More Press On UP Licencing

Free except I have to give way more information than I'd want them to have. I'll pass.

Dave

It doesn't have to be true, mostly.

I know you're an honest guy, Dave, but nobody said you have to tell them the truth...

Jeff Sc. Born in 1911, Ga.

Don't bother to reply via email...I've been JoeJobbed.

Dave, Thanks for informing us with non-information about withholding your top secret information. The next time I'll copy the whole text so that no one needs to divulge sensitive details that could breach important security measures while attempting to gain access to free information published by the nations leading newspapers. I'm sure no one will have a problem with anonymously reading copied copyrighted material. Bruce

Fav>

Do you or others here normally supply all or correct information to internet websites?

Of course not. It's just like those "studies" where they report that 50% of high school students have smoked pot. The number won't be accurate because the kids are scared to admit it. Of course in my high school it was more like 90%, but hey, we were near the beach.

But the same thing occurs with online busybody sites. Most of us will use a fake email address or at least a real one that we don't bother to check. We don't want to encourage the spam they deny instigating. Some of us do not care to admit to reading "newspapers that do not have a comics section and therefore are not REAL newspapers" such as the New York Times or Wall Street Journal.

But the fact that these publications actually ask for the info, and that at least some poor fools provide it, says an awful lot about the publisher's and readers ignorance of the internet, the world, and the human condition.

Regards,

DAve Fan of the Late, Great Southern Pacific and the Small Old Santa Fe

That newspaper allowed me to read the article after signing up. It then also sent email that said if I didn't confirm the connection wouldn't be active anymore. I assume they did that to make sure the address was correct. I didn't answer so suspect they dumped my address.

I think posters linking to sites that require you to register should cut and paste the information they want you to read into their post.

BUT...then they would be guilty of copyright violations. SOME people DO prefer to do things legally.....honestly.....ethically.

"KC" wrote

It's not copyright infringement is it's posted to a NEWSgroup. Just make sure to give due credit to the source.

I don't know who kc is. It is not dishonest or illegal to cut and paste from a public website any more than it would be to cut out an article from a newspaper and send it in the post to someone.

There is no such thing as a "free lunch." You want their article; they want to know a little about the person they are giving it to. Of course, if you don't want to gife it to them, that is your choice. But then, they won't want to give you their article.

dlm

Fav>

Sorry, but I do not feel like giving out all the information (name , address, age, sex, phone, etc.). The only reason they want it is to E-mail and mail crap to you. If you left any item blank it refused to accept registration. I'm not one to make up bogus info so I simply passed. They really have no business needing that amount of info except to dog you out with spam.

Dave

Apples & oranges... in one case you are sending the original; in the other you are "electronically reproducing it."

dlm

This is not correct. Faxing it,or scanning it, or copying it on a machine is also electronic and none are illegal. Cutting and pasting from a free public website is not illegal either. If I copy that US newspaper article here, and send it to Russia via email, what law, of what country, enforced where and how would I be violating?

You might want to stick to subjects you know something about. Any method of reproduction that increases the number of copies available for other than PERSONAL use (including faxing, scanning, and copying) _is_ a violation of copyright law, according to the Berne Convention, in all signatory nations (most of the world, with the possible exception of China

- IIRC they signed it, but do damn little to enforce it) enforcable worldwide (the whole point of the Berne Convention).

Clipping and mailing a hard copy from a legally purchased magazine or paper _is_ allowed, because you are relinquishing posession of the original you lawfully purchased. Total circulation is not increased, you have not "published" anything, just changed its physical location. Any form of copy, fax, or electronic publishing is prohibited unless specific permission is obtained in advance.

The web site in question is _not_ technically "free" - the owner wants some information in exchange for HIS information. It is their right - and if you don't want to pay the price, you don't get the info. Even a "free" website is protected, though. If someone wants to publish info from a free site, they _still_ must get the author's permission first, and the author has the right to say no.

Someone once wanted to put an article I wrote and published for my club (free) site on a commercial (pay) site - I refused permission for a variety of reasons. I periodically go back and check to see that they haven't cheated.

It was written:

Time to go back to basics:

~ Under US copyright law, any original artwork, photograph or written material is automatically copyrighted, and the creator of the material (or their employer in some cases) is the owner of the copyright. It is not necessary to register your copyright, and it is no longer necessary to include any "notice" of the copyright when the item is published (shown or distributed to others).

~ As a GENERAL RULE, copying someone else's work and distributing it to others is a violation of the US copyright laws. It doesn't matter whether you're distributing a physical copy or an electronic copy, and it doesn't matter whether you got it from a newspaper, a book, a public website or any other source.

~ The EXCEPTION to the general rule (and it's a HUGE exception) is the fact that US copyright law permits "FAIR USE" of copyrighted material without obtaining the permission of the copyright owner.

~ If you want to know the intracacies of the "Fair Use" exception, there are any number of weighty books on the subject. Typically, sending free copies of news stories to people of similar interest would be a Fair Use, while including such copies in a book or magazine sold for profit woud not qualify. Sending a friend a copy of a photograph you found on a website would probably be a Fair Use, while putting a copy of that photo on your own website without permission -- or selling copies of that photo -- would not.

~ As with all legal matters, reasonable folks may have different opinions. It's generally useful to start by considering what use the owner has made of the copyrighted material, and whether your use of that material would detract from the value of the owner's copyright.

~ As a practical matter (legal technicalities aside), I can't imagine an on-line newspaper making a stink about one of it's articles being forwarded to an email or news group -- provided that the author and the newspaper are appropriately noted.

JR Hill

You are making this up to back up what you think is true. Show me text of a law that states that I can't go to a free online website and post an article there here and tell me how it applies to worldwide distribution via the internet. There is no difference with doing this and making a copy of it and mailing to anyone.

This is like saying the disclaimers at the bottom of some emails saying if you are the wrong address you can't do anything with it actually have some basis in fact.

Fact is, that copyright law says you can't make copies of other peopkle's work and distribute them, whether for free, for profit, or for gain. The rules of "fair use" permit some exceptions. That's it. Period.

The fact that the technology for making copies has changed since the copryright law was first written doesn't change a thing, as courts have held more than once.

IOW, the law doesn't have to say explicitly that downloading something from a website and then posting it elsewhere is illegal. If the owner of the website wants to go after you, the only recourse you have is to claim "fair use." Just what fair use is varies enormously with circumstances and context (and legal system, for that matter), and has been redefined both by legislation and by court rulings many, many times. So it would be up to you to prove that you acted legally, that is, that your distribution of material copied from a website falls under the rubric of fair use. It's not up to the copyright holder to prove that you acted illegally. And the above claims are not something I made up; they are logical consequences of the meaning of copyright and of fair use.

Please note that at present, the meaning of "fair use" as it applies to the web is not at all clear. To be on the safe side, I would ask for permission before posting anything I didn't personally create. Absent such permission, I would post the URL, which is the same as giving a person the title of a book, which is clearly legal.

Hollering about "show me where it's written" shows a curious notion of legal behaviour, namely that anything that's not explicitly forbidden is permitted. I won't insult your intelligence by explaining why this is wrong.