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.
He had an earlier column with the same theme, and nothing's happened since that would change the math and logic of it. It's just not far enough from 2% to zero for a recession response, and there was never a solid rationale for 2% in the first place.
I do sometimes transcribe published emails or web articles in their entirety, for instance from Marketplace, Matt Levine, NPR and the Guardian. However, those sources are free and don't require a subscription. I also sometimes reproduce edited excerpts from other sources, with full credit and links to the original source.
Because Krugman's column specifies that it is available to paid NY Times subscribers, I did request permission to reprint an occasional column here on MFO, but didn't receive a reply, so I have to respect the "subscription only" situation.
My perspective is to try to protect MFO from any hassles from outside sources. Sorry- there's a lot of Krugman's stuff that I'd like to reproduce here.
(For informational purposes) I’m currently enjoying a 1-year subscription to the NYT online at a $49.99 introductory price. One nice feature is that all the NYT stories linked on the board load easily. Works out to less than $1 per week over a year.
for giving the question of excerpting material due consideration and articulating a coherent approach. However, property rights go beyond making money. (I know, heresy on a site devoted to investing)
A writer may grant others the right to read material for free while still retaining the exclusive right to control its use and dissemination. The public may read the material, but that's all except for limited fair use. No copying, no redistribution. Even with NPR material, which is "supported by listeners like you".
I also sometimes reproduce edited excerpts from other sources, with full credit and links to the original source.
@msf- Hello there- yes, I do realize that property rights go beyond making money, and that strictly speaking, I should somehow request permission to republish almost anything from an outside source. As a practical matter though, that isn't really possible for reproducing anything in a timely manner on a site like MFO.
I'm relying on the fact that we are not using any outside material for profit, not using such material on a regular basis, and giving full credit to the source, which might even possibly result in MFO readers subscribing to the source.
I'm going to contact @David_Snowball and see if he can't "find" a couple of votes for me to be elected MFO clown of the month. That will be a perfect email, too.
OJ - I really did mean that you are more respectful than 99% of the people using material from articles.
If you'll pardon me going all wonky, I'll try to explain why the points you raise don't affect whether a copyright has been infringed.
Giving credit to source - that means you're not plagiarizing. It doesn't change whether you're violated a copyright. These are similar concepts but not the same. If I reprint a full book here, naming title, author, ISBN, etc., I'm not plagiarizing, but I'm still violating the copyright (unless the author gave permission).
No harm, free info, not for profit, etc. - these affect the calculation of damages as a result of the copyright infringement.
Suppose that while you're away from home I sit in a rocking chair on your porch and enjoy the breeze. No harm done. I may have even enhanced the value of your property by demonstrating how enjoyable it is. I've still trespassed. There was no harm, so you'll likely get only symbolic damages.
Paraphrasing helps but it isn't necessarily a cure-all. There's something called "substantial similarity" - if what you write is substantially similar to the original, you may still have violated the copyright. This tends to be highly subjective. My Sweet Lord it's difficult to know when the doctrine will apply!
"Did [George] Harrison deliberately use the music of 'He's So Fine'? I do not believe he did so deliberately," [Judge] Owen said. "Nevertheless, it is clear that 'My Sweet Lord' is the very same song as 'He's So Fine' with different words, and Harrison had access to 'He's So Fine.' This is, under the law, infringement of copyright, and is no less so even though subconsciously accomplished."
It was the biglyist perfectest phone call ever made, rforno. It was you that I called, but you are such a loser that you didn't even answer. (What's your number again?)
@msf- Well, now I'm really uncertain of how to proceed. Perhaps I wasn't clear- I do realize that infringement is technically involved: my hope is simply that the original sources will adjudge it as to be relatively harmless and of good intent.
If that's not a reasonable perspective, then I guess that I should just stop posting stuff.
There are various perspectives including the pragmatic and the principled. Pragmatically, you most likely won't get caught. I take a pragmatic perspective on a daily basis when I jaywalk. I will not be cited. Rudy is no longer mayor of NYC.
Or one can take a more restrained approach. Post nothing, stay within the crosswalks.
Side note: Copyright infringement is not prosecuted as a crime unless it is committed "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain". 17 USC 506(a)(1)(A). That could have pragmatic implications (affecting the likelihood of getting caught). Offered as an observation, not advice.
I think that one can quote 10-25% under fair use, less the better.
Paraphrasing the essence of the article is another way, my preferred way. I didn't mean just word replacements for paraphrasing.
I did listen to 2 songs that @msf noted on a famous copyright case. It was more the similarity of tunes, not words. Songs can be copyrighted as text and/or audio/video. I recall hearing both songs in the years past and I remember thinking that they sounded similar - many songs do, and one song often reminds about another song. Some popular religious songs are blatant copies of commercial tunes. One can drive a truck under the shades of improvisations. As Ringo Starr noted that George Harrison was just unlucky that it became a legal case. George Harrison noted that, actually, he was trying to sound like ANOTHER song, not the one for which the copyright lawsuit was filed. I think he didn't want to settle either. His version was MUCH more popular than the other song and I am sure that he could have settled easily with the estate of the other song writer/composure if he wanted to.
Only the copyright holder can complain formally. Others can Flag for the protection of forum/site managers.
Beyond the poster, the hosting site can also get into trouble for copyright violations. So, on a serious copyright violation, the MFO may be contacted first, and then Vanilla. The identity of the anonymous poster may become known only in any legal proceeding.
@msf, @yogibearbull- Well then, I guess that I'll continue to jaywalk and hope that Rudy is preoccupied with other matters. The odds are pretty good on that. Thanks to both of you for your thoughts on this.
If Krugman is writing about it, hold onto your wallet
Amazing how these clowns in cahoots with this Bolshevik Biden government can float these concepts thru the warped and bought mediabin an attempt to brain wash the sheeples
Always moving the goal posts when their insane monetary policies peanut butter hits the fan and trying to blame someone else
You far-right hard-liners love to complain about “the "crazy political rantings that have infested every thread on here”, "mostly the commie liberal snowflake variety". That's a direct quote.✲
Yet it is manifestly true and factual that the great majority of those rants are initiated by right-wing ideologues such as yourself, as evidenced by this very thread.
You people start this crap, then whine when someone responds with factual information.
Uh, actually, I'm a moderate neither far right nor left...it's just that the socialists are attempting to take over this country....and I resent that so I guess I get labelled far right....good grief, I hope you're not insinuating that anything in the New York times is factual? Propaganda yes, factual, not really....
A "moderate", says you, a dogmatic right-wing ideologue, as evidenced by your seditious description of the President of the United States as a “Bolshevik”.
He's a "moderate" all right... a moderatel fascist. fascist: • a person who is extremely right-wing or authoritarian • a person who is very intolerant or domineering
He must believe that all of those people recently indicted in Washington and Georgia for attempting to take over this country by perversion of a democratic (small "d") election are really socialists. Maybe he's just confused...
Comments
I do sometimes transcribe published emails or web articles in their entirety, for instance from Marketplace, Matt Levine, NPR and the Guardian. However, those sources are free and don't require a subscription. I also sometimes reproduce edited excerpts from other sources, with full credit and links to the original source.
Because Krugman's column specifies that it is available to paid NY Times subscribers, I did request permission to reprint an occasional column here on MFO, but didn't receive a reply, so I have to respect the "subscription only" situation.
My perspective is to try to protect MFO from any hassles from outside sources. Sorry- there's a lot of Krugman's stuff that I'd like to reproduce here.
(For informational purposes) I’m currently enjoying a 1-year subscription to the NYT online at a $49.99 introductory price. One nice feature is that all the NYT stories linked on the board load easily. Works out to less than $1 per week over a year.
@Old_Joe +1
for giving the question of excerpting material due consideration and articulating a coherent approach. However, property rights go beyond making money. (I know, heresy on a site devoted to investing
A writer may grant others the right to read material for free while still retaining the exclusive right to control its use and dissemination. The public may read the material, but that's all except for limited fair use. No copying, no redistribution. Even with NPR material, which is "supported by listeners like you".
I also sometimes reproduce edited excerpts from other sources, with full credit and links to the original source.
That's the idea!
https://copyrightalliance.org/education/industry/writers/#writers-rights
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/
Edit/Add: @Old_Joe, I posted a note on your Profile/Wall.
I'm relying on the fact that we are not using any outside material for profit, not using such material on a regular basis, and giving full credit to the source, which might even possibly result in MFO readers subscribing to the source.
Do no harm (I hope).
Regards- OJ
If you'll pardon me going all wonky, I'll try to explain why the points you raise don't affect whether a copyright has been infringed.
Giving credit to source - that means you're not plagiarizing. It doesn't change whether you're violated a copyright. These are similar concepts but not the same. If I reprint a full book here, naming title, author, ISBN, etc., I'm not plagiarizing, but I'm still violating the copyright (unless the author gave permission).
No harm, free info, not for profit, etc. - these affect the calculation of damages as a result of the copyright infringement.
Suppose that while you're away from home I sit in a rocking chair on your porch and enjoy the breeze. No harm done. I may have even enhanced the value of your property by demonstrating how enjoyable it is. I've still trespassed. There was no harm, so you'll likely get only symbolic damages.
Paraphrasing helps but it isn't necessarily a cure-all. There's something called "substantial similarity" - if what you write is substantially similar to the original, you may still have violated the copyright. This tends to be highly subjective. My Sweet Lord it's difficult to know when the doctrine will apply! https://ultimateclassicrock.com/george-harrison-my-sweet-lord-plagiarism/
(I'm relying upon fair use.)
If that's not a reasonable perspective, then I guess that I should just stop posting stuff.
There are various perspectives including the pragmatic and the principled. Pragmatically, you most likely won't get caught. I take a pragmatic perspective on a daily basis when I jaywalk. I will not be cited. Rudy is no longer mayor of NYC.
Rudy Opens New War on Jaywalkers, NYPost, July 8, 2000.
Then there's the principled perspective. As Yogi described, fair use permits limited copying of material. And California permits (technically decriminalizes) jaywalking in limited situations - when "safe" to do so.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article266903931.html
Or one can take a more restrained approach. Post nothing, stay within the crosswalks.
Side note: Copyright infringement is not prosecuted as a crime unless it is committed "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain". 17 USC 506(a)(1)(A). That could have pragmatic implications (affecting the likelihood of getting caught). Offered as an observation, not advice.
Paraphrasing the essence of the article is another way, my preferred way. I didn't mean just word replacements for paraphrasing.
I did listen to 2 songs that @msf noted on a famous copyright case. It was more the similarity of tunes, not words. Songs can be copyrighted as text and/or audio/video. I recall hearing both songs in the years past and I remember thinking that they sounded similar - many songs do, and one song often reminds about another song. Some popular religious songs are blatant copies of commercial tunes. One can drive a truck under the shades of improvisations. As Ringo Starr noted that George Harrison was just unlucky that it became a legal case. George Harrison noted that, actually, he was trying to sound like ANOTHER song, not the one for which the copyright lawsuit was filed. I think he didn't want to settle either. His version was MUCH more popular than the other song and I am sure that he could have settled easily with the estate of the other song writer/composure if he wanted to.
Only the copyright holder can complain formally. Others can Flag for the protection of forum/site managers.
Beyond the poster, the hosting site can also get into trouble for copyright violations. So, on a serious copyright violation, the MFO may be contacted first, and then Vanilla. The identity of the anonymous poster may become known only in any legal proceeding.
Paul Krugman strongly dislikes Donald Trump, the greatest President ever, who is Wonderful in Every Way!
How could you be a big fan of someone like that???
Amazing how these clowns in cahoots with this Bolshevik Biden government can float these concepts thru the warped and bought mediabin an attempt to brain wash the sheeples
Always moving the goal posts when their insane monetary policies peanut butter hits the fan and trying to blame someone else
Good grief
Yet it is manifestly true and factual that the great majority of those rants are initiated by right-wing ideologues such as yourself, as evidenced by this very thread.
You people start this crap, then whine when someone responds with factual information.
✲ rsorden and Baseball_Fan, 8/23/23.
Uh, actually, I'm a moderate neither far right nor left...it's just that the socialists are attempting to take over this country....and I resent that so I guess I get labelled far right....good grief, I hope you're not insinuating that anything in the New York times is factual? Propaganda yes, factual, not really....
Seditious: rabble-rousing, provocative, inflammatory, subversive, troublemaking; rebellious, insurrectionist, mutinous, insurgent; treacherous, disloyal.
Your uh lede is the funniest thing here in a year
fascist:
• a person who is extremely right-wing or authoritarian
• a person who is very intolerant or domineering
He must believe that all of those people recently indicted in Washington and Georgia for attempting to take over this country by perversion of a democratic (small "d") election are really socialists. Maybe he's just confused...