sampling is still legal.
Or is an afterword or foreword considered an entire work in of itself, so even properly attributing it constitutes unlawful reproduction? Or is the quoted material too "whole" to count as fair use? Since the quoted material is used as "evidence" supporting a position, at what point is it considered too much?
Is there a lawyer in the house?
er...
I see that the quoted material in question has already been cut out even as I write this... Better safe (and silent) than sorry in the good old lawsuit happy US of A.
-
The foreword, or afterword are works unto themselves as they make a conclusive point. They also must carry thier own copyright, apart from the body of the book.
It is not uncommon for a book to have several copyrights attached. The artwork for the cover is separate, for example.
I do not have the book in hand, so I posted the warning about it.
I do not know the fine details of copyright law, so I err towards the safe side.
-
FWIW, a post on Bradbury's forums (http://www.raybradbury.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000067.html) links to a page with the Coda (http://www.uta.edu/english/V/students/collab5/bradbury.htm).
Doesn't seem like something Bradbury is particularly worried about.
-
It may be used with permission Sandman.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
It may be used with permission Sandman.
Okay... it was a weak counterpoint... but I tried. ;)
-
I'm wondering...
There are many posts here that are direct cut and pastes from news sites, online magazines and the like, all of which have copyright notices clearly identified in the footer and yet those posts don't receive the same scrutiny as Anonymous'.
I'm sure I'm as guilty as the next in this regard, but isn't it a little inconsistent?
-
Originally posted by anonymous
thanks Shipmate. :)
http://members.iquest.net/~jswartz/jks/humor/451.htm
OOOOOOHHH you said "shipmate"
If any of you have spent time in the Navy you know that would be considered a "personal attack"
-
Originally posted by Coolridr
OOOOOOHHH you said "shipmate"
If any of you have spent time in the Navy you know that would be considered a "personal attack"
LOL... I've been out long enough that the term has lost its sting. ;)
-
If I spot a post made up of with what appears to be copyrighted material and is being used without permission, then it will get the same treatment.
Feel free to point it out. I read this book, so I was familiar with the content.
-
Originally posted by Coolridr
OOOOOOHHH you said "shipmate"
If any of you have spent time in the Navy you know that would be considered a "personal attack"
nah wasnt personal attack was sincere in a padwan to jedi way. sandman knows comps and internet way better than me helped me get my point across without breaking skuzzys rules is all. :)
-
My god... How will Rip 'n Paste express himself now? :D
© 2004 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us.
(B) CNN Interactive contains copyrighted material, trademarks and other proprietary information, including, but not limited to, text, software, photos, video, graphics, music and sound, and the entire contents of CNN Interactive are copyrighted as a collective work under the United States copyright laws. CNN owns a copyright in the selection, coordination, arrangement and enhancement of such content, as well as in the content original to it. Subscriber may not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale, create derivative works, or in any way exploit, any of the content, in whole or in part. Subscriber may download copyrighted material for Subscriber's personal use only. Except as otherwise expressly permitted under copyright law, no copying, redistribution, retransmission, publication or commercial exploitation of downloaded material will be permitted without the express permission of CNN and the copyright owner. In the event of any permitted copying, redistribution or publication of copyrighted material, no changes in or deletion of author attribution, trademark legend or copyright notice shall be made. Subscriber acknowledges that it does not acquire any ownership rights by downloading copyrighted material.
(C) Subscriber shall not upload, post or otherwise make available on CNN Interactive any material protected by copyright, trademark or other proprietary right without the express permission of the owner of the copyright, trademark or other proprietary right and the burden of determining that any material is not protected by copyright rests with Subscriber. Subscriber shall be solely liable for any damage resulting from any infringement of copyrights, proprietary rights, or any other harm resulting from such a submission. By submitting material to any public area of CNN Interactive, Subscriber automatically grants, or warrants that the owner of such material has expressly granted CNN the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate and distribute such material (in whole or in part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or hereafter developed for the full term of any copyright that may exist in such material. Subscriber also permits any other Subscriber to access, view, store or reproduce the material for that Subscriber's personal use. Subscriber hereby grants CNN the right to edit, copy, publish and distribute any material made available on CNN Interactive by Subscriber.
-
Good thing I'm not a CNN or time warner "subscriber" :) They can keep trying to redefine the word subscriber until it covers everyone within a mile of a television or an internet connection, but I'm still not a subscriber. Maybe when the government puts the shackles on me and hauls me away at the behest of the media giants and RIAA/MPAA I'll be a subscriber, but I'm not going to adhere to a BS list of "subscriber" responsibilities or restrictions just because some idiotic optimist took the time to type them in and shout loudly "you're a subscriber now!"
I'm a subscriber to this BBS and HTC's services... It says so on the sign-up page that I agreed to, plus I sent them money. So what HTC says I can do using their resources and property (ie. the forums, arena, and game) is what I'll do. CNN... I don't recall signing anything or sending them money, so just because they wrote it down doesn't make it the truth any more than the weekly world news is the truth just because it's printed out.
Hopefully we'll someday have an honest judge stand up and tell the media giants "You can't DO that" when they try to invent legally binding definitions, obligations, and responsibilities into their licenses. There are already laws being drafted that quite literally make it illegal to write a sequence of ones and zeros on paper, because those binary sequences could possibly be used to duplicate and distribute copyrighted material. It's a good time to be a lawyer because any moron with a computer can write a "license agreement" that obligates anyone who reads it to any standard they desire, and the courts and congress are giving these obligations the authority of law. The last time I read it, the constitution didn't give disney or CNN the right to create laws.
-
Gotta call BS.
A paper pays a journalist for a product. Then the paper publishes said product.
It does not make it yours to use in any way you see fit. Sure, even though they paid for it for you to see for free, minus some side-bar ads, it does not give you the right to use the product in whatever form you want. It's not yours, you didn't pay for it.
Someone else paid for it, and they get to control its usage. For example, to put it on a web page that they are also paying for. As far as I know, HTC is not paying a percentage nor royalty for this stuff to be published here.
It's funny how out to lunch people are wrt to this.
Skuzzy called foul on the pasting of an exerpt from a book here on this forum. Yet this news pasting, totally illegal, has been going on forever. Within ten minutes of calling foul, Skuzzy commented something along the lines of "Nice pics" in response to illegally posted pictures of cars.
This watermelon happens alla time.
If yer gonna crack down... then know yer stuff and be consistent.
Personally, I think this kind of thing... while striclty illegal.... just should be left alone.
-
§ 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.
Especially commenting applies to the media like internet BBS...
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Just a heads up, but if this is copyrighted material and you did not get permission from the copyright holder to post it, then you now have an oppertunity to remove it.
"Transmission or reproduction of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use requires the written permission of the copyright owners."
The original post by anonymous qualifies as fair use.
-
So long as it is attributed, you can post pretty much anything you want on the net.
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
§ 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.
Especially commenting applies to the media like internet BBS...
What are the "exclusive rights" that this section 107 refers to?
Notwithstanding the provision of sections 106 and 106A? Erhm, isn't it a bit disengenous to flout section 107 while not including these two sections? This one section seems to be, afterall, based on it.
"...other means specified by it"...? Unless we know what that's refering to, it's no good.
I'm quite sure that you can't take an entire article an go and paste it all over the internet. Including here.
Same with books, same with pictures.
Sorry... and no amount of MP3 "fight the man" excuses are going to change anything.
-
If you attribute it, and do not collect money for reposting it, you most certainly can. This does not apply to files, just to text, of course.
-
Nash,
My point is that the licenses are getting weirder and weirder, stepping farther away from established legal standards of fair use. Not only that, the US government and legal system is not keeping this corporate re-write of our laws in check.
Imagine if one day you found that your daily newspaper had some fine print at the bottom that said you could not duplicate any portion of the paper, you could not alter the paper in any way, could not cut out articles and tape them up at work or home, or can't let a family member or friend read the paper after you're done. In fact, the little notice may even say that once you read it, any thoughts you may have on the subject matter contained in the paper are now the property of the publisher.
You wouldn't stand for it would you? You'd still buy the paper, keep cutting out interesting articles and sending them to your Mom or brother (or whoever), your kids would still cut out articles and take them to school for class projects, and when you're done with the paper you'll still leave it on the table in the breakroom for someone else to read.
Maybe you see my point... Writing down usage restrictions that go beyond established laws do not mean that those new restrictions are also law. Just because it's written doesn't mean it's true, and just because someone says you can or can't do something doesn't mean you can or can't do that thing. This is a country of laws, not a country of arbitrary usage licenses. The type of corporate strong-arming that's going on with these supra-legal rewrites of fair use is specifically forbidden in anti-racketeering laws, but nobody has the money to call them on it and make it stick.
It's like the Russian programmer that Adobe had arrested... Skylarov? They essentially rot-13'd their document format and called it "encrypted", wrote some bogus license about how people shouldn't do this or that to the little ones and zeros zinging around in your computer, and had this guy locked up when he told people how trivial it was to unscramble the document. That isn't the act of a country of laws, that's the act of a mafia-style organization with some sort of hold over the government. The FBI supervisor who allowed that travesty to occur probably thinks the weekly world news is actual news, because he obviously doesn't realize that writing something down and screaming "you can't do this or this!" doesn't make it law.
So when CNN puts some mumbo jumbo on some license page I've never read, it's going to be ignored. When my federal or state goverment passes a law stating what I can and can't do, then it's something I'll pay attention to. Until then, it's just so much blah blah blah. Unlike HTC who provides me with services under terms I agree to in return for a subscription fee, CNN is posting information in a public place then trying to place obligations and liabilities on me. There is no legal or moral basis for that any more than there would be legal basis for attempting restricting access to a document stapled to a bulletin board in the local town square via a printed license at the bottom of the notice.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
If you attribute it, and do not collect money for reposting it, you most certainly can. This does not apply to files, just to text, of course.
You'll have to take that argument up with the Skuzzmeister.
-
Eagl, I generally agree with you. It's why I started pestering Skuzzy.
The question is, can HTC be held liable?
That's his issue. He can decide which risks HTC is willing to take so all the talk of fair use and freedom of information is largely moot.
-
Originally posted by Nash
What are the "exclusive rights" that this section 107 refers to?
Notwithstanding the provision of sections 106 and 106A? Erhm, isn't it a bit disengenous to flout section 107 while not including these two sections? This one section seems to be, afterall, based on it.
"...other means specified by it"...? Unless we know what that's refering to, it's no good.
I'm quite sure that you can't take an entire article an go and paste it all over the internet. Including here.
Same with books, same with pictures.
Sorry... and no amount of MP3 "fight the man" excuses are going to change anything.
Those aren't freakin mp3 excuses. In this country we have something like "Fair Use". Fair use is DEFINED by COPYRIGHT LAW.
LAW!
§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
§ 106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity
(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art
(1) shall have the right
(A) to claim authorship of that work, and
(B) to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of visual art which he or she did not create;
(2) shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation; and
(3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d), shall have the right
(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and
(B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right.
(b) Scope and Exercise of Rights. Only the author of a work of visual art has the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work, whether or not the author is the copyright owner. The authors of a joint work of visual art are coowners of the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work.
(c) Exceptions. (1) The modification of a work of visual art which is the result of the passage of time or the inherent nature of the materials is not a distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3)(A).
(2) The modification of a work of visual art which is the result of conservation, or of the public presentation, including lighting and placement, of the work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3) unless the modification is caused by gross negligence.
(3) The rights described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall not apply to any reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work in, upon, or in any connection with any item described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of the definition of work of visual art in section 101, and any such reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in paragraph (3) of subsection (a).
(d) Duration of Rights. (1) With respect to works of visual art created on or after the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall endure for a term consisting of the life of the author.
(2) With respect to works of visual art created before the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, but title to which has not, as of such effective date, been transferred from the author, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall be coextensive with, and shall expire at the same time as, the rights conferred by section 106.
(3) In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall endure for a term consisting of the life of the last surviving author.
(4) All terms of the rights conferred by subsection (a) run to the end of the calendar year in which they would otherwise expire.
(e) Transfer and Waiver. (1) The rights conferred by subsection (a) may not be transferred, but those rights may be waived if the author expressly agrees to such waiver in a written instrument signed by the author. Such instrument shall specifically identify the work, and uses of that work, to which the waiver applies, and the waiver shall apply only to the work and uses so identified. In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors, a waiver of rights under this paragraph made by one such author waives such rights for all such authors.
(2) Ownership of the rights conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a work of visual art is distinct from ownership of any copy of that work, or of a copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright in that work. Transfer of ownership of any copy of a work of visual art, or of a copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright, shall not constitute a waiver of the rights conferred by subsection (a). Except as may otherwise be agreed by the author in a written instrument signed by the author, a waiver of the rights conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a work of visual art shall not constitute a transfer of ownership of any copy of that work, or of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive right under a copyright in that work.
-
Skuzzy will reply, because that is the correct, legal terms of usage for publicly posted textual information.
-
Originally posted by eagl
So when CNN puts some mumbo jumbo on some license page I've never read, it's going to be ignored.
Hey occifer! I never even KNEW drinken druven was illegal!
When my federal or state goverment passes a law stating what I can and can't do, then it's something I'll pay attention to. Until then, it's just so much blah blah blah.
Actually there is a law. The law that the fine print is refering to.
Unlike HTC who provides me with services under terms I agree to in return for a subscription fee, CNN is posting information in a public place then trying to place obligations and liabilities on me.
Oh the horror. Protecting their rights. Paying for something and wanting to use the thing they paid for in the way they see fit. Watching their bottom line. Are you a communist or something?
There is no legal or moral basis for that any more than there would be legal basis for attempting restricting access to a document stapled to a bulletin board in the local town square via a printed license at the bottom of the notice.
Sure there's a legal basis for it. In fact it is law.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The question is, can HTC be held liable?
No, there have been enough rulings about it already, case is clear...
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
No, there have been enough rulings about it already, case is clear...
I suspect that HTC won't trust your judgement on this.
Maybe it's just me... I'm just sayin' is all...
-
By Skuzzy yankin' an excerpt, I'm guessing that either they know the law, or that they at least partially know it.
If excerpts are disallowed here, while the illegal posting of articles and pictures continue, then it's a safe bet that the pulling of the excerpt was a kind of spasm.
-
HTC can have its own rules on this board. If they decide to ban material which is allowed under fair use, that's their right.
But legay they cannot be held responsible if Joe Doe is pasting a part of some work in order to have a discussion about it.
-
Did the poster of the yanked excerpt give the attribute?
-
Originally posted by Nash
If excerpts are disallowed here, while the illegal posting of articles and pictures continue, then it's a safe bet that the pulling of the excerpt was a kind of spasm.
Hence, my overwhelming compulsion to comment on it. :D
-
I could take this whole moderation thang to an entirely new fangled level (I have NUMBERS baaaaybe)... but I aint gonna. :D
-
I am not a lawyer, but I can surmise this. If the publisher had a leg to stand on and I got asked, in court, if I was aware this was an excerp from a copyrighted work, I would have to answer yes.
To that end, HTC would be in deep doo-doo.
When I do not know the source of material posted, I can plead ignorance. If something is posted which is copyrighted, and someone points it out (including some information showing the copyright, so it can be quickly determined it is) we can deal with it.
As I said, I had read this book, so I knew immediately it was quoted from the book. I was not sure about "fair use" in this instance as it was quoted in its entireity and not just a partial quote from the work.
Nash, if you have a question, ask it. Your opinion is way off the mark. Just FYI.