Wow

[bidawinner]

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=389995&section=news

This could get very interesting

 

[izopod]

I have self imposed a punishment for my "misdeeds"

1. copying and pasting an entire article into a post is wrong
2. copying and pasting an entire article into a post is wrong
3. copying and pasting an entire article into a post is wrong
4. copying and pasting an entire article into a post is wrong
5. copying and pasting an entire article into a post is wrong
...
100. copying and pasting an entire article into a post is wrong

:-D

 

[Steen]

Hmmm interesting.

I am not sure if I am on google's side or the TM holders.

I can understand that if all TM searches could only have the TM hokders results, it could make google a lot less useful.

However, I can see how it could be annoying, owning a trademark, and having people search your trademark, and going to your competitors..

Hmmm..

 

[FineE]

Theere are two issues here:

1) The first issue is that the trademarked term was actually used in a text of an ad not that other results were delivered in the regular free search. If there was no dispute on the validity of the mark then the TM holder has a valid case and there is nothing that is really new about this.

So on (1) I am on the TM holder's side.

But

2) It looks to me like the "trademark" actually consists of generic terms related to the service offered. If you are selling shoes calling yourself "the shoe store" and claiming exclusive use of the words "shoe" "the" and "store" defeats the entire purpose of what trademarks are all about. My take is that this case will rest on whether the TM in question is to generic for it to be valid.

But on (2) I am on google's side. I have very little sympathy for TM's consisting of generic words especially if they relate to the product of service offered.

 

[namedropper]

Links to articles are just fine. You don't have to violate copyright laws by posting them here.

 

[Steen]

Originally posted by namedropper
Links to articles are just fine. You don't have to violate copyright laws by posting them here.

:huh: :huh: :huh:


Am I unaware of some law?

 

[Garry Anderson]

Amazing the amount of people that quote the law - even pathetic cowardly lawyers twist it to suit their means.

Namedropper said, "Links to articles are just fine. You don't have to violate copyright laws by posting them here."

There is no violation of copyright law.

'Fair use': Title 17, Chap. 1, Sec. 107 of U.S. copyright law permits the reproduction of copyrighted material without permission of the copyright owner if the reproduction constitutes "fair use." The statute reads:

The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by ANY OTHER MEANS ..., 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. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

 

[namedropper]

Sorry, Garry, but you don't have the slightest clue what Fair Use means or how it is put into practice. This is not Fair Use, by any stretch of the imagination. Fair Use in this sort of case would be taking a paragraph or two and commenting on it, not republishing an entire article.

To go through the 4 step test:

1) Character of the use: DNForum is not a non-profit, and even if it were, it wouldn't outweigh the other points. And if the nature of the use is to comment on the story, you can comment on it just as easily with a link, so there's no reason to reprint it.
2) Nature of the copyrighted work: News story in text form.
3) Substantiality: The entire work! Basically almost never allowed unless there's some clear overriding societal reason to be allowed to do so.
4) Use on potential market: They lose ad money someone reads it here instead of going to their site (which runs ads), and they lose any potential money DNForum would have paid for reprint rights, if they had actually wanted it here. Becoming authorized to republish Reuters news stories is pretty pricey.

You seem to be under the woefully misguided notion that this incident is OK under Fair Use because it's for comment or criticism. That single point does not outweigh all the other points that must be considered. Typically, quoting items for criticism or comment is limited to a few pages maximum of a larger work, like a book, or to maybe a paragraph of a shorter work. Case law has shown this time and time again. You'd have to have never read about any copyright lawsuits to miss this.

This is the kind of thing that can get an entire site shut down by the upstream provider if the copyright owner files a DMCA notice and the webmaster doesn't remove the stolen material. And I've gotten sites shut down, so I should know.

The last thing we need is some newbie showing up and trying to say it's OK.

 

[Honan]

Why are two experienced, erudite, articulate, entertaining, informative, productive people, who appear to have a lot to contribute to the DNF, only GOLD members and not platinum members?

What's the reason Gary and Dan?
Couldn't you afford the platinum membership?

 

[namedropper]

Originally posted by anyweb
only GOLD members and not platinum members?

Not that it has anything to do with anything, but...

I haven't been convinced that a Platinum membership would be worth the money.

And, no, I'm not looking for someone to take over a thread and try to convince me, because then I'd just equate Platinum memberships with annoying Amway-type salespeople.

 

[Honan]

Thank you for your response, Dan

Rest assured, I would not be sold bold as to attempt to convince you of anything at all

Joe

 

[Garry Anderson]

Namedropper - Dan - I find it hard to believe that I (a Brit) would be more pro First Amendment than an American ;-)

Anyhow, taking copyright law literally, I believe that what I said was correct, in the context of this forum.

I accept it may not be lawyers definition - no doubt they would advise litigation (more money for them or justifying their existance). They may likely convince a Judge this was correct. I would then eat humble pie and beg your forgiveness.

News, in itself, cannot be copyrighted - most newspapers and TV repeat the same items in their own words. Most can hardly be called a work of art or unique, like a book.

Many news article links I have used no longer exist - especially google. Do you gaurantee that they will stay there for commentators to see?

1) Purpose of the use: for COMMENT only. This is not a site that rips off news to publish for any other purpose.

2) Nature of the copyrighted work: News story in text form - because that is the only way to comment on it.

3) Substantiality: The entire work - because the article is short and quoting one or two lines would not give essence and may be out of context.

4) Use on potential market: I rarely buy nothing unless I am looking for it. I would not buy a holiday or anything from Reuters site. Would anybody else? I doubt DNForum would want Reuters news stories if they had to pay for them - so no money lost there either.

Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports.

Quote: There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html

It should be noted - I have never seen "limited portions" quoted in US copyright law.

Sorry if me being outspoken newbie upsets you

 

[Garry Anderson]

Originally posted by anyweb
Why are two experienced, erudite, articulate, entertaining, informative, productive people, who appear to have a lot to contribute to the DNF, only GOLD members and not platinum members?

What's the reason Gary and Dan?
Couldn't you afford the platinum membership?

You sweet talker you AnyWeb - are you on commission

Thank you very much. I would say that everybody here has something to contribute.

What else can be contributed by me going up to Platinum?

I do not wish to sell my domains here. They are for secondary market and not for other speculators. I learnt that business is about maximizing profitability and see domains as medium to long term investment.

 

[namedropper]

Originally posted by Garry Anderson
Namedropper - Dan - I find it hard to believe that I (a Brit) would be more pro First Amendment than an American ;-)

I am very pro first amendment and pro free speech. Stealing an entire article when you can just link to it has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech would be talking about the article in your own words.

Anyhow, taking copyright law literally, I believe that what I said was correct, in the context of this forum.

I do not doubt you believe that, but you are dead wrong.

I accept it may not be lawyers definition - no doubt they would advise litigation (more money for them or justifying their existance).

It should never get to litigation, because it is so clear cut. If DNForum went to a lawyer and said, hey, what are my chances of defending this in court, the lawyer would tell them to take the article off because the case law has conclusively proven that you can't copy entire news articles like this.

News, in itself, cannot be copyrighted - most newspapers and TV repeat the same items in their own words.

And nobody is stopping anyone from taking the info and putting it in their own words. This was a direct copy and paste. This is a no-brainer.

Most can hardly be called a work of art or unique, like a book.

Again proving that you know nothing about copyright.

Many news article links I have used no longer exist - especially google. Do you gaurantee that they will stay there for commentators to see?

That's not a valid reason to copy the entire thing.

3) Substantiality: The entire work - because the article is short and quoting one or two lines would not give essence and may be out of context.

Go read any article that discusses fair use and you'll know this doesn't cut it. In the meantime, until you have basic education on the issue, you'd best not post things like this to embarass yourself.

4) Use on potential market: I rarely buy nothing unless I am looking for it. I would not buy a holiday or anything from Reuters site. Would anybody else? I doubt DNForum would want Reuters news stories if they had to pay for them - so no money lost there either.

Stealing something and trying to claim the person didn't lose money because you wouldn't have paid for it in the first place is never a legal excuse. To even try to raise that argument shows gross incompetence, and if you did in a court of law the judge would undoubtedly come down hard on you for the sheer stupidity of the statement.

And you don't have to buy a holiday or anything else on Reuters' site, just going to the site and the ad (from an ad netwrok) pays Reuters for your visits. But even if they had no ads at all, you still can't take the entire article because it destroys their potential to make money off of it later, which is what copyright is all about.

Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports.

And case law clearly shows that limited use is a small percentage. But even without knowing case law common sense tells you that THE ENTIRE THING is not "limited portions."

Sorry if me being outspoken newbie upsets you

I have no problem with outspoken people. I have a problem with people who don't have any knowledge of what the hell they are talking about showing up to try to talk about what laws mean when they haven't even done the bare minimum amount of reading about them to even talk semi-intelligently.

Start here:

"10 Big Myths about copyright explained"
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

And then use some common sense before shooting your mouth off in the future.

 

[izopod]

namedropper - Bite me... I cut/pasted the article as is, with the "credits" in place.

Garry A.--Nice to see you here! :-D

 

[izopod]

Originally posted by namedropper


I am very pro first amendment and pro free speech. Stealing an entire article when you can just link to it has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech would be talking about the article in your own words.

Are you serious??? As long as you give credit to the author of the copyrighted works, you are not stealing.

Stealing copyrighted works is taking the work and using it as your own. I think everyone can see I left everything intact, including the author's name.

btw: Links only on a forum are fine, but few people will take the time to click on them, hence the need to cut/paste the article into the thread to get the discussion going. It's kind of like running into a crowded theatre, and yelling, "Hey, there is something interesting out here in the hall, come look"... I venture to guess very few people would get out of their seats to see what the excitement was about. Now if you put the info on the movie screen for everyone's consumption, then obviously the desired effect would happen...

 

[namedropper]

Originally posted by izopod
Are you serious???

Yes.

As long as you give credit to the author of the copyrighted works, you are not stealing.

This is completely nonsense. Please take the time to educate yourself on copyrights. Start with the link in my post above.

Stealing copyrighted works is taking the work and using it as your own.

No... a common misconception, but not at all accurate.

I think everyone can see I left everything intact, including the author's name.

Good for you. That just makes it even more of a copyright violation.

btw: Links only on a forum are fine, but few people will take the time to click on them,

That'd be that person's problem, not an excuse to violate someone's copyrights.

hence the need to cut/paste the article into the thread to get the discussion going.

Copying and pasting is the lazy and illegal way to do it. Putting it into your own words is the proper way to do it.

It's kind of like running into a crowded theatre, and yelling, "Hey, there is something interesting out here in the hall, come look"... I venture to guess very few people would get out of their seats to see what the excitement was about. Now if you put the info on the movie screen for everyone's consumption, then obviously the desired effect would happen...

But if what you put up on the screen was copyrighted, you'd have to pay for it or you'd be breaking the law.

Again, if you are going to try to tell people what is or is not against the law there's the expectation that you take a little bit of effort to find out first. It's clear that you don't have even the slightest idea of what you are talking about.

You do understand that their news service makes money buy running ads and selling their content to people, right? Do you think they are funded by the government to write news articles for free or soemthing?

I understand that lots of people have really screwed up ideas about copyright, but when someone points out to you that what you are doing is illegal, it'd be a good idea to take the time to check for yourself and then correct your mistake when you verify it.

 

[izopod]

Originally posted by namedropper

This is completely nonsense. Please take the time to educate yourself on copyrights. Start with the link in my post above.

Ok... This is going to hurt, but I am big enough to admit when I am wrong.

Just checked a few legal sites. Copying an entire article, even if you cite the source is a "no-no". You need the permission of the author before "cutting and pasting". Cutting and pasting a "quote" from someon's article is still o.k, as long as you cite your source. The difference here, is I copied the entire piece.

I stand corrected. My only advice in the future is that you may want to provide a link yourself of "fact". Also it would help if you kept your rebuttals to a few pages. :-D

izopodian philosophy: It's healthy to admit when your wrong. It's unhealthy to make others think your right, when you know damn well your wrong.

 

[namedropper]

The not-really-an-apology is accepted.

The provide a link and avoid long rebuttals comments are fair, but then I thought you were arguing that nobody bothers to follow links and you had to put it in front of them or they'd never get it...

But still, I tend to go off and get long-winded when someone shows up and starts talking nonsense about the law. Without Garry chiming in I'm sure I would have replied to Steen's question with a link.

 

[izopod]

Originally posted by namedropper
I thought you were arguing that nobody bothers to follow links and you had to put it in front of them or they'd never get it...

A link of "choice" or "interest", which I was referring to is much different then a link of "fact" which will usually settle an argument.

Now run along before I withdraw my "not-really-an-apology"

:laugh:

izopodian philosophy: Being right, as opposed to being righteous is usually a better way to go when trying to prove a point!