On 10 Jul 2005 07:35:25 -0700, "Amie" <
[email protected]>
wrote:
>> Please learn to read. I have never said who the copyright holder is
>because I don't actually know.
>
>"Please learn to read?" Why don't you please learn to have a civil
>discussion.
My first post and second posts in this thread were very civil. My
first one in response to your posting material you did not have the
right to post said "It's not right to post copyrighted material like
this w/o permission. of the copyright holder. Did you get permission?
If not, it's bad."
> It's obvious of YOUR lack of knowledge because the
>copyright owner is the AUTHOR of the piece, unless otherwise expressly
>stated.
First, that is not always the case. When someone rights something
that another person or entity pays for, the copyright is often held by
the person paying. In this case, neither of us actually knows who
holds the copyright. I agree with you about it -- it's probably the
author. But neither of us knows for sure. And since most webpages
with material from the AP say "copright AP all rights reserved" it's
possible the copyright is held by the AP. It's also possible the
copyright is held by Time Warner. Neither of us know for sure.
You're probably right in guessing it's held by Carmichael, and I agree
with that guess. But neither of us know for sure
Second, it doesn't matter if the copyright is held by Carmichael, the
AP or the Pope. It's not held by you and unless you get permission,
what you did was wrong.
>
>>You clearly don't know what you are talking about regarding fair use
>and copyright -- just give it up and before posting any other such
>nonsense. And take a look at some proper information such as at
>www.loc.gov/copyright
>
>I think you clearly don't know. I printed the Fair Use Doctrine word
>for word, FROM the copyright law.
Take another look at point 3 in what you printed. It is almost never
that reprinting something in it's entirety is fair use. That is why
the amount of material reproduced relative to the length of the
original text is discused in the material you printed.
>
>>Fair use allows the use of excerpts for criticism or parody or to get
>someone to read the rest. It does not allow reposting something in
>it's entirety like that.
>
>
>Oh, ok, then anytime we reproduce works to use at the University or
>post on course websites to educate others, we are criticising or
>ridiculing the work. Please get serious.
I should have included "educating" along with criticism. Yes,
reproducing a portion of material for education, criticism, etc is
fair use. But not reproducing the entire text Ask your university's
legal counsel about that.
>>Please stop embarrassing yourself. If you stole a small piece of
>fruit from a supermarket and then drove away before I told them about
>it, I doubt they would sue you. It still doesn't make it legal.
>
>I think you should stop embarrassing yourself.
>Comparing stealing fruit from the supermarket and the Fair Use Doctrine
>is opening yourself up to ridicule.
>
>> You should be embarassed to have such a flawed understanding of
>copyright after having studied journalism.
>
>Ummmm... excuse me? I do not have a flawed understanding. Maybe you
>should study it in the first place!
>
>I don't have to go back and 'ask my professors' anything, as I teach
>for the Journalism School as well. Aside from an email to Carmicheal
>and contacting the AP once, I believe my credentials and study in this
>area are a *bit* more extensive than yours.
What is your name? What are your credentials? What school? If you
want to start talking credential, please back them up.
I note your email address has the word "journalist" in it. If you are
a journalist, ass the corporate counsel where you work the same
question I suggested you ask your journalism professor. You can't
post copyrighted material in it's entirety like that without
permission. It's illegal and wrong.
>Listen, I think we all get the points made here and I don't really feel
>it pertinent to triathlon, or even fair to the original poster of this
>thread, to continue.
It is fundemental that when someone breaks the law it shoudl be
pointed out to them. It's unfortunate that you take umbrage to that.
> Thanks for your thoughts over the possibilty of my being sued,
>but frankly, i'm not concerned.
I never suggested you would get sued. I just pointed out what you
did was wrong and illegal. It's a small thing and the odds of a
lawsuit are remote. But that doesn't make what you did right.. Your
spouting nonsense about copyright is actual far more more harmful
insofare as other people might believe you.
For their benefit, here is some information about copyright. The
first link is from the US goverment -- I'm not sure what country you
are in but the general principles are similar in over 100 countries
around the world.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copyright.html
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit
http://www.jt10000.com
****************************