![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 63. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by LarryS on July 19, 2001, at 0:39:13
Robert Hsuing,
Why do you continue to allow people to post copyrighted articles on your site? Because nobody will notice? Because you probably won't get caught? Becaue everybody else is doing it?http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010714/msgs/70770.html
(Healing Haze - an article plagiarized here from Scientific American)Do you think people will respect the boundaries you attempt to establish at your site when you don't respect the boundaries of society at large?
It would be easy to stop this practice of posting plagiarized articles. Advise contributors that it is illegal to post copyrighted material and ask them instead to post links to the publishers web site if they want to refer to an article. If people want to mention the content of an article here, they could summarize or paraphrase an ariticle here and use excerpts as allowed under fair use terms of copyright law.
The easy way to limit the posting of copyrighted material here would be to delete it when it appears. This would also protect you and your site from copyright violation lawsuits and possible criminal prosecution.
Posted by AKC on July 19, 2001, at 8:36:46
In reply to More copyright violations, posted by LarryS on July 19, 2001, at 0:39:13
> The easy way to limit the posting of copyrighted material here would be to delete it when it appears. This would also protect you and your site from copyright violation lawsuits and possible criminal prosecution.
You know LarryS, Dr. Bob appears to do just this ever time it happens. However, Dr. Bob is not a Robot - he is not awake 24, 7 - and I am guessing, he even takes a vacation from time to time. Probably doesn't have much of a budget - this is probably a one person show - that is, he does this himself - so, take a deep breath and know that as soon as he sees this, he will take care of it. As he did the earlier stuff.
And if you are really concerned for the owners of this article, drop them a line. They will contact Dr. Bob and the two parties will work it out - I doubt it will be taken to court, criminal or civil. Stuff like this happens all the time on the net. Just think about it - Star Wars, Star Trek, on and on and on. You hear about it in the press all the time. And the threatened law suits are civil, not criminal. Noone will be arrested. Criminal prosecution is usually saved for those who make a profit - bone up on your copyright law.
The resident hounddog.
Posted by Cam W. on July 19, 2001, at 10:14:32
In reply to Re: More copyright violations, posted by AKC on July 19, 2001, at 8:36:46
AKC - Ignore him...."troll is as troll does". - Cam
Posted by stjames on July 19, 2001, at 11:13:52
In reply to Re: More copyright violations » AKC, posted by Cam W. on July 19, 2001, at 10:14:32
> AKC - Ignore him...."troll is as troll does". - Cam
James here....The article is off their web page, no password are needed to view it.
james
Posted by AKC on July 19, 2001, at 11:16:07
In reply to Re: More copyright violations, posted by AKC on July 19, 2001, at 8:36:46
You know how it is, I am stepping out with my cape, ready to defend Dr. Bob with my life. Plus, though I know absolutely nothing about intellectual propertly law, this person is venturing into my "turf"! So today I am a bulldog with that thick leather collar, covered with metal studs, stalking about the used car lot.
Your resident "bulldog"
Posted by AKC on July 19, 2001, at 11:17:25
In reply to Re: More copyright violations » AKC, posted by AKC on July 19, 2001, at 11:16:07
Now why did that happen? How did I AKC to myself? I was trying to "Cam W."?
Posted by stjames on July 19, 2001, at 11:44:02
In reply to More copyright violations, posted by LarryS on July 19, 2001, at 0:39:13
Healing Haze - an article plagiarized here from Scientific American
James here....
You should also look up the maning of the word
plagiarized. It means to pass off work from another as your own. I did not do that, I indicated the issue and date of the article.james
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 19, 2001, at 12:59:25
In reply to Re: More copyright violations, posted by AKC on July 19, 2001, at 8:36:46
> if you are really concerned for the owners of this article, drop them a line.
I wouldn't be surprised if they've already done that...
"BTW, nobody should post anything they don't have the right to. When exactly one has that right can be complicated, though."
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#copyright
Bob
Posted by stjames on July 19, 2001, at 14:26:33
In reply to Re: copyrighted material, posted by Dr. Bob on July 19, 2001, at 12:59:25
> "BTW, nobody should post anything they don't have the right to. When exactly one has that right can be complicated, though."
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#copyright
>
> BobJames here....
It is complicated, with "fair use" clauses and such. So I would like to get your opinion on my posting this article, which is freely on the web for all to view. Yea or ney, Dr Bob ? It would help to know so in the future I can be guided by what is OK with you.
James
Posted by Noa on July 19, 2001, at 15:14:38
In reply to Re: copyrighted material, posted by stjames on July 19, 2001, at 14:26:33
How about the next "guest expert" being an expert on internet copyright issues and the implications for self-help boards like this?
Posted by AKC on July 19, 2001, at 16:09:44
In reply to Re: copyrighted material--an idea, posted by Noa on July 19, 2001, at 15:14:38
> How about the next "guest expert" being an expert on internet copyright issues and the implications for self-help boards like this?
I think this is an excellent (sp?) idea.
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.
Posted by AKC on July 19, 2001, at 21:17:44
In reply to Re: copyrighted material, posted by Webster on July 19, 2001, at 19:34:13
You make it so hard to resist. I love people who obviously are on some type of vendetta. Guess what - I have spent some of my free time today doing - boning up on copyright law. Turns out that I work for a law firm that has one of the nation's best intellectual property law departments in the nation. Plus did a little research. Still a long way from an expert. And guess what - you are not the expert you think you are. Dr. Bob is actually quite right - this area of law is very complex - very much depends which court you are in and what month it is. And I am sure I can find an expert that will say just the opposite of your's -- you have seen it on TV -- a great case of dueling experts -- made for the courtroom. Which will the jury believe? In this courtroom -- that is Psycho-Babble - I bet mine will bring in the verdict.
You might be successful in driving a few people away from this site - but not many. Instead, you just make me and others more thankful for it - more thankful that Dr. Bob and stjames and Cam W. and SalArmy4me and elizabeth and on and on and care enough to try to help get some information spread about. Some of it is helpful, some harmful, all to be taken with a grain of salt.
As I said earlier, if you are so concerned, contact the owner of the site - which, as Dr. Bob pointed out, you are probably doing. Posting of these threats and big sounding words - what is it you are really trying to accomplish? From my viewpoint it does just look like some big, bad vendetta - obviously, you are not welcome here, but come again, and again to this site you come.
Cam W. is right - I should just ignore you. What was it back in grade school when a person was teasing you the teacher said? Just ignore the person and they would leave you alone. Well, that never totally worked - and this isn't quite the same, because I feel no shame. Instead, I just shake my head as I laugh.
At the same time I really feel sorry for you. Obviously, you are very angry at Dr. Bob for something. Here is another area I am no expert at (except my own problems) - but you are disturbed and need help - to be so obsessed to be on such a mission. Go help someone that is more in need. This site and these journals don't need your protection. Go be a big brother or big sister. Donate some of your time you spend monitoring this site at a homeless shelter. Take a meal to a homebound senior citizen. You will feel a lot better. And you know, stjames and I and the rest of us will still be trying to find the right meds to get our heads together, or trying to figure out if we can go smoke some weed without having the feds breathing down our necks to dull our nausea.
Good luck with your volunteer work.
AKC
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 20, 2001, at 1:07:26
In reply to Re: copyrighted material, posted by AKC on July 19, 2001, at 21:17:44
> You make it so hard to resist.
> obviously, you are not welcome here, but come again, and again to this site you come.
>
> Cam W. is right - I should just ignore you.> you are disturbed and need help
How easy it is to post is one of the best things about the Internet -- and also one of the worst. Sometimes, even though it's hard, it's better to resist.
I appreciate your coming to my defense, and this particular board isn't for support and education, but civility is still important. Would you want to be called disturbed? Does that advance the discussion? Just say no. :-) Thanks,
Bob
Posted by stjames on July 20, 2001, at 1:51:38
In reply to Re: copyrighted material, posted by Webster on July 19, 2001, at 19:34:13
> Then why not provide your comments, a summary and a link?
James here....
People are lazy, and will not click on links. That has been my experience. I agree that I should of provided the link. I have now asked the publisher of sciam what they think. I feel that:
A) this falls under fair use clause, as this is a educational, nonprofit site
B) I did not pass this off as my work, and gave credit to author
C) Posting this fails to meet the well est. "tests" of copyright infringement or damages, 1) Causing copyright item to become less valuable, 2) Making money off a copyright that is not yours.We will see what the owner of the copyright says.
I would like some offical guidance it this issue, the owner of the copyright seems a good place to start.James
Posted by AKC on July 20, 2001, at 6:37:37
In reply to Re: copyrighted material, posted by Dr. Bob on July 20, 2001, at 1:07:26
Your right - I should not have said that. I apologize. I cannot say I will not rise to the bait again, but I will keep my tone civil - no personal attacks - I will just stay in my "friendly" bulldog mode! :-)
Your resident hounddog.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 20, 2001, at 7:55:23
In reply to Re: copyrighted material » Dr. Bob, posted by AKC on July 20, 2001, at 6:37:37
> Your right - I should not have said that. I apologize. I cannot say I will not rise to the bait again, but I will keep my tone civil - no personal attacks - I will just stay in my "friendly" bulldog mode! :-)
Thanks for understanding. :-)
Bob
Posted by NikkiT2 on July 20, 2001, at 12:07:56
In reply to Re: copyrighted material, posted by AKC on July 19, 2001, at 21:17:44
Well said... And I love picturing you as a bull dog by the way!!! i egt very "het u[" when people attack Dr Bob and his site like this - like its a daily national or something...
Better let you get back to guard duty!! *wg*
Nikkixxx
> You make it so hard to resist. I love people who obviously are on some type of vendetta. Guess what - I have spent some of my free time today doing - boning up on copyright law. Turns out that I work for a law firm that has one of the nation's best intellectual property law departments in the nation. Plus did a little research. Still a long way from an expert. And guess what - you are not the expert you think you are. Dr. Bob is actually quite right - this area of law is very complex - very much depends which court you are in and what month it is. And I am sure I can find an expert that will say just the opposite of your's -- you have seen it on TV -- a great case of dueling experts -- made for the courtroom. Which will the jury believe? In this courtroom -- that is Psycho-Babble - I bet mine will bring in the verdict.
>
> You might be successful in driving a few people away from this site - but not many. Instead, you just make me and others more thankful for it - more thankful that Dr. Bob and stjames and Cam W. and SalArmy4me and elizabeth and on and on and care enough to try to help get some information spread about. Some of it is helpful, some harmful, all to be taken with a grain of salt.
>
> As I said earlier, if you are so concerned, contact the owner of the site - which, as Dr. Bob pointed out, you are probably doing. Posting of these threats and big sounding words - what is it you are really trying to accomplish? From my viewpoint it does just look like some big, bad vendetta - obviously, you are not welcome here, but come again, and again to this site you come.
>
> Cam W. is right - I should just ignore you. What was it back in grade school when a person was teasing you the teacher said? Just ignore the person and they would leave you alone. Well, that never totally worked - and this isn't quite the same, because I feel no shame. Instead, I just shake my head as I laugh.
>
> At the same time I really feel sorry for you. Obviously, you are very angry at Dr. Bob for something. Here is another area I am no expert at (except my own problems) - but you are disturbed and need help - to be so obsessed to be on such a mission. Go help someone that is more in need. This site and these journals don't need your protection. Go be a big brother or big sister. Donate some of your time you spend monitoring this site at a homeless shelter. Take a meal to a homebound senior citizen. You will feel a lot better. And you know, stjames and I and the rest of us will still be trying to find the right meds to get our heads together, or trying to figure out if we can go smoke some weed without having the feds breathing down our necks to dull our nausea.
>
> Good luck with your volunteer work.
>
> AKC
Posted by Shar on July 20, 2001, at 18:24:47
In reply to Re: copyrighted material--an idea, posted by Noa on July 19, 2001, at 15:14:38
Noa,
I think that is a great idea.
Shar> How about the next "guest expert" being an expert on internet copyright issues and the implications for self-help boards like this?
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 21, 2001, at 14:23:28
In reply to Re: copyrighted material--an idea » Noa, posted by Shar on July 20, 2001, at 18:24:47
> > How about the next "guest expert" being an expert on internet copyright issues and the implications for self-help boards like this?
> I think that is a great idea.
The thing is, we don't have people like that coming through for Grand Rounds like we have the other types of experts... Does anyone know anyone they could invite?
Bob
Posted by Justice on July 21, 2001, at 23:17:47
In reply to Re: expert on internet copyright issues, posted by Dr. Bob on July 21, 2001, at 14:23:28
Consider a hypothetical. I establish the “World Internet University.” I charge nothing for access or membership. I create a massive on-line server array that provides, in their entirety, “educational” articles about almost every subject known to humankind, lifted from but attributed to the world’s most reputable publications. Would that be “fair use”?
It would not be fair, because visitors to my site could avoid the advertising efforts of the original publisher, and the original publishers could get fewer “hits” when users chose my site instead.
Below is a selection of current on-line resources about copyrights and fair use on-line. Though one can always stretch their imagination, there is little in these sources that implies participants in a self-help group have a right to help themselves to published material under the fair use clause of U.S. copyright law. While fair use allows limited classroom use, this site is not a limited classroom setting.
Perhaps someone else here will contact some of these sources and ask them to explain here, on a volunteer basis as a guest expert, the concepts of copyright and fair use on line.
Of course, while we might want an expert to tell us what to do, we also need to think for our selves. Please remember, even IF one were to find an expert who would suggest that reproducing entire copyrighted articles on a self-help site is fair use, and IF the courts were to eventually support the argument, publishers would likely appeal to Congress to close the loophole. That is what happened in the 1990s with the free on-line distribution of software. If users of this site, in this thread, attempt to advance the “help your self” philosophy of fair use, links to this thread can become the seed of an effort to close such a loophole. Of course, on the other hand, that could make Dr. Bob more famous :-o
FindLaw on fair use:
By Marie A. D'Amico, Esq.
http://lawcrawler.findlaw.com/MAD/FAIRUSE.HTMInternet Basics and Copyright Law
By Jon D. Grossman and Cyrill P. Rigamonti
http://www.gcwf.com/articles/journal/jil_june98_2.html
Journal of Internet Law
http://www.gcwf.com/journal/index.htmlAssociation for the Protection of Internet Copyright
http://www.a-w.orgSome Observations on Copyright Law: Copying on the Internet
By Ronald B. Standler
http://www.rbs2.com/copyr.htm#anchor555555Internet Copyright Law FAQ
By Tad Crawford
http://www.allworth.com/Articles/article06.htmBituse - A resource on technology law: Fair Use in Copyright
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/fair_use.html
What is copyright protection?
By R. Delgado-Martinez
http://whatiscopyright.org/
Copyright on the Internet
Thomas G. Field, Jr.
http://www.fplc.edu/tfield/copyNet.htm
Grey Day
http://www.greyday.org***********
The fair use statute, 17 USC §107, says:
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. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include –
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.************
When, in 1995, there were no laws protecting some software from on-line distribution, MIT student David LaMacchia beat a wire-fraud charge for distributing software on-line. But in dismissing the charge, District Court Judge Richard Stearns still had this to say about LaMacchia:“one might at best describe his actions as heedlessly irresponsible and at worst as nihilistic, self-indulgent, and lacking in any fundamental sense of values”
Posted by Shar on July 21, 2001, at 23:48:40
In reply to Re: expert on internet copyright issues, posted by Justice on July 21, 2001, at 23:17:47
Consider another hypothetical in which we apply the standards set by the fair use statute to the "distribution" of medical information on a board dedicated to discussions of mental health, including medications.
"In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include –
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
~~~~Gee, I'd have to go with nonprofit educational purposes on this standard.
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;~~~~Usually research articles in which the author is publicizing his or her results or providing other information (like a lit review) for which the author is not compensated.
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;~~~~to provide information to people who are using or considering using medications; typically, a condensed or paraphrased version of the results, skipping the intro, methodology, statistical analyses, and discussion. Rarely is an article just copied and presented in whole.
and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."~~~~The effect would be to actually enhance the value of the work, because the research scientist has an investment in getting his or her name dropped. For research articles, use on PB would not be likely to affect the market for or value of the work.
So, gee, IMHO using the work to provide others here with accurate and credible info is not a violation. If PB'ers had a sustained interest in someone's work, it would probably go beyond what is presented on PB, and they would buy the book or whatever in order to get more detail.
Shar
> Consider a hypothetical. I establish the “World Internet University.” I charge nothing for access or membership. I create a massive on-line server array that provides, in their entirety, “educational” articles about almost every subject known to humankind, lifted from but attributed to the world’s most reputable publications. Would that be “fair use”?
>
> It would not be fair, because visitors to my site could avoid the advertising efforts of the original publisher, and the original publishers could get fewer “hits” when users chose my site instead.
>
> Below is a selection of current on-line resources about copyrights and fair use on-line. Though one can always stretch their imagination, there is little in these sources that implies participants in a self-help group have a right to help themselves to published material under the fair use clause of U.S. copyright law. While fair use allows limited classroom use, this site is not a limited classroom setting.
>
> Perhaps someone else here will contact some of these sources and ask them to explain here, on a volunteer basis as a guest expert, the concepts of copyright and fair use on line.
>
> Of course, while we might want an expert to tell us what to do, we also need to think for our selves. Please remember, even IF one were to find an expert who would suggest that reproducing entire copyrighted articles on a self-help site is fair use, and IF the courts were to eventually support the argument, publishers would likely appeal to Congress to close the loophole. That is what happened in the 1990s with the free on-line distribution of software. If users of this site, in this thread, attempt to advance the “help your self” philosophy of fair use, links to this thread can become the seed of an effort to close such a loophole. Of course, on the other hand, that could make Dr. Bob more famous :-o
>
>
> FindLaw on fair use:
> By Marie A. D'Amico, Esq.
> http://lawcrawler.findlaw.com/MAD/FAIRUSE.HTM
>
> Internet Basics and Copyright Law
> By Jon D. Grossman and Cyrill P. Rigamonti
> http://www.gcwf.com/articles/journal/jil_june98_2.html
>
>
> Journal of Internet Law
> http://www.gcwf.com/journal/index.html
>
> Association for the Protection of Internet Copyright
> http://www.a-w.org
>
> Some Observations on Copyright Law: Copying on the Internet
> By Ronald B. Standler
> http://www.rbs2.com/copyr.htm#anchor555555
>
> Internet Copyright Law FAQ
> By Tad Crawford
> http://www.allworth.com/Articles/article06.htm
>
> Bituse - A resource on technology law: Fair Use in Copyright
> http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/fair_use.html
>
>
> What is copyright protection?
> By R. Delgado-Martinez
> http://whatiscopyright.org/
>
>
> Copyright on the Internet
> Thomas G. Field, Jr.
> http://www.fplc.edu/tfield/copyNet.htm
>
>
> Grey Day
> http://www.greyday.org
>
> ***********
> The fair use statute, 17 USC §107, says:
> 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. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include –
> 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
> 2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
> 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
> 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
>
> ************
> When, in 1995, there were no laws protecting some software from on-line distribution, MIT student David LaMacchia beat a wire-fraud charge for distributing software on-line. But in dismissing the charge, District Court Judge Richard Stearns still had this to say about LaMacchia:
>
> “one might at best describe his actions as heedlessly irresponsible and at worst as nihilistic, self-indulgent, and lacking in any fundamental sense of values”
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.
Posted by Justice on July 22, 2001, at 2:42:57
In reply to Re: expert on internet copyright issues » Shar, posted by Justice on July 22, 2001, at 1:40:51
Below is a list of some copyrighted articles that have been copied into the pscyho-babble archives.
There are far more examples (not listed here) of posts where PB readers referred to articles at other sites by a link, a few comments and perhaps a brief excerpt. These practices probably comprise fair use. The articles listed below were probably not fairly reproduced at this site.
I did not carefully study the trend, but as more entire articles were posted in 2000 and 2001, some babblers might have begun to consider this okay, and fewer readers bothered to comply with the more widely accepted fair use practices by linking and summarizing the content of articles published at other sites.
Overall, far more articles are properly referenced on pscyho-babble as links than these few that are improperly posted in their entirety. I hope the practice of proper and respectful fair use here does not die because of these exceptions. I hope a copyright protection advocacy group will persuade Dr. Hsuing to delete the following posts because they violate copyright laws:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20010105/msgs/4444.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010417/msgs/60209.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20001117/msgs/3662.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000729/msgs/41768.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000729/msgs/41771.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000603/msgs/36275.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000619/msgs/38054.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000619/msgs/38057.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000610/msgs/37688.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000302/msgs/25642.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20001231/msgs/50763.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000729/msgs/41769.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20001117/msgs/3349.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20001130/msgs/49862.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000101/msgs/17884.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20010105/msgs/4438.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20001117/msgs/3668.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010131/msgs/53408.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010411/msgs/59763.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20001117/msgs/3622.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20001012/msgs/46399.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20001102/msgs/47998.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20001012/msgs/46489.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000708/msgs/40319.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20001011/msgs/1040.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000729/msgs/41770.html
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.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.