Split topic: Whither to repost opinion pieces

Boygabriel wrote:

Do you realize how many virtual trees you're destroying with your plagiarizing pasting of entire undated articles with no consent from the authors to do so?

You need to give this up. Since when is quoting articles on a message board plagiarizing?

He's not passing it off as his own. He's not making any kind of profit for it.

It's therefore not plagiarizing.

OK, when you paste the entire article without the authors permission it's probably copyright infringement. Fair enough?

Boygabriel wrote: It's an extremely grey area, and message boards have tended to fall under fair use.

Can you cite a single example of precedent for your argument?

Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters, the use of fewer than 400 words from President Ford's memoir by a political opinion magazine was interpreted as infringement because those few words represented "the heart of the book" and were, as such, substantial.

This case represents the "amount and substantiality" criteria which is what I'm addressing in this thread, not the "Purpose and character" which would be more associated with the potential for profit.

Boygabriel wrote: political opinion magazine is the key phrase. A profit-making enterprise (presumably).

Thousands of opinion pieces are republished millions of times across the internet on blogs and message boards every month. Especially on ones with many times the readers of this one, and yet almost nobody cares.

I'm sure the original author appreciates your concern (or actually probably doesn't care), but this is clearly a grey area that a vast majority of opinion writers (and their employers) choose not to bother with.

If and when publishers care, they let the site in question know (try copy & pasting a Salon article on a blog and see how fast it gets taken down). But as I said, fair use has been pretty clearly established on the internet, especially when it comes to opinion pieces being reposted on message boards and blogs.

I'm pretty sure you're aware of this.

It is irrelevant if it is a so called "gray area". It is irrelevant if it is prosecuted. You asked for one example.

Like I said in my post I am addressing the "amount and substantiality" criteria of the fair use doctrine, not the "Purpose and character" criteria.

The following is irrelevant to the "amount and substantiality" criteria. .

political opinion magazine is the key phrase. A profit-making enterprise (presumably).

I don't know what your definition of "quote" is but don't you believe that the pasting of an entire article without permission is copyright infringement no matter what the status quo is?

See, you're both right!!

I think it's probably best form to NOT copy articles wholesale, as that probably does run a bit counter to the notion of "blogging" an opinion piece or taking an excerpt as fair use. I doubt armchair's copy/pastings are anywhere near the radar of America's Powerhouse Publishers... but if they are we'd obviously oblige and take them down.

I think you are overreacting Modsq. Though I tend to be a little more towards the side of copying best quotes of the article and then share the link, not everyone has that time or cares to and as Bobby Brown might say, that is their prerogative. Most "copy- all-paste" posts tend to show author, link or publication.. in this day and age of message board chatter that is quite enough (though I tend to add more)

The thing is, people have been doing this type of blogging for years. If you don't like his posting style or opinions, just ignore his posts. Don't get bent out of shape over it. It's only "teh internets," not a big deal.

Well that's just FINE! May you all enjoy your perfect Life! :x

To go back to the core issue of copyright infringement... copying-and-pasting an ENTIRE article may not be creating revenue (on this message board), BUT it is taking away (destroying the potential for) revenue by the publisher!!

The articles are paid for by whatever mechanism the publisher has -- with online media it's subscription fees and ADVERTISING. If the reader does not visit the nytimes.com or wherever, the reader is not exposed to the advertising. The publisher doesn't get credit for the reader (ad impressions, etc) and, thus, the article is not producing the revenue it would have.... IF you simply followed fair-use standards, provided only an intro, include short quotes and LINKED the remainder of the article, then everyone is happy.

Long story short -- you are STEALING. :?

Even in the most liberal environment for "fair use" -- academic work -- you simply CANNOT reproduce enormous chunks of someone elses work! And you can DEFINITELY NOT reproduce the entirety of the work!

OK... and to the other point -- Make Your Posts Matter! Use the article as a TOOL. We can all follow a link. If you have something to say, say it. Provide analysis or a reaction or whatever. Quote from the article, etc. Great. We can choose to read the whole thing ourselves!! (via a link!!)

Copyright law is squishy -- but it's not a "gray area" (i.e., you can do whatever you feel like) There is nothing "gray area" about reprinting a full article without the publishers permission (or paying royalties)

Oh, and armchair warrior, Stop with the "I'm old school" excuse. It was illegal to photocopy an article from Newsweek and pass it around your office or fax it to your buddies... just because you did it doesn't make it legal.

Are you KIDDING? If you post the entire article, why would I visit the publisher?! Just stop! But you are too stubborn to realize anything as simple as this.

If you can't accept the fact that you're stealing and YES you are impacting the revenue or the publishers... at least, take my advice, internalize it.

tybur6 wrote: OK... and to the other point -- Make Your Posts Matter! Use the article as a TOOL. We can all follow a link. If you have something to say, say it. Provide analysis or a reaction or whatever. Quote from the article, etc. Great. We can choose to read the whole thing ourselves!! (via a link!!)

Perhaps the mods of this message board might care about the fact they THEY are liable for allowing you to flout intellectual property law?! Lawsuits aren't fun.

Mamacita wrote: [quote=dailyheights] I doubt armchair's copy/pastings are anywhere near the radar of America's Powerhouse Publishers... but if they are we'd obviously oblige and take them down.

This ^

You guys really need to move on. I'm sure there's better things to get wound up about.

mamacita they miss the point.

I mean on one hand we are ridiculed for caring about copyright infringement because after all it's "only the interntz", On the other hand a thread is removed for what? Because the possibility exists that is might be used in some sort of "Law and Order" plot in LL/Tenant court? Give me a break!

Mamacita wrote: A Law and Order plot, screw that, I waiting for CSI!!
Or Bones!

Hell that! FRINGE!
Brooklynian in the parallel universe still has the thread!

we got good mods, i post more than anyone probably here combined on all their post.

i have over few hundred thousand post under unique names. some places are like the wild wild west. other places are like stalin states. and this place have just enough of a right thing.