Wow

[jberryhill]

"I stand corrected."

Intelligence is not reflected in what you know, but in the speed at which you learn. If you are not changing, you are not growing.

"Copying an entire article, even if you cite the source is a "no-no"."

Correct. Copyright is about "copying", not about "crediting".

While it is one thing to read a list of factors from a statute and put forth one's personal opinion about how those factors would be applied, it is not as if courts have never worked through them. One's personal opinion about what the factors mean is not as important as how courts treat those factors. "Fair Use" is a very narrow defense. It fails more often than not. And the assertion that a news *article* is not copyrightable is absurd. The *facts* are not copyrightable, but how one writes about those facts most certainly is.

Dan's analysis of the factors is correct. As far as market impact goes, why should anyone pay to license a Reuters feed if everyone else is entitled to copy the stories elsewhere?

"Many news article links I have used no longer exist - especially google"

Yes. You know why? Because many news organizations make current items available for a limited time, but charge for access to their archives. They are entitled to do that.

 

[LewR]

Originally posted by jberryhill
....Because many news organizations make current items available for a limited time, but charge for access to their archives. They are entitled to do that.

This is the trend I am seeing for all local newspapers and their associated companies.

Current news is posted for free access, older news, you will pay some fee for their cost of preserving such news in an online form.

A legit practice in my little mind.

 

[Garry Anderson]

Originally posted by jberryhill
"I stand corrected."

Intelligence is not reflected in what you know, but in the speed at which you learn. If you are not changing, you are not growing.

What are you on? Speed of acquisition has nothing to do with intelligence.

"If you are not changing, you are not growing" - If you are growing, you are changing.

Unlike others, I like to see these facts proven before acceptance. I also like to make my arguments forcefully. I ALWAYS admit when proven wrong - as I sometimes am.

Please - prove me wrong.

FYI: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Intelligence

The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
The faculty of thought and reason.
Superior powers of mind. See Synonyms at mind.

"Copying an entire article, even if you cite the source is a "no-no"."

Correct. Copyright is about "copying", not about "crediting".

Agree that copyright is about "copying", not about "crediting".

Where in law exactly does it state copying an entire article for fair use is a "no-no"?

While it is one thing to read a list of factors from a statute and put forth one's personal opinion about how those factors would be applied, it is not as if courts have never worked through them. One's personal opinion about what the factors mean is not as important as how courts treat those factors. "Fair Use" is a very narrow defense. It fails more often than not. And the assertion that a news *article* is not copyrightable is absurd. The *facts* are not copyrightable, but how one writes about those facts most certainly is.

I never said that "news *article* is not copyrightable" - did I?

I said "News, in itself, cannot be copyrighted" - did I not?

Dan's analysis of the factors is correct. As far as market impact goes, why should anyone pay to license a Reuters feed if everyone else is entitled to copy the stories elsewhere?

I presume you understand the word "intent". I also presume you understand that the purpose of use was for COMMENT only.

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

Please show me ANY court case which states that a forum cannot copy news article for the purpose of commentary or criticism.

"Many news article links I have used no longer exist - especially google"

Yes. You know why? Because many news organizations make current items available for a limited time, but charge for access to their archives. They are entitled to do that.

I know that. Exactly how can that change copyright law without due process?

Again: I ALWAYS admit when proven wrong - as I sometimes am. Please - prove me wrong.

 

[Garry Anderson]

Like I said to JB: Unlike others, I like to see these facts proven before acceptance. I also like to make my arguments forcefully. I ALWAYS admit when proven wrong - as I sometimes am.

Please - prove me wrong.

D> 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.

Agree that free speech is about the right to choose your own words. Copying an entire article for fair use (if it is that) is not stealing - is it?

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

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

You could be right - please prove me wrong.

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

D> 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.

Please show me ANY court case which states that a forum cannot copy news article for the purpose of commentary or criticism.

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

D> 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.

This was copy and paste for SPECIFIC purpose and intent of commentary or criticism ONLY. This is a no-brainer.

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

D> Again proving that you know nothing about copyright.

It proves nothing, I simply question your assertions.

I was refering to the fact that thirty lines or so of regurgitated news cannot be compared to a piece of art or book both of which takes a large amount of effort.

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

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

How can people comment on something that is no longer there?

G> 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.

D> 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.

I have not read anything "proven in law" that states that a forum cannot copy news article for the purpose of commentary or criticism.

Please show me where this is so.

Do not worry about me - I am not afraid of being embarressed.

Indeed - I am not embarressed at all.

I think you say this to get me off your case though.

G> 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.

D> 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.

Agree - I thought it was a stupid answer to your stupid argument.

D> 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.

Is there any doubt at all, that not charging for fair use is losing them money?

Your argument is fatally flawed.

G> 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.

D> 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."

Agian - please show me case law that copying THE ENTIRE NEWS ARTICLE for commentary or criticism is against the law.

G> Sorry if me being outspoken newbie upsets you

D> 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.

I admit my knowledge may be limited compared to yours. Perhaps your understanding is flawed - or may be mine is.

I have a small problem with people that talk about law without providing proof in case law that what they say is true.

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

Duh - read it.

Perhaps you would be ever so kind and please show me case law that copying an entire news article for commentary or criticism is unlawful. I must have missed it.

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

My logic skills are not too bad thanks.

Very sorry that you interpret my questioning your knowledge of copyright law as "shooting my mouth off".

You seem very touchy about it. Perhaps you are not quite as skilled as you think ;-)

 

[namedropper]

Back away from the crack pipe, Garry...

 

[Garry Anderson]

As far as I can see, the only crack is in your logic Dan ;-)

You talk about the ENTIRE ARTICLE like somebody is stealing JK Rowlings' latest Harry Potter book.

It is the occassional article of interest to this forum, to be commented upon - not keeping a massive archive to subvert any of the media.

I take then, that you (and JB) cannot find ANY case law that conclusively proves that you can't copy entire news articles for commentary or criticism.

I did not think so

 

[namedropper]

Garry,

I talk about the "ENTIRE ARTICLE" like it's stealing a whole book because it is in fact exactly the same, legally. Again, if you knew anything about copyright law you'd realize that.

If you want John the intellectual Property lawyer to cite proper case law to you to prove something that everyone already knows because you are too clueless to find it yourself, you better be willing to pay him his hourly fee to go get it for you.

You are the one arguing against a lawyer here, you go try to find case law to support your side. You won't because you can't.

 

[Garry Anderson]

D> I talk about the "ENTIRE ARTICLE" like it's stealing a whole book because it is in fact exactly the same, legally. Again, if you knew anything about copyright law you'd realize that.

I was eluding to the fact that some news articles are only a few lines long - not hundreds of pages. Taking a quote from a book could be much longer than a news article.

I have been on a course where a "ENTIRE NEWS ARTICLE" was copied - much longer than the one on this thread. Did you not know that this sort of thing goes on in schools and colleges all over the world?

Before you come out with - "well they download pirate MP3s all over the world, that does not make it legal" - this article copying is done by the lecturers.

D> If you want John the intellectual Property lawyer to cite proper case law to you to prove something that everyone already knows because you are too clueless to find it yourself, you better be willing to pay him his hourly fee to go get it for you.

John, the intellectual property lawyer (whom apears to avoid answering some particular simple questions) in fact only agreed with you. "Dan's analysis of the factors is correct" was the phrase used.

D> You are the one arguing against a lawyer here, you go try to find case law to support your side. You won't because you can't.

You little fibber. I was arguing against you - when the lawyer took your side.

You and John were the ones who said things like, "case law has conclusively proven that you can't copy entire news articles".

All I did was ask for proof - you both failed to show me ANY court case which states that a forum cannot copy news article for the purpose of commentary or criticism.

REPEAT - YOU FAILED TO SHOW PROOF.

Resorting to fibs - you are very touchy - aren't you?

 

[jberryhill]

"John, the intellectual property lawyer (whom apears to avoid answering some particular simple questions) in fact only agreed with you."

Garry, simply because I have a life involving four children and a career, and do not answer loaded questions within 24 hours, does not mean I am "avoiding" anything.

Your question, along the lines of "show me where the law specifically says you cannot fairly copy an entire news article of several paragraphs" is, of course, not answerable in terms of "the statute says X".

For example, there is no law that says it is illegal to beat someone to death with a frozen salmon. You go show me a single law or case that says it is illegal to beat someone to death with a frozen salmon. Because until you do, I am going to maintain that beating someone to death with a frozen salmon is perfectly legal.

"Fair use", as a defense, fails more often than it succeeds. A really good summary of the factors is here:

http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/copypol2.htm#test

Having qualified your "News is not subject to copyright", and "some news articles are really short" comments to the point where neither of those statements is relevant to the situation under discussion, one wonders why you made them. I can say that grass is usually green, and you certainly can't prove me wrong about that, but it doesn't have anything to do with someone copying an entire several paragraph news article from a syndicated wire service in a for-profit forum. If you want to start a newspaper called "Garry Anderson's critical commentary on the news" in which you copy entire articles from other publications and add your comments to it, nobody is going to find a statute that says you can't do that. But it is using a narrow exception to swallow the general rule that you can't copy other people's copyrighted works.

Finally, legal research takes time. If you want to read cases that say you can't reprint an entire news article, then try this one to start:

- Quinto v. Legal Times of Washington, Inc.
506 F.Supp. 554

Some quotes from the case summary:

"Admitted reprinting of approximately 92% of plaintiff's copyrighted story precluded fair use defense"

"The fair use defense is based on a concept of reasonableness and is unavailable where there has been extensive verbatim copying or paraphrasing."

"Distinction between ideas, news events, and factual developments, all of which are not copyrightable, and expressions of the same, which are copyrightable, serves to accommodate the competing interests of copyright and the First Amendment."

Then you can read American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Mathiesson v. Associated Press, and the MANY other cases dealing with the "fair use" defense.

But I have seen you do this repeatedly here and in other forums, Garry. You put forth some personal interpretation of the law, completely unsupported by any citations, and when others who are more familiar with the law point out to others who might not know better that your interpretation is way out in left field, you say "prove that I'm wrong with some cases". Then, if you don't get an immediate answer, you go on about how "corrupt lawyers won't answer your questions". Legal research takes time and effort, and the burden never seems to be on you somehow. If you want a lawyer to answer your questions with specific research, then how about if you pay for the time it takes?

"Did you not know that this sort of thing goes on in schools and colleges all over the world?"

Is Dnforum now a college? No. It is a for-profit website. The "nature and character of the use" factor, where you have a teacher handing out photocopies of a news article in a classroom is poles apart from the situation where you have a syndicated news service that requires web sites to pay to reproduce those articles on the internet, and which is funded by the advertisements on those web sites, and where, instead of linking to such a website, someone reproduces the entire article.

"I have a small problem with people that talk about law without providing proof in case law that what they say is true."

And you have cited WHAT?

 

[bidawinner]

Your turn Gary

Keep it civil..this is entertaining and enlightening..

I have a question ..yahoo has a feature that allows you to email entire articles to anyone you like containg the usual news feeds including rueters,
This would seem to also fall into a grey area where there are "copying" a copyrighted article and emailing it out thosands of times a day ..and example http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=World&cat=Iraq

I am assuming that Rueters has approved this under their licensing deal with Yahoo...but IF not ..could that also be a case of copyright infringemnet ?

They are taking away traffic to Rueters with this service of simply allowing the "Story" to be emailed to everyone..?

 

[Garry Anderson]

J> But I have seen you do this repeatedly here and in other forums, Garry...If you want a lawyer to answer your questions with specific research, then how about if you pay for the time it takes?

Ooooh - I thought lawyers enjoyed adversarial exchanges like this John.

I would have to cash in my pension savings to pay you for five minutes of your time

J> Garry, simply because I have a life involving four children and a career, and do not answer loaded questions within 24 hours, does not mean I am "avoiding" anything.

Very sorry John - I, like all others on this forum, have not got a life ;-)

Most my questions are not loaded - just straight-forward.

The cases you cite are totally non-comparable.

Quinto v. Legal Times of Washington, Inc. - not for commentary or criticism.

American Geophysical Union v. Texaco - again not for commentary or criticism.

J> there is no law that says it is illegal to beat someone to death with a frozen salmon.

Your analogy is to say - the cases you cite, are cases of murder - and the case I cite is murder by different method.

Problem being - commentary or criticism is fair use. You have not shown one case that copying an entire news article for commentary or criticism is unlawful.

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.

(In other words, there is no limits laid down in law. As is shown by schools copying entire articles.)

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

There is nobody doing the equivalent of a newspaper called "Garry Anderson's critical commentary on the news" - loads are copying articles to forum though.

You have shown no case that tests this out in a court of law. It is purely for the purposes of commentary and criticism.

J> Is Dnforum now a college? No. It is a for-profit website.

As are many other websites with news articles on forum.

Aren't you wrong to say that no profit making enterprise can have fair use as defense?

That is just one factor. Surely the purpose, being purely for commentary and criticism would override that?

Should this not be tested in a court of law?

J> And you have cited WHAT?

Hope you do not mind me saying so, but that is blinking stupid question. You and Dan have now both tried to turn this on its head. If I could cite case law that shows a forum can make comment or criticism on copy of entire news articles - then why would I question you both about it?

You both said case law states it is not okay to do this - I asked you to prove it.

Neither of you have.

Before you go. As a trademark lawyer - some really very easy simple questions that do not require "specific research". I have a fiver in my wallet if you need paying to answer them ;-)

You would call them loaded - I call them straight-forward. A simple yes or no. At least they are if you do not deviate from them.

1. Is it not true that virtually every word is (or can be) registered as a trademark many times over by different type of business in same or different country?

2. US Internet users know that .gov are government sites. Is it not true that the .gov TLD acts like a certificate of authentication to this fact?

3. As virtually every word is registered trademark (and since everybody in authority says they want to avoid confusion with ordinary domains) - is it not true that you can identify registered trademarks in the same way - replace ® symbol with a protected .reg TLD?

4. As you know, trademarks have to be distinctive from one another. Is it not true that all registered trademark words can be uniquely identified by name.classification.country.reg - e.g. apple.computer.us.reg?

What internet user would not know who apple.computer.us.reg was?

See - I told you they were straight-forward

There has been cases of internet fraud here in the UK. Most recent could have been prevented if users could have checked the address bar for barclays.bank.uk.reg - easy.

But it seems to me that corrupt authorities would rather help corporations overreach their trademarks.

 

[Garry Anderson]

Originally posted by bidawinner
Your turn Gary

Keep it civil..this is entertaining and enlightening..

I have a question ..yahoo has a feature that allows you to email entire articles to anyone you like containg the usual news feeds including rueters,
This would seem to also fall into a grey area where there are "copying" a copyrighted article and emailing it out thosands of times a day ..and example http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=World&cat=Iraq

I am assuming that Rueters has approved this under their licensing deal with Yahoo...but IF not ..could that also be a case of copyright infringemnet ?

They are taking away traffic to Rueters with this service of simply allowing the "Story" to be emailed to everyone..?

I am always civil - forceful but civil

What you say happens in newspapers also, you will see "send it to a friend" e.g:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/media/story/0,12123,1071469,00.html

Newspapers are primarily valuable for the information they contain, not for the richness of their protected expression. They are entitled only to what has been called "thin" copyright protection.

John will confirm that for you ;-)

Another reason why I think it is all a load of copyright overreach.

 

[jberryhill]

Garry, "fair use" is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement. The burden of proof for an affirmative defense is on the party asserting the affirmative defense, not the other way around. The question that you need to answer is where a court said that copying an entire news article on a website was OKAY. If you read the Quinto case, you will note that the court says that copying the entire article precludes the "fair use" defense. The purpose wasn't relevant.

In order to get an appellate level decision on whether a web site can reproduce an entire Reuters article, then some webmaster is going to have to be boneheaded enough to go through an entire trial and then appeal the adverse result. In American Geophysical Union, the purpose was to conduct scientific research without having to drag the entire journal into the lab.

And now we play the Garry Anderson game, which he feels compelled to post everywhere on the planet, including icann.org, icannwatch.org, and no doubt countless others.....

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4. No

Garry, nobody is going to create a domain in which the distinctive portion is up at the fourth level. Also, there can be registrations on the same term in the same class, so 4 is a no-brainer. But these questions aren't relevant to the same point you make over and over again with them. It doesn't matter if there were a ".reg" TLD, if you register "xerox.TLD" and point it at porn, they are going to be perfectly within your rights to come after you.

And the "apple" thing that you repeat ad nauseum is a proposition that nobody disagrees with. It was the precise example used by the judge in Lawrence v. Storey, and was trotted out again last month by one of your "corrupt" WIPO panelists:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0491.html
"While Apple may have a trademark for Apple for computers, it has no rights to stop others from using "apple" or <apple.com> to sell apples."

As an aside, you should know that Apple Music is now suing Apple Computer, because the computer company has started selling music online. No, it's not "passing off", it is straightforward trademark infringement.

Nobody disagrees with your timeworn assertions about generic words, including WIPO panels like the one quoted above. Out of some 6,000 UDRP decisions, of course there are some bad ones.

Send the fiver via paypal to my email address. And because you are in the UK, "fiver" means pounds. Thank you.

 

[namedropper]

Originally posted by bidawinner
yahoo has a feature that allows you to email entire articles to anyone you like containg the usual news feeds including rueters
[...]
I am assuming that Rueters has approved this under their licensing deal with Yahoo...but IF not ..could that also be a case of copyright infringemnet ?

It's absolutely approved by Reuters, and if it weren't it'd be a slam dunk case of copyright infringement with huge fines.

Lawsuits have been won preventing websites from even framing or *linking* to news articles, although there are also conflicting case law for the linking question. Copying them completely is so much more severe than framing or linking that there isn't even a question if it's OK or not. If people could copy them legally they never would have gone to court over framing or linking.

 

[namedropper]

Originally posted by Garry Anderson
Newspapers are primarily valuable for the information they contain, not for the richness of their protected expression.

Information is not covered by copyright laws in the first place. Expression is.

Newspapers have a copyright that covers the way in which they explain things to people, not the facts behind the words. If you want to comment on or critize things related to information, you can always rewrite the information in your own words.

For cases where it's impossible to rewrite (like, say, a non-graphical chart that lists the legal alcohol driving limits in each of the 50 U.S states) then and only then would it not be protected bu copyright, because there would be no expression, just facts.

Fiction can be rewritten lots of ways because there are no facts to have to stick to, so they are covered by copyright more strongly because there's less excuse to have writing that's very similar to another fiction book.

But if you don't even try to rewrite the text into your own words none of that matters. There's no question that copying the entire thing is wrong. None. It's the fundamental thing copyright law was created to prevent.

They have made exceptions through fair use for educational institutions, but even that is not guaranteed. But even that exception probably wouldn't hold if the class were held over the web and the instructor copied articles to the school website when he could have just linked to them instead. And it certainly wouldn't hold if he copied the articles and put them onto a publicly-accessable site where anyone could get at them. It's a question of whether it's reasonable to accept the copying in each case.

In this case it was a for profit website, in public, an entire article when a link was already provided and usable, and something that could be summarized in different words. That so completely fails any possible reasonable interpretation of fair use that it's not even funny.

But then you have made it more than clear that you don't care about what the laws say, what an expert has to say in the matter, or even just common sense. You're wasting everyone's time throwing out ill-informed opinions based upon your admitted hatred of lawyers.

 

[Garry Anderson]

J> If you read the Quinto case, you will note that the court says that copying the entire article precludes the "fair use" defense. The purpose wasn't relevant.

If "copying the entire article precludes the "fair use" defense" then why have schools not been taken to court?

J> In order to get an appellate level decision on whether a web site can reproduce an entire Reuters article, then some webmaster is going to have to be boneheaded enough to go through an entire trial and then appeal the adverse result.

Agree - they would be taking a gamble on the outcome.

J> In American Geophysical Union, the purpose was to conduct scientific research without having to drag the entire journal into the lab.

My reading of it was that it was non-comparible. I may have been mistaken - I shall go over it in detail and get back to you.

J> And now we play the Garry Anderson game, which he feels compelled to post everywhere on the planet, including icann.org, icannwatch.org, and no doubt countless others.....

Oh goodie goodie, my favourite game, thank you John

G> 1. Is it not true that virtually every word is (or can be) registered as a trademark many times over by different type of business in same or different country?

J> 1. Yes

See - I told you it was easy peasy.

G> 2. US Internet users know that .gov are government sites. Is it not true that the .gov TLD acts like a certificate of authentication to this fact?

J> 2. Yes

Great - we agree on so much - do you want to come around my house for drinks?

G> 3. As virtually every word is registered trademark (and since everybody in authority says they want to avoid confusion with ordinary domains) - is it not true that you can identify registered trademarks in the same way - replace ® symbol with a protected .reg TLD?

J> 3. No

Oh blinking heck - and we were getting on so well. How can any person tell me that you could not recognise .reg TLD as easy as the .gov TLD?

G> 4. As you know, trademarks have to be distinctive from one another. Is it not true that all registered trademark words can be uniquely identified by name.classification.country.reg - e.g. apple.computer.us.reg?

J> 4. No

Here we go again - name any other factor that differentiates registered trademark words from each other.

J> Garry, nobody is going to create a domain in which the distinctive portion is up at the fourth level.

I have had communication about this from Robert L. Stoll, Administrator - via Eleanor K. Meltzer Attorney Advisor - Office of Legislative and International Affairs USPTO just over 3 years ago.

They were unable to say why it should not be either.

You know why it should - a) to prevent one trademark from getting an unlawful dominant position on the Internet over other trademarks using same word, b) to prevent similar trademark overreach over small businesses without trademark and c) from them abridging peoples right to choose any words.

You completely fail to understand that domains are not trademarks. Paul Mockapetris designed the DNS for the function of naming resources - not as a fatally flawed unlawful trademark system.

J> Also, there can be registrations on the same term in the same class, so 4 is a no-brainer.

I believe your are mistaken - if that were the case, it would be declared invalid:

A trade mark may be declared invalid on the grounds that either: ...due to a lack of distinctiveness in the mark...it conflicts with an earlier trade mark...

http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/indetail/invalidn.htm

J> But these questions aren't relevant to the same point you make over and over again with them. It doesn't matter if there were a ".reg" TLD, if you register "xerox.TLD" and point it at porn, they are going to be perfectly within your rights to come after you.

"xerox" was unique word made up for specifically for trademark. Well done - lawyers usually use "Pepsi Cola" to divert the attention away from dictionary words.

J> And the "apple" thing that you repeat ad nauseum is a proposition that nobody disagrees with. It was the precise example used by the judge in Lawrence v. Storey, and was trotted out again last month by one of your "corrupt" WIPO panelists: http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0491.html "While Apple may have a trademark for Apple for computers, it has no rights to stop others from using "apple" or <apple.com> to sell apples."

Yes I know that - just try picking ANY other dictionary word in which a corporation can stop others from using in diferent type of business.

You really are very good - I make my arguments a no brainer - and you turn them against me. You do the usual unique trademark thing but also finesse, putting the onus on me to answer the question I put to you. Blinking brilliant - congratulations you are the best yet.

J> As an aside, you should know that Apple Music is now suing Apple Computer, because the computer company has started selling music online. No, it's not "passing off", it is straightforward trademark infringement.

Yes - it seemed to me an obvious case trademark infringement.

J> Nobody disagrees with your timeworn assertions about generic words, including WIPO panels like the one quoted above. Out of some 6,000 UDRP decisions, of course there are some bad ones.

Decisions are entirely because WIPO helped made the rules as they did. Easy to corrupt. They also lied when the stated they were "stumped" on how to identify registered trademarks on the Internet. All in my informed opinion - this has to be proven in a court of law.

J> Send the fiver via paypal to my email address. And because you are in the UK, "fiver" means pounds. Thank you.

No - thank you. Correct - I do not have any US dollars in my wallet.

You are worth every penny John. I am not on paypal so will mail a cheque (check) to Hillock Lane. You could put it up on the wall - as "Payment from that mad Brit"

Incidently, the "Garry Anderson game" will be played until I get answer to question as to why authorities allow violations of trademark and competition law.

Or perhaps you agree with all this. Suppose you think it okay to have Sunrise Period - when corporations with registered trademarks are given priority over small businesses and abridge the use of words to the public at large. Maybe you think it is all perfectly lawful and above board. You say it is me being stupid believing that it is unlawful.

People I have communicated with in authority are all too evasive. Even top management of our own UK Patent Office (who have looked at and understand this subject) refuse to answer very simple questions. Why is that do you think?

 

[Garry Anderson]

D> Newspapers have a copyright that covers the way in which they explain things to people, not the facts behind the words.

I thought we understood that. They regurgitate facts in their own words - that is why it has "thin" copyright protection.

D> Fiction can be rewritten lots of ways because there are no facts to have to stick to, so they are covered by copyright more strongly because there's less excuse to have writing that's very similar to another fiction book.

So you finally admit - books are "covered by copyright more strongly" - then why did you argue with me about this earlier?

You said, "I talk about the "ENTIRE ARTICLE" like it's stealing a whole book because it is in fact exactly the same, legally. Again, if you knew anything about copyright law you'd realize that."

So perhaps it is you are not as expert or sure of yourself as you say you are. At least I am more honest, admitting that I could be wrong.

D> There's no question that copying the entire thing is wrong. None. It's the fundamental thing copyright law was created to prevent.

You could be right - but copyright.gov says there are no limits laid down in law on percentage of a work allowed. Which is why I think a small passage from book ("covered more strongly") will contain "more richness of protected expression" than an entire news article.

D> They have made exceptions through fair use for educational institutions, but even that is not guaranteed.

We know - exception through fair use is for commentary and criticism also - which we also know.

D> But even that exception probably wouldn't hold if the class were held over the web and the instructor copied articles to the school website when he could have just linked to them instead.

Makes a good excuse, "Please Sir, I could not do my homework, the news article link had gone".

Perhaps they should make legal maximum percentage for schools at 100 percent.

D> And it certainly wouldn't hold if he copied the articles and put them onto a publicly-accessable site where anyone could get at them. It's a question of whether it's reasonable to accept the copying in each case.

With only "thin" copyright protection, I see no problem if only a few articles are copied.

D> In this case it was a for profit website, in public, an entire article when a link was already provided and usable, and something that could be summarized in different words. That so completely fails any possible reasonable interpretation of fair use that it's not even funny.

Again - we are not looking at a repository. With only "thin" copyright protection, I see no problem if only a few articles are copied.

D> But then you have made it more than clear that you don't care about what the laws say,

You totally misrepresent me - I want to know what the law says about these things. I even ask questions to get to the heart of the law.

D> what an expert has to say in the matter,

Same again. I am very interested in what 'interpretation' experts make.

To give just one example (there are others) - which is on record:

August 2000: Government 'experts' said vCJD transmission through blood was, if anything, only a "theoretical" risk. I said at the time this was a load of bull*.

August 2002, two years later: they admitted vCJD transmission through blood may be "appreciable".

D> or even just common sense.

I think it is very good common sense not to take important things what you are told at face value.

Even the difficult things. Take the invasion of Afghanistan for example. It is a fact, UK do not deport anybody that may be killed, Blair would not have released him to America either - entirely for reasons of morality and humanity. How can he help invade a country when he would have responded the same way.

D> You're wasting everyone's time throwing out ill-informed opinions based upon your admitted hatred of lawyers.

It is opinion on the base facts. Major fact: nothing you have shown me gives maximum percentage allowed, of news article, for comment or criticism on a public forum.

Contrary to what John has said - it is not unheard case of murder by frozen frozen salmon.

You misrepresent me - I do not hate lawyers - some are most honest and honourable people - who answer my questions without deviation.

I even admire John for his skills. I think I hold my own here - but he could wipe the floor with me in a court of law, my blood would be everywhere. But - he (and authorities) still cannot explain why name.class.country.reg would not identify registered trademarks.

I have had a few lawyers admit that it would. It can takes ages - with Legal Eagle on ICANN forum it was like trying to get blood from stone. G. Gervaise Davis III said it would identify them straight away and that he had put something similar forward himself.

I admit that lawyers evasiveness sometimes gives me the hump. My hostility is reserved for those in authority that should be protecting the public and not aiding corporations violation of law.

 

[jberryhill]

Garry,

Can you send a cheque drawn on a US bank? The fee for clearing a foreign one will exceed the amount here.

------
If "copying the entire article precludes the "fair use" defense" then why have schools not been taken to court?
-----

There are two answers to that - (a) they have, indirectly, and (b) deciding to sue someone is usually a decision that should be made on an economically rational basis. Hey, following your rationale, why not just photocopy the textbooks.... which brings us to the roundabout way that copyright owners HAVE gone after classroom photocopying. The statute itself expressly refers to "including multiple copies for classroom use", which is still a narrower exception than one might think.

Some excerpts from the (public domain) court decision in
Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc.
99 F.3d 1381

-----
Thanks to relatively recent advances in technology, the coursepack--an artifact largely unknown to college students when the author of this opinion was an undergraduate--has become almost as ubiquitous at American colleges and universities as the conventional textbook. From the standpoint of the professor responsible for developing and teaching a particular course, the availability of coursepacks has an obvious advantage; by selecting readings from a variety of sources, the professor can create what amounts to an anthology perfectly tailored to the course the professor wants to present.
[...]
Ann Arbor, the home of the University of Michigan, is also home to several copyshops. Among them is defendant Michigan Document Services (MDS), a corporation owned by defendant James Smith. We are told that MDS differs from most, if not all, of its competitors in at least one important way: it does not request permission from, nor does it pay agreed royalties to, copyright owners.

Mr. Smith has been something of a crusader against the system under which his competitors have been paying agreed royalties, or "permission fees" as they are known in the trade. The story begins in March of 1991, when Judge Constance Baker Motley, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, decided the first reported case involving the copyright implications of educational coursepacks. See Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corp., 758 F.Supp. 1522 (S.D.N.Y.1991), holding that a Kinko's copyshop had violated the copyright statute by creating and selling coursepacks without permission from the publishing houses that held the copyrights. After Kinko's, we are told, many copyshops that had not previously requested permission from copyright holders began to obtain such permission. Mr. Smith chose not to do so. He consulted an attorney, and the attorney apparently advised him that while it was "risky" not to obtain permission, there were flaws in the Kinko 's decision. Mr. Smith also undertook his own study of the fair use doctrine, reading what he could find on this subject in a law library. He ultimately concluded that the Kinko's case had been wrongly decided, and he publicized this conclusion through speeches, writings, and advertisements. His advertisements stressed that professors whose students purchased his coursepacks would not have to worry about delays attendant upon obtaining permission from publishers.

[referring to the "fair use" statute]

This language does not provide blanket immunity for "multiple copies for classroom use." Rather, "whether a use referred to in the first sentence of Section 107 is a fair use in a particular case ... depend upon the application of the determinative factors." Campbell, 510 U.S. at 578 n. 9, 114 S.Ct. at 1170 n. 9, quoting S.Rep. No. 94-473, p. 62.

[...]

It is true that the use to which the materials are put by the students who purchase the coursepacks is noncommercial in nature. But the use of the materials by the students is not the use that the publishers are challenging. What the publishers are challenging is the duplication of copyrighted materials for sale by a for-profit corporation that has decided to maximize its profits-- and give itself a competitive edge over other copyshops--by declining to pay the royalties requested by the holders of the copyrights.

[...now, I want you to reflect on this part...]

One test for determining market harm--a test endorsed by the Supreme Court in Sony, Harper & Row, and Campbell--is evocative of Kant's categorical imperative. "[T]o negate fair use," the Supreme Court has said, "one need only show that if the challenged use 'should become widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work.' " Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 568, 105 S.Ct. at 2234, quoting Sony, 464 U.S. at 451, 104 S.Ct. at 793 (emphasis supplied in part). Under this test, we believe, it is reasonably clear that the plaintiff publishers have succeeded in negating fair use.

[...]

The third professor, Michael Dawson, assigned a 95-page excerpt from the book on black politics by Nancy Weiss. Professor Dawson does not say that a license was not available from the publisher of the Weiss book, and he does not say that the license fee would have deterred him from assigning the book.

[...]

As to the proposition that it would be fair use for the students or professors to make their own copies, the issue is by no means free from doubt.

---------------------------

Okay, so what do we take away from this, since you keep coming back to DNForum as a non-profit educational institution? For one thing, on the factor of "effect on the market", courts don't look at the effect of the use at issue, but take a "what if everyone did that?" type of approach.

The other thing we can take away from the opinion is to reflect upon the effectiveness of Mr. Smith's personal education on the subject of fair use.

 

[jberryhill]

"Or perhaps you agree with all this. Suppose you think it okay to have Sunrise Period "

Garry, if you are going to tell me what I think, then please stop being so lazy.

Go here:

http://www.icann.org/dnso/wgb-report-17apr00.htm

Read attachment #3 and attachment #5.

Or just Google: "berryhill 'sunrise proposal'"

Where were YOU, Garry? Off on Slashdot flogging the same horse, right?

"Maybe you think it is all perfectly lawful and above board."

Garry, you know that WIPO opinion I cited two articles back? Click on it again and READ it - including the part where it identifies the attorneys for the two sides.

Your personal characterization of my position on sunrise, which could not be further from the truth if you tried, clearly indicates that one of us is investing far too much effort in trying to provide useful information here.

"People I have communicated with in authority are all too evasive. Even top management of our own UK Patent Office (who have looked at and understand this subject) refuse to answer very simple questions. Why is that do you think?"

Because it is not their job.

 

[namedropper]

Originally posted by Garry Anderson
So you finally admit - books are "covered by copyright more strongly" - then why did you argue with me about this earlier?

First off, you aren't even quoting me correctly. I didn't say books are covered more strongly, I said FICTION books were as a practical matter covered more strongly because they have less facts in them.

Second, I was not arguing about that earlier with you because you weren't saying more strongly, you were saying that news wasn't covered at all and also that most news articles weren't works of art or unique.

As I said then and as I repeat now, news articles are just as much works of art or unique as any book.

So perhaps it is you are not as expert or sure of yourself as you say you are. At least I am more honest, admitting that I could be wrong.

I *am* right, so I am not going to claim I could be wrong. There are things under debate in copyright law, but the points you are arguing are not under debate, they are wrong. As I pointed out above and you ignored, the debate is about less serious offenses like *linking* to a news article, NOT copying the entire thing. If copying the entire thing might be ok, then linking would obviously be fine, but it's not obviously fine, so copying the entire thing is obviously not OK.

copyright.gov says there are no limits laid down in law on percentage of a work allowed. Which is why I think a small passage from book ("covered more strongly") will contain "more richness of protected expression" than an entire news article.

Copyright.gov goes by what the law says as written, not by the case law. There is plenty of case law showing that you can only copy as much as you need to, and only for one of the uses on the approved of list, like educational uses, reviews and parody. You don't need to copy the entire thing if you can link to it.

With only "thin" copyright protection, I see no problem if only a few articles are copied.

Your "thin" protection never excuses copying entire articles (except for the few cases when there is no creative writing at all and just 100% factual data). The thinness of it means you can reword it more easily, not copy it outright.

August 2000: Government 'experts' said vCJD transmission through blood was, if anything, only a "theoretical" risk. I said at the time this was a load of bull*.

Whatever. Completely irrelevant.

I think it is very good common sense not to take important things what you are told at face value.

If you were arguing that linking to another site was perfectly fine and someone was telling you that cases have gone against it so you were obviously wrong, you may have a point. But this is completely different, because we don't have cases on either side of this issue. It's completely one sided. And you are completely on the wrong side.

Even the difficult things. Take the invasion of Afghanistan for example.

Completely and totally irrelevant.

Major fact: nothing you have shown me gives maximum percentage allowed, of news article, for comment or criticism on a public forum.

This is so stupid.

How about this for an example: Normally you aren't allowed to speed. The speed limit is the limit of legal speed, hence the name. But usually there's a fudge point where you can get away with it by going over the limit slightly. It's the exception to the rule. And sometimes you can get away because it's just a teensy tad over, and sometimes you can go even more over if you give a good excuse when pulled over by a cop, but there are no hard and fast rules. And then you come along and say, hey, I can drive 200 mph over the limit (don't ask me what it is in kph, 200 mph is more than 3 times as fast as the legal limit though), and you say if you are pulled over your excuse is that you had a cup of coffee. And I say, whoa, you are crazy, there's no way you are going to get away with that. That's way, WAY over and the excuse is so stupid it's offensive. You reply that we all know it's possible to get away with going over the limit and want me to show you where it says what the maximum amount of exceeding the limit is. There isn't one. It isn't written down. You say that means you can blast past it 4 times as fast as the posted limit, I say, no, they have arrested people for 15 mph over the limit, quite often in fact, so 200 mph is insane. But you are saying, no, show me the rule that says 10 is OK but 15 isn't. I can't.

(And before you tell me my example isn't relevant because then schools get away with driving 200mph over the limit all the time, schools would be like a private racetrack. As long as they only go insanely fast there they are ok, but f they try the same on a normal road they are busted.)

I can't show you a rule that says you can copy 10% but not 15%. There's no rule saying a school can make photocopies of something for class but not post the same thing for free on the web for the entire public to see. But just because I can't show some magical cut off point in these grey area issues it doesn't mean people can get away with much, much more severe copying, such as what happened here on this forum. 100% of an article, for profit website, people could have just followed the link, people could reword it but chose not to. You are trying to support four major no nos by saying, well maybe they could have got away with one of them. Even if they could have gotten away with one of them, all of them together would never, ever fly in a court of law. Guaranteed.

Common sense is being able to rate things to the degree that they are reasonable. You are off the freaking deep end completely smothering in unreasonable and are too clueless to tell.

I even admire John for his skills. I think I hold my own here

Smothering in misplaced ego as well.