Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
From the FundAlarm days; my question to any web site was what their use policy may be, other than what may be stated at the web page. In general, 200 words of copy/paste and a link to the full article/story was the common reply. I have read, but not linked some articles over the years; as the legal language at the web site did not allow for this. Tis always easy to ask for permission(s).
Here's a relevant passage from your linked article detailing what may be considered Fair Use (acceptable) and may be appropriate for the board: "Fair Use. A user of an online political forum posted a five-sentence excerpt from a newspaper article with a link back to the newspaper's website."
Five sentences sounds to me like a reasonable length. Also, many of the court decisions seem to hinge on whether or not the published material is still in circulation (hence, still earning revenue for the publisher). I also believe it is acceptable to use quotations which are widely known, like a line from JFK's Inaugural Address or from a Shakespearean play without attribution. But, you need to be careful here - as you could inadvertently infringe on the copyright of publications containing the above, such as a literary anthology.
There's a part of me that agrees with you, Crash. But why stop with intellectual property if it's all BS in your view? Have you heard of usufruct laws? I'm going to come over to your house and squat in your backyard.
Usufruct! A great and forgotten word - the right to use someone else's stuff when you want to, so long as you don't trash it. Your neighbor might, for example, have the right to wander into your house during the day when you're at work and watch your streaming media and enjoy the a/c. He wouldn't need your permission to do it, he'd just have to be tidy.
I'm mostly used to it in the context of medieval inheritance laws, where a widow - who couldn't hold title to land or property - would be granted the right to live in her late husband's estate until she passed away, at which point the property would revert to the overlord.
LAUGH! This thread is getting better. OJ: to quote Aretha from her appearance in "The Blues Brothers"--- "Don't you BLASPHEME in here. Don't you blaspheme in HERE!"
I actually spent a long while trying to decipher copyright law at one point, in hopes of generating an unambiguous guide. No such luck. It turns out that most of the rules of thumb (200 words are fine!) are baseless. The closest understanding that I came to was this: if the direct effect of your action was to reduce the economic value of the property, you were in trouble. So if I reproduced enough of a work (whether the bulk of the words or the juiciest passages) that it made going to the original unnecessary, I violated the law. The indirect effect argument - "yes, but I increased your name recognition when I pirated your work so your later pieces will probably get more readers" - seems to persuade no one but the (guilty) person making the argument.
In general, I try to borrow as few words as possible, given the point I need to make, and to acknowledge my debts as openly as possible. And it still makes me anxious every time Chip presses "publish" for us.
Authors help others when they have a short one to two sentence instruction concerning their wishes. I recall wanting to post a portion of a John Mauldin newsletter years ago. At the bottom was his instruction of how he preferred that one do this. I think it said he wanted to be notified at a given email address and he wanted you to provide a link to your use of his material in the email.
Such a short clear comment can be cut pasted at the bottom of original material in a second and could help avoid grief and, maybe, lead to new friends who share your interests. Not doing this can lead to a rough introduction. The internet is used by everyone without specific knowledge required.
David: As one who has made over 41,000 links for hundreds of news sources my understanding of copyright law comes down to the intention. If their is no profit motive involved when the article is published then it is fair game in the arena of public domain. In over 18 years of linking article, I've never had any author complain about my links till the other day. The question of copy & pasting an article which normally would not be able to be linked because of subscription is a gray area. Regards, Ted
Aside from copyright law, there is a bit about about "granting wishes", "respect", et,, etc, If a person as an OP, gets a request from an author about a cut and paste of an article written by an author explaining why they would appreciate the article be snipped, edited, removed, from a particular site to the cutter and paster (in this case Ted). The appropriate response might be "sure, I understand, I can do that for you you" - not "google lets me do it" or there is nothing illegal about it.
The simple fact that "Lewis B." made the request to Ted is reason enough for Ted to act upon the authors wishes, since these requests may be far and few between and wouldn't have been the end of the world for Ted to grant that wish to the original author, nor would it have been deleterious to the world in general, it would have engendered some mutual trust and understanding as opposed to the opposite.
It's really supreme irony. Here's [Ted] ... churning out hundreds of links a week, who doesn't understand some very basic copyright concepts ... and who displays an utter lack of appreciation for the intellectual value created by writers and thinkers like Lewis Braham and for Braham himself. I won't even get into he matter of the contempt shown to David, you and many others here.
[Lightly edited to drop the temperature a few degrees. David]
Hank, surely you are not saying reposting links misunderstands basic copyright laws. I am misreading you, right? Ted tonight seems as low-temp as Snow.
BB Aretha also said "Don't you 'Don't get riled now, sugar' me!"
hank, I think you underestimate Ted enormously. The next thing will be your suggesting that if Ted must post links he should go back to posting the naked link. QED.
No. Reposting neither understands nor "misunderstands".. I think it's clear from his above comment about "intention" that there's something missing in Ted's view of copyright. It's much more complex than simple "intention" as the preponderance of views here (including those of the site moderator and the author in question) have made clear. Tigerman3 linked a whole series of court decisions as well. To try to boil it down to "intention" is a gross oversimplification of copyright law. (I know first hand that telling a police officer I didn't "intend" to exceed the speed limit or run through a red light doesn't get me very far.)
I'm at a disadvantage here. Hadn't been following the board very closely before all this blew up. Hadn't seen the Braham post in question. I assume it was taken down or modified after Mr. Braham protested. Davidmoran: Could you clarify a few things here for me?
Three questions.
(1) Did Ted cut and copy all or the majority of the Braham piece?
(2) Did Ted include a link back to the original Braham source?
(3) Did Ted name the author somewhere in all of this?
Here's what I think most reasonable folks with a basic understanding of copyright would say.
#1 Republishing verbatim (as on a public website) more than 50% of an article exceeds any normal definition of "excerpting" for educational purposes, which the law allows. It is instead wholesale copying. While the laws are somewhat ambiguous. such wholesale copying carries a much higher risk of civil litigation than merely excerpting short portions would.
#2 Republishing verbatim without providing full attribution (internet link in this case) is wrong and runs the risk of civil litigation.
#3 Failure to name the author wold be intellectually dishonest and may also be a violation of copyright.
Davidmoran: Your experience in the publishing industry makes you uniquely qualified to address this. Actually, I was hoping to hear more from you. Thanks for any thoughts.
Yep - my tirade was delayed because I didn't want to criticize Ted while he was away from the board. I waited until he had returned. I hope he continues to post. It's clear many find his links of value.
I am back in the fair-use days, preweb. As a sometimes professional writer I do think it important, as everyone converges, not to copy whole cloth and especially so when paywalled, to give effusive credit, to post the links, to counter with substantiation, and all that. But there is not a single original thought in that sentence. Let me noodle further and see if I come up with anything smarter. I think most people understand and adhere to the spirit, though the web sure makes it only too easy to grab and post thoughtlessly.
Folks, can we close this Chapter of MFO history ... and, move on. Ted's back with us so let's all please move away from this thread and let it lay silent.
The problem was #1. While he linked and named the author, he cut and pasted an entire paywalled article from Barron's. The author came on, protested, the paste was edited, Ted said he wouldn't do it again. Then he did it again with the exact same author. Who again protested. That post has been removed, I believe. In the meantime, there were some more ad hominem posts that individual posters took exception to. They have also been cleaned, I believe.
I love what Ted brings to the board, and I don't imagine any of this was easy for Dr. Snowball. But at some point, the board needs have to come first.
To Skeet, OJ and others: Agree it's time to close the thread. On the other hand, the thread's not about Ted as I see it. (Any of us might make a similar mistake.)
The thread's about much more important issues involving respect for writers, publishers, the writing process and intellectual honesty. I thought the issues raised in that regard were extremely interesting and potentially beneficial to all of us.
I realize, however, it's difficult to separate the substantive issues from Ted's treatment of others here which got "blurred" into the conversation. "SINE DIE"
--
PS to David: I don't know if Ted ever apologized for any disrespect shown you. But, I will. What one member does reflects on all of us as members here. To the extent he was rude, insolent, ungrateful of your stewardship or in any other way disrespectful, I apologize. There's no place for that. Completely out of bounds. Sincerely, hank
I feel it is about Ted ... read the thread title! Perhaps, if this is not about Ted then the thread itself should be retitled. What's your thinking on this? Ted was no doubt in the wrong ... but, I feel he has been "beaten on enough." It is now history! I am moving on and will treat him with the sames respect I would anyone else who post. Ted's been bashed enough. Old_Skeet
Apologies, wasn't trying to pile on. I didn't actually see your original note until well after I was done composing mine. Was honestly just trying to answer Hank's question as honestly as possible since I have some minimum of knowledge of tort law. Well, I passed a torts class once, anyway.
I actually think this has brought out the best in everyone the last couple days. I hope it remains this way.
Comments
I have read, but not linked some articles over the years; as the legal language at the web site did not allow for this.
Tis always easy to ask for permission(s).
Here's a relevant passage from your linked article detailing what may be considered Fair Use (acceptable) and may be appropriate for the board: "Fair Use. A user of an online political forum posted a five-sentence excerpt from a newspaper article with a link back to the newspaper's website."
Five sentences sounds to me like a reasonable length. Also, many of the court decisions seem to hinge on whether or not the published material is still in circulation (hence, still earning revenue for the publisher). I also believe it is acceptable to use quotations which are widely known, like a line from JFK's Inaugural Address or from a Shakespearean play without attribution. But, you need to be careful here - as you could inadvertently infringe on the copyright of publications containing the above, such as a literary anthology.
Hope this clarifies rather than muddles.
I'm mostly used to it in the context of medieval inheritance laws, where a widow - who couldn't hold title to land or property - would be granted the right to live in her late husband's estate until she passed away, at which point the property would revert to the overlord.
David
Economists say copyright and patent laws are killing innovation; hurting economy
http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/13656.aspx
I thought usufruct was synthetic fructose.
(Pay attention. We're on a mission from God.)
In general, I try to borrow as few words as possible, given the point I need to make, and to acknowledge my debts as openly as possible. And it still makes me anxious every time Chip presses "publish" for us.
As ever,
David
Such a short clear comment can be cut pasted at the bottom of original material in a second and could help avoid grief and, maybe, lead to new friends who share your interests. Not doing this can lead to a rough introduction. The internet is used by everyone without specific knowledge required.
Regards,
Ted
The simple fact that "Lewis B." made the request to Ted is reason enough for Ted to act upon the authors wishes, since these requests may be far and few between and wouldn't have been the end of the world for Ted to grant that wish to the original author, nor would it have been deleterious to the world in general, it would have engendered some mutual trust and understanding as opposed to the opposite.
It's really supreme irony. Here's [Ted] ... churning out hundreds of links a week, who doesn't understand some very basic copyright concepts ... and who displays an utter lack of appreciation for the intellectual value created by writers and thinkers like Lewis Braham and for Braham himself. I won't even get into he matter of the contempt shown to David, you and many others here.
[Lightly edited to drop the temperature a few degrees. David]
BB Aretha also said "Don't you 'Don't get riled now, sugar' me!"
No. Reposting neither understands nor "misunderstands".
I'm at a disadvantage here. Hadn't been following the board very closely before all this blew up. Hadn't seen the Braham post in question. I assume it was taken down or modified after Mr. Braham protested. Davidmoran: Could you clarify a few things here for me?
Three questions.
(1) Did Ted cut and copy all or the majority of the Braham piece?
(2) Did Ted include a link back to the original Braham source?
(3) Did Ted name the author somewhere in all of this?
Here's what I think most reasonable folks with a basic understanding of copyright would say.
#1 Republishing verbatim (as on a public website) more than 50% of an article exceeds any normal definition of "excerpting" for educational purposes, which the law allows. It is instead wholesale copying. While the laws are somewhat ambiguous. such wholesale copying carries a much higher risk of civil litigation than merely excerpting short portions would.
#2 Republishing verbatim without providing full attribution (internet link in this case) is wrong and runs the risk of civil litigation.
#3 Failure to name the author wold be intellectually dishonest and may also be a violation of copyright.
Davidmoran: Your experience in the publishing industry makes you uniquely qualified to address this. Actually, I was hoping to hear more from you. Thanks for any thoughts.
Yep - my tirade was delayed because I didn't want to criticize Ted while he was away from the board. I waited until he had returned. I hope he continues to post. It's clear many find his links of value.
Old_Skeet
The problem was #1. While he linked and named the author, he cut and pasted an entire paywalled article from Barron's. The author came on, protested, the paste was edited, Ted said he wouldn't do it again. Then he did it again with the exact same author. Who again protested. That post has been removed, I believe. In the meantime, there were some more ad hominem posts that individual posters took exception to. They have also been cleaned, I believe.
I love what Ted brings to the board, and I don't imagine any of this was easy for Dr. Snowball. But at some point, the board needs have to come first.
It has so lets now move on.
Old_Skeet
To Skeet, OJ and others: Agree it's time to close the thread. On the other hand, the thread's not about Ted as I see it. (Any of us might make a similar mistake.)
The thread's about much more important issues involving respect for writers, publishers, the writing process and intellectual honesty. I thought the issues raised in that regard were extremely interesting and potentially beneficial to all of us.
I realize, however, it's difficult to separate the substantive issues from Ted's treatment of others here which got "blurred" into the conversation. "SINE DIE"
--
PS to David: I don't know if Ted ever apologized for any disrespect shown you. But, I will. What one member does reflects on all of us as members here. To the extent he was rude, insolent, ungrateful of your stewardship or in any other way disrespectful, I apologize. There's no place for that. Completely out of bounds. Sincerely, hank
Old_Skeet
I actually think this has brought out the best in everyone the last couple days. I hope it remains this way.
All best