Posted by Justice on July 22, 2001, at 1:40:51
In reply to Re: expert on internet copyright issues » Justice, posted by Shar on July 21, 2001, at 23:48:40
In general, your arguments seem rational, but in case you missed the context, shar, this thread is not about the existence of psycho-babble and whether excerpts of research articles can fairly be posted here. There is a way to fairly use the material of others on this site, but reprinting them in their entirety on the World Wide Web is not the way. Excerpts, and a synopsis
This thread is about the posting of entire articles taken from popular publications such as the New York Times, Scientific American and news wire services, specifically the "Healing Haze" article reposted from SciAm at: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010714/msgs/70770.html . If you look at the top of your browser window when you load that PB post, you will even see the title Scientific American in the title bar.
When articles from popular news publications are posted here, results from some major search engines return this site along with the original site. For example, after Google's bots next crawl this site, if I enter "Naomi Lubick" as a search string at Google, the results will direct me to this site as well as to the Scientific American site to which Lubick sold her story "Healing Haze." All of the web users who choose to read her article on psycho-babble instead of at Scientific American Explore represent an economic loss to the publishers of Scientific American. They will be lost traffic for the SciAm site. Maybe it is only a few, for now, but if this is how we interpret fair use, and we magnify the use by not stopping and considering the implications, sites such as this could become the next Napster.
poster:Justice
thread:1598
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010718/msgs/1623.html