Posted by Shar on July 22, 2001, at 10:13:07
In reply to Re: expert on internet copyright issues » Shar, posted by Justice on July 22, 2001, at 1:40:51
You are right, I did miss the context. You are talking about a rare event that occurs on PB.
Even though the numbers of posts of entire articles don't support it, you seem to want to make dire predictions for what will happen to the internet based on 20-something articles improperly posted on PB in the past 2 years. Or, in case you didn't find them all, let's double the number and say 40-something articles.
I believe the internet will survive just fine, as will these authors, based on responses that originate from search engines leading people to PB, or the PB posters themselves. We do not know the negative impact on the authors whose works were improperly posted, and also do not know how these authors may have benefited from having their articles read via PB. Given the massive internet activity that occurs on a world wide scale, I believe you are possibly making mountains out of molehills.
It is disappointing not to have the number of articles properly posted (constituting fair use) out of the millions of PB posts.
In my post, I was trying to bring a little reality into the picture you were painting with the cyber university and millions of articles. If you are talking about PB it is not even in the same galaxy. Why talk in hypothetical terms if you are talking about the impact of something done from PB. PB is right here; we don't need to go to cyber-space (although it is more impressive that way).
There will always be debate on what constitutes fair use, and there will always be people who do not follow fair use guidelines. But the growing awareness of the guidelines that result via the debates should assuage--not heighten--your expressed fears.
Shar
> 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:Shar
thread:1598
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010718/msgs/1625.html