Posted by Webster on July 19, 2001, at 19:34:13
In reply to Re: copyrighted material, posted by Dr. Bob on July 19, 2001, at 12:59:25
Stjames wrote:
>The article is off their web page, no password are needed to view it.Then why not provide your comments, a summary and a link? Summarizing ideas and offering critical comments can be a valuable mental exercise. Granted, there is some genuine debate over the right to link to other sites, but unlike in discussion about reproducing copyrighted work, the strong debate about links falls on the side of free use. If anybody sued you for posting a link, search engine companies might join in your defense, because they do it for profit.
And stjames wrote:
>Yea or ney, Dr Bob ? It would help to know so in the future I can be guided by what is OK with you.I totally agree. “…can be complicated” does not nearly approach an honest explanation of copyright laws. To me, the doctor’s FAQ on copyrights is the legal equivalent of a banana peel he intentionally placed on his own front step.
*****
Noa wrote: How about the next "guest expert" being an expert on internet copyright issues and the implications for self-help boards like this?Excellent idea. A potential guest expert could be Brad Templeton, who has a “10 myths about copyright law page” at: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html . Templeton says he is “publisher at ClariNet Communications Corp., the world's first ever ‘.com’ company and the net's first and for a long time largest electronic newspaper.” Of course, another good idea would be for a web publisher to consult a copyright attorney before posting advice that “when exactly one has the right to (use the copyrighted material of others) can be complicated”.
*****
Robert Hsuing referenced the FAQ, which says:
"BTW, nobody should post anything they don't have the right to. When exactly one has that right can be complicated, though."Of course, nobody should kill anybody unless they have the right to, either. Sometimes, such as in war, in judicial execution or in defense of one’s life a person does have the right to kill. Exactly when somebody has the right to kill can be complicated, but that does not mean murder laws are not generally iron-clad prohibitions against most killings. Likewise with copyright laws. Suggesting that one has sometimes has the right to post copyrighted material at dr-bob.org, then using the suggestion as a reason to look the other way when clear violations occur is, well, it’s uncivil – it’s an offense against the civil protections afforded to writers and publishers. It is also a tasty tidbit for a trial attorney who might want to garnish a portion of a doctor’s university salary.
****
Cam wrote:
>"troll is as troll does".
Apparently, when name calling is civil and when it is not is also complicated. Maybe it has to do with who your friends are, and toward whom an accepted in-group agrees to direct their loathing.*****
AKC wrote:
>“I know absolutely nothing about intellectual propertly law”Okay. Why not learn something about it. It might make it easier to defend your “turf”
>And if you are really concerned for the owners of this article, drop them a line.
I am more concerned about the integrity of civil protections for intellectual property, but I agree that contacting a wronged publisher can sometimes be as effective as, or more effective than contacting persistent copyright violators. To my knowledge, though, the web-master here does not delete illegally posted material. There are several copyrighted articles still posted in the PB archives that have not been deleted.
****
Robert Hsuing wrote:
>I appreciate your letting me know about potential problems, but please … do so in the future by email.Interesting idea, I’ll consider it. But what comes around goes around. Perhaps you can share with us some more about why you think public admonishment of individuals is best for the group.
****
stjames wrote
> “You should also look up the maning of the word plagiarized.”Fair enough, though I couldn’t find a mane anywhere on or about the word. I realized the *meaning* of the word involves a false representation of originality. I choose a metaphor because it seemed a more “civil” term than thief, which more often used in reference to people who violate copyright laws. For example: http://www.profitjump.com/articles/0819-internet-copyright-laws.html Besides, since you granted Robert Hsuing the right to use it as he wishes, and you can only do so if it is your original work, doesn’t that imply a false representation of originality?
BTW, james, it was an interesting article, though I would have preferred a link and maybe a few words about your take on the article. For my interests, the article could have provided a more thorough summary of recent research concerning the endogenous cannabinoid system. Then again, the writer did provide references to more information, and SciAm provides (copyrighted) articles that target readers with a wide range of technical expertise, so it gets at least a B grade from me.
poster:Webster
thread:1598
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010718/msgs/1609.html