![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 27 to 51 of 63. Go back in thread:
Posted by Cam W. on July 22, 2001, at 11:26:40
In reply to List of copyrighted articles that are posted at PB, posted by Justice on July 22, 2001, at 2:42:57
•sigh•
> 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 AKC on July 22, 2001, at 12:02:34
In reply to Re: expert on internet copyright issues, posted by Justice on July 21, 2001, at 23:17:47
If I did not need to use my time for work and earning my law firm massive amounts of money (you know us evil large law firms - slaving off the backs of overpaid young associates) I would take the time to find as many responses to his many links. My little time I spent researching on the issue of copyright law and the internet showed this to be a highly debated area of law. It is true, there are issues of advertising and such to be considered, but it is not as symplistic as the poster would like it to seem to be. But for now, my job requires me not to rise to the bait -- for that you can be thankful one and all. The bulldog is muzzled this afternoon. Dangit!
Your resident hounddog.
Posted by stjames on July 22, 2001, at 16:14:53
In reply to List of copyrighted articles that are posted at PB, posted by Justice on July 22, 2001, at 2:42:57
To me all these fall under "fair use". Nor do I see
how this posting damaged copyright. This posting did not damage
the copyright (make it less valuable) nor did another party
make money off the copyright.James
Posted by JohnS on July 22, 2001, at 17:39:28
In reply to On PB it is a rare event » Justice, posted by Shar on July 22, 2001, at 10:13:07
> You are talking about a rare event that occurs on PB.
It is a rare event, yes. It occurs on PB, yes. It is rare in the genre of medical discussion boards, because most board operators do not allow it, they say so in their FAQ, and they delete offending posts when they occur. It occurs on PB because a person who apparently operates this board without benefit of legal counsel allows it to occur.
> there will always be people who do not follow fair use guidelines
Then let's encourage the web-master here to delete their unfair postings?
> 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
> 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).
You seem to agree, then, that they were improperly posted. The substance of my concern is not to advance a dire prediction. My concern is that authors’ works are improperly and illegally posted here. The “dire prediction” you mention is a rhetorical and logical device often used in ethical debates that asks “what if everybody did this.” And PB is in “cyberspace”. My post explained that mirroring a bootleg copy of an article here allows readers to bypass the sites of on-line publications that invested resources to research and publish the article.
> It is disappointing not to have the number of articles properly posted (constituting fair use) out of the millions of PB posts.
We are talking about a hundred thousand PB posts, not millions. The number on PB is around 70,000, there are under 2000 on PBA, and under 8,000 on PSB. About .03 percent of all PB postings seem to be illegally posted copyrighted articles. If you would like to supply the number of posts that fairly reference published articles, I agree, it would be helpful in demonstrating the majority opinion about how to fairly reference the published work of others. If, hypothetically, 5 percent of PB posts (5,000) were posts that refer to other articles, then of those posts, about .6 percent of those would be unfair and the rest fair. This seems a small enough trend to nip in the bud. Ignoring the trend might encourage an increase of the ratio.
But if just one accusatory, un-supportive or sarcastic post is “uncivil” and warrants a managerial intervention, why are a couple dozen illegally posted copyrighted articles allowed to remain with no comment from the management?
> 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.
Perhaps an expert could better answer, but not knowing the impact of an action is not a reason to continue the action. Is that the standard you use in selecting medications? If Newsweek, or your local University newspaper thought a little-known writer could benefit from re-publication, they would still not have the right to copy the writer’s work without permission. That is what copyright means – the right to control the copying of one’s work.> But the growing awareness of the guidelines that result via the debates should assuage--not heighten--your expressed fears.
Let’s call them concerns, not fears. But yes, the purpose of fostering discussion is to expand recognition of the concern.
> In many, the story is about the author and article, not the article itself
That is because successful publishers know the fair way to tell their readers about the works of another author or researcher. These publications don’t simply steal an author’s work, instead they write a fair news report that expounds on the work and sometimes offers contextual information as well.
> All had proper reference back to the original author.
That is, in part, because I found these articles by searching PB for the names of publications. Such a method would not find any that might have been posted without reference to the source.
> vast majority of articles come from "public" sources designed to "spread the word" about the topic
Most, if not all, were from privately owned commercial sources designed to make a profit for their owners by spreading news of interest to their readers. If their readers can get the same news elsewhere, that interferes with the profitability of the venture.
> there were 11 posters who posted these articles.
And now 12, counting the SciAm article. The number is growing. How many “uncivil” posters are allowed before intervention is warranted?
> Life Needed - Inquire Within
This an ad hominem argument; it is a personal attack. An on-topic reply, on the other hand, could help to advance the discussion.
> This posting did not damage the copyright (make it less valuable)
There was a recent case where one corporate attorney was successfully sued for retaining just one copy each of several articles from scientific journals. The standard courts use, and that most educational institutions use, is the one that asks “what if everyone did this.” If everyone posts copyrighted articles on Internet bulletin boards, it would damage the interests of publishers, hence even one posting sets an unfair precedent.
Posted by Cam W. on July 22, 2001, at 18:49:23
In reply to About .03 percent of PB posts violate copyrights, posted by JohnS on July 22, 2001, at 17:39:28
> > Life Needed - Inquire Within
>
> This an ad hominem argument; it is a personal attack. An on-topic reply, on the other hand, could help to advance the discussion.
>And some trolls cannot take a hint (hint, hint) . I take it that you think that you have never personally attacked anyone on this board. No one, but you seems to think your rantings are an issue. "Advance the discussion?"...your "discussion" is more of a rant. What do you care what happens on this site? You are not even wanted here; but you keep finding backdoors to get in, even though you have been repeated blocked.
It seems to me that someone who has been banned from a site and refuses to remain banned is breaking the law. Public nuisance? Obtaining a site membership under false pretenses? I know that trolls love this sort of post, because it makes them feel self-important; that they are able to bother other people.
Perhaps you could better serve society by volunteering at a soup kitchen or helping the elderly. I know that you will reply, listing all of your magnanimous achievements, but guess what...we don't care.
Why don't you just leave us alone? Do you have any reason for bothering us, or are you just trying to prove to us that you are a troll? Surely you can't be concerned about Dr.Bob getting into trouble.
Don't go away mad; just go away. Thanks.
Posted by AKC on July 22, 2001, at 21:08:15
In reply to Re: About .03 percent of PB posters are trolls » JohnS, posted by Cam W. on July 22, 2001, at 18:49:23
>
> Perhaps you could better serve society by volunteering at a soup kitchen or helping the elderly. I know that you will reply, listing all of your magnanimous achievements, but guess what...we don't care.
>
> Why don't you just leave us alone? Do you have any reason for bothering us, or are you just trying to prove to us that you are a troll? Surely you can't be concerned about Dr.Bob getting into trouble.
>
> Don't go away mad; just go away. Thanks.I am utterly amazed that he has taken to counting the number of posts, pulled out his calculator, and come up with this percentage.
What is the opposite of preaching to the choir? Is this not what is occurring here?
I almost asked my intellectual property expert in my firm what law has developed as far as restraining orders and the internet. It would be very complex given that the poster is problably in one state (or country) and Dr. Bob is in Illinois. And it is not my place, but instead it is Dr. Bob's as far as how to deal with this person's unwanted presence on this board. I still may ask, out of cat-like curiousity.
This is Dr. Bob's site. It is his property - he sets the rules. And he gets to dictate who gets to participate. Like any group setting with a moderator, the moderator is in fact the dictator, no matter how much the group may have impute. It is sadly ironic for a person so set on ensuring that "rules" are followed to not follow the rules here. Obviously, something along the line of "two wrongs make a right" is going on here. A lesson I learned both early in life and early in law school is this is not a true statement. It may win the day for a moment, but it almost always comes back to haunt you at a later date.
I agree with you whole heartedly Cam W. that there are so many other things in the world that a person's energy could be put into to make the world a better place. Let's say that .03 percent of the posts here violate the copyright laws - something I beg to differ with. Really, so what - the world's infrastructure will not crumble. Instead of wasting so much energy worrying about this, we all, myself included, probably should spend our time on something much more important - such as spending time with the elderly or at a homeless shelter as you suggested, Cam. However, as for me, I am afraid I will myself continue to obsess over my many character defects and continue to read most of the posts here on Psycho-Babble (may have become a tad bit addicted in the past few weeks!). And unfortunately will continue to rise to the bait.
Your resident bulldog.
Posted by stjames on July 22, 2001, at 23:48:14
In reply to About .03 percent of PB posts violate copyrights, posted by JohnS on July 22, 2001, at 17:39:28
> > You are talking about a rare event that occurs on PB.
>
> It is a rare event, yes. It occurs on PB, yes. It is rare in the genre of medical discussion boards, because most board operators do not allow it, they say so in their FAQ, and they delete offending posts when they occur. It occurs on PB because a person who apparently operates this board without benefit of legal counsel allows it to occur.
>
> > there will always be people who do not follow fair use guidelines
>
> Then let's encourage the web-master here to delete their unfair postings?
>
> > 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
james here....All of this falls under "Fair Use" per this test:
< Quote >
The four fair use factors:
1.What is the character of the use?
2.What is the nature of the work to be used?
3.How much of the work will you use?
4.What effect would this use have on the market for the
original or for permissions if the use were widespread?< end quote >
( from http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/IntellectualProperty/copypol2.htm#test )
Posted by stjames on July 23, 2001, at 0:01:43
In reply to Re: expert on internet copyright issues, posted by Dr. Bob on July 21, 2001, at 14:23:28
> 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?
>
> BobJames here....
Does uchicago have a law school ? While the whole
issue of copyright and the internet is a big issue, you
could pose specific examples of things that are likely
to come up on this board.james
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2001, at 16:04:56
In reply to Re: About .03 percent of PB posters are trolls » JohnS, posted by Cam W. on July 22, 2001, at 18:49:23
> And some trolls cannot take a hint (hint, hint) ... "Advance the discussion?"...your "discussion" is more of a rant. What do you care what happens on this site? You are not even wanted here; but you keep finding backdoors to get in, even though you have been repeated blocked.
Sorry, but we've been through this before, so I think I finally need to block you. AKC has referred to taking the "bait", if you do, you can get hooked. I'll unblock you after a week. I'll have to do it manually, so email me if I forget.
> It seems to me that someone who has been banned from a site and refuses to remain banned is breaking the law.
I think that's wishful thinking. Besides, whatever the laws are, some people will be able to skirt the edge.
> I know that trolls love this sort of post, because it makes them feel self-important; that they are able to bother other people.
And therefore the prudent course of action is?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2001, at 17:26:16
In reply to Re: expert on internet copyright issues, posted by stjames on July 23, 2001, at 0:01:43
> Does uchicago have a law school ?
Hmm, maybe I'm spending too much time in cyberspace. :-) In fact, we do, just down the street, and there are a couple people I could try...
Bob
Posted by AKC on July 23, 2001, at 18:18:35
In reply to Re: expert on internet copyright issues, posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2001, at 17:26:16
In fact, U of C's law school is consistently ranked in the top 5 nationally - little conservative for my taste. :)
But, that could make for interesting discussion on copyright issues and free speech!AKC
Posted by Willow on July 23, 2001, at 21:35:28
In reply to Re: blocked for one week » Cam W., posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2001, at 16:04:56
Jeepers Boss above! Cam offers much more than this other poster in the way of support versus harrasment. (I'm not trying to discount the other souls motives.) I'll try to play the saviour, block me and let Cam stay. You'll be doing everyone a service including myself.
Posted by tina on July 24, 2001, at 18:41:25
In reply to Re: blocked for one week, posted by Willow on July 23, 2001, at 21:35:28
Guess I'm just being canadian here again. I can never figure out what everyone is getting so pissed about. I must be dumb.I hate to see the discord though.
"weeping" Tina
Why single out one person when there are others rocking the boat harder Doc? Maybe just stepping back and seeing where the arguments go before jumping the gun and banning? In my experience, the topic becomes beaten to death and the conversation dies naturally. Think you may be a little too sensitive doc? Just a thought........
> Jeepers Boss above! Cam offers much more than this other poster in the way of support versus harrasment. (I'm not trying to discount the other souls motives.) I'll try to play the saviour, block me and let Cam stay. You'll be doing everyone a service including myself.
Posted by Willow on July 24, 2001, at 21:09:16
In reply to Re: blocked for one week..Jeezzzzz, posted by tina on July 24, 2001, at 18:41:25
Tina
Maybe once the smog clears the thinking will get clearer. Though are we being partial because it is one of our own that has been banned or is it that he just speaks our everyday polite frank language?
ewww, would I ever like to use proper pronouns.
or perhaps our good quality weed just makes us more laid back? I don't inhale so it could just the aroma!
Whistling Willow
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 25, 2001, at 19:32:01
In reply to Re: blocked for one week..Jeezzzzz, posted by tina on July 24, 2001, at 18:41:25
> Why single out one person when there are others rocking the boat harder Doc?
The person you're probably thinking of I keep blocking, but keeps coming back under new names, and there's not much I can do about that.
> Maybe just stepping back and seeing where the arguments go before jumping the gun and banning? In my experience, the topic becomes beaten to death and the conversation dies naturally. Think you may be a little too sensitive doc?
I might be. But better too sensitive than not sensitive enough, I think...
Bob
Posted by Willow on July 25, 2001, at 20:22:38
In reply to Re: blocked for one week..Jeezzzzz, posted by Dr. Bob on July 25, 2001, at 19:32:01
But why Cam?
Willow
looking for answers
Posted by tina on July 25, 2001, at 20:54:44
In reply to Re: blocked for one week..Jeezzzzz, posted by Dr. Bob on July 25, 2001, at 19:32:01
I don't envy your position doc.
Too bad we can't keep out the "bad apples"
Why do they continue to come back I wonder? What is their motivation?
a confused tina
> > Why single out one person when there are others rocking the boat harder Doc?
>
> The person you're probably thinking of I keep blocking, but keeps coming back under new names, and there's not much I can do about that.
>
> > Maybe just stepping back and seeing where the arguments go before jumping the gun and banning? In my experience, the topic becomes beaten to death and the conversation dies naturally. Think you may be a little too sensitive doc?
>
> I might be. But better too sensitive than not sensitive enough, I think...
>
> Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2001, at 8:58:04
In reply to Re: blocked for one week..Jeezzzzz, posted by Willow on July 25, 2001, at 20:22:38
> But why Cam?
Because of what he posted?
Bob
Posted by Willow on July 26, 2001, at 9:59:16
In reply to Re: blocked for one week..Jeezzzzz, posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2001, at 8:58:04
> > But why Cam?
>
> Because of what he posted?
>
> BobThe truth?! Sometimes it hurts, but is good to hear for all concerned.
Posted by Noa on July 26, 2001, at 10:34:24
In reply to Re: blocked for one week..Jeezzzzz, posted by Willow on July 26, 2001, at 9:59:16
I am a Cam fan, myself. He is an important member of this community and I respect him a lot. But sometimes he gets his buttons pushed, especially by certain people, and I, personally, think having a temporary "time out" might be helpful, ie, I feel Dr. Bob's decision to block for a week seems reasonable to me. I'll miss Cam, of course, but look forward to seeing him when he returns. As for the truth--telling it like it is is good, but the real truth (as I see it, of course) is that sometimes ignoring certain posters is a much better option, because they are trying to provoke and if you get provoked and drawn in, it gives them the power we don't want them to have. I know this from experience, as I, at one time, was targeted by a certain poster's disruptions and attacks, and it really pushed my buttons.
Posted by tina on July 26, 2001, at 10:54:48
In reply to Re: blocked for one week..Jeezzzzz, posted by Noa on July 26, 2001, at 10:34:24
> I am a Cam fan, myself. He is an important member of this community and I respect him a lot. But sometimes he gets his buttons pushed, especially by certain people, and I, personally, think having a temporary "time out" might be helpful, ie, I feel Dr. Bob's decision to block for a week seems reasonable to me. I'll miss Cam, of course, but look forward to seeing him when he returns. As for the truth--telling it like it is is good, but the real truth (as I see it, of course) is that sometimes ignoring certain posters is a much better option, because they are trying to provoke and if you get provoked and drawn in, it gives them the power we don't want them to have. I know this from experience, as I, at one time, was targeted by a certain poster's disruptions and attacks, and it really pushed my buttons.
Posted by Willow on July 26, 2001, at 11:30:24
In reply to Re: blocked for one week..Jeezzzzz, posted by Noa on July 26, 2001, at 10:34:24
Noa
You are so right, but can't we accept Cam with this trait. I'm sure he's aware of it. I haven't followed the whole thread, like in real life I have a tendency to jump in and make assumptions with half the facts, but wouldn't it be easier to block the instigator.
BEST REGARDS
Willow
Posted by stjames on July 26, 2001, at 22:28:37
In reply to Stay Away --new BoBB incarnation(np), posted by tina on July 26, 2001, at 10:54:48
Are you saying Noa is BoBB ? Noa has been here a long time and is not BoBB.
james
Posted by Noa on July 27, 2001, at 9:38:44
In reply to Re: Stay Away --new BoBB incarnation(np), posted by stjames on July 26, 2001, at 22:28:37
> Are you saying Noa is BoBB ? Noa has been here a long time and is not BoBB.
>
> jamesThank you James. I was wondering if Tina thought that and decided no, she must have just posted after my post. I hope.
Posted by Noa on July 27, 2001, at 9:44:12
In reply to Re: blocked for one week..Jeezzzzz » Noa , posted by Willow on July 26, 2001, at 11:30:24
Willow, for me, accepting Cam with any "trait" (I see this more as a behavior than a trait, actually) isn't a problem. I accept Cam. I may be stepping over boundaries here (and Cam, I apologise if I am), but to me, when Cam lets himself get pulled into the nonsense from the instigators, I don't think it is good for Cam, given what he has been through. Having a limit set sometimes is helpful to the person themselves.
As for blocking instigators, absolutely, I would love to see that happen, but as Dr. Bob said earlier in this thread, sometimes it is hard because instigators can be tenacious and know how to skirt the system, by changing identities frequently, by coming up to but not actually crossing the line of incivility, etc. Again, I feel the best course of action is to ignore them. What they want is reaction, so why give it to them?
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.