More Press On UP Licencing

If it is being offered on the web (or a street corner) without restriction why can you not reoffer "copies" of the same material, without restriction? (The page which started this is NOT being offered "without restriction".) Who is being damaged and how?

If the poster had the right to post it.

Paul

"Greg Pavlov" wrote

Send me $500 and I'll send you a written opinion. As it's posted, it's worth what you paid for it.

Exactly what I am saying. The orginal concept here as to why the original poster did not post it here was because it was 'illegal' and several other words. I disagree that it is to any reasonable standard of the word, or the law, or (and here is a concept) actual reality of life.

If as some would have you believe here that ANY text on an online site is 'copyrighted' and cannot be cut and pasted AT ALL without it being illegal and immoral, then the internet should be shut down.

Keep in mind that copyright is assumed to exist as soon as you make something public, by whatever means. If a copyright holder wants to reduce the copyright protections granted by law, he must say so explicitly, and list all those he abrogates. A legal right holds unless and until abrogated. (Some legal rights cannot be abrogated, eg, constitutional rights.)

The fact that a website is free does not mean that copyright is abrogated. It merely menas that you don't have to pay for your personal copy of the site's contents.

BTW, I've never seen anyone offer anything without restrictions, but then I've not seen everything - who has? The minimum restriction is to include the copyright notice of the originator if and when copies are distributed. And even if free distribution is explitly permitted, every single one of those permissions I've seen limit free distribution to non-commercial uses and purposes.

Anyhow, if you recall the Lecture on Plagiarism, you should recall that it is the least extremely rude to distribute anything you didn't create without acknowledging the originator. (If you didn't get the Lecture on Plagiarism, your high school education was seriously deficient.)

HTH

Actually, under the Berne Convention, as interpreted by the US courts, copyright comes into force the moment of existence, including private documents, with publication not required.

John H.

Good.

Don't let the door bang yer ass on the way out.

Ok, How's this for starters?

See also:

These were on the first page of a Google search using "berne convention", "copyright", and "internet" as the search terms. Next time do your own homework.

The remainder of the proof is left as an exercise for the student.

Actually, they do. Do your own research for that one.

OK.. Most sites have a terms of service... this one is from the Chicago Tribune:

Copyright. All information, content, services and software displayed on, transmitted through, or used in connection with Chicagotribune.com, including for example news articles, reviews, directories, guides, text, photographs, images, illustrations, audio clips, video, html, source and object code, trademarks, logos, and the like (collectively, the "Content"), as well as its selection and arrangement, is owned by Tribune Interactive, Inc. ("TI"), and its affiliated companies, licensors and suppliers. You may use the Content online only, and solely for your personal, non-commercial use, and you may download or print a single copy of any portion of the Content solely for your personal, non-commercial use, provided you do not remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from such Content. If you operate a Web site and wish to link to Chicagotribune.com, you may do so provided you agree to cease such link upon request from Chicagotribune.com. No other use is permitted without prior written permission of Chicagotribune.com. The permitted use described in this Paragraph is contingent on your compliance at all times with these Terms of Service.

You may not, for example, republish any portion of the Content on any Internet, Intranet or extranet site or incorporate the Content in any database, compilation, archive or cache. You may not distribute any Content to others, whether or not for payment or other consideration, and you may not modify, copy, frame, cache, reproduce, sell, publish, transmit, display or otherwise use any portion of the Content. You may not scrape or otherwise copy our Content without permission. You agree not to decompile, reverse engineer or disassemble any software or other products or processes accessible through Chicagotribune.com, not to insert any code or product or manipulate the content of Chicagotribune.com in any way that affects the user's experience, and not to use any data mining, data gathering or extraction method.

Requests to use Content for any purpose other than as permitted in these Terms of Service should be directed to snipped-for-privacy@tribune.com. In certain cases, you may be able to obtain a license to use individual stories that appear on Chicagotribune.com through online functionality we have specifically designated (e.g., to e-mail a story to a friend or to purchase the rights to reproduce a story for other use). In such cases, we will tell you directly in the portion of the Content you may license or you will see a link in the Content itself. If you do not see such authorization or link, you should assume no third party has the right to allow you to use the Content.

Thanks for the correction.

I doubt that anyone has the odd notion that copyright means no one else can copy material posted here or elsewhere. The copyright laws and treaties set up the rules for copying, is all. So long as you follow the rules, there's no problem, legal or moral. Eg, I quoted your post so that my comment would have a context -- that's "fair use", and therefore both legal and moral. But you still hold copyright in your post. And I hold copyright in mine. :-)

HTH

What does this mean? Your post does not make sense unless you are trolling for flaming?

None of this prevents someone from posting the material here which is the original meaning of this thread.

By your 'standard' people who copy Athearn or other company news here or elsewhere are criminals and can be tried and convicted from the US anywhere else on the planet?

What case law governs this prosecution and is there one example of someone doing what this thread is about (not some inflated or twisted other meaning) and being charged, or trialed, or convicted, or punished? Again to make sure, we are talking about this thread's subject, not something else which posters are placing here to prove some other point.

Claiming credit for the work of others is a different problem.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that the article be posted and the poster claim credit for the work. Correct attribution is, at the very least, good form. The question was, and still is; when is republication wrong. If there is no damage what is the problem.

If you are giving something away without restriction (the original article in question had restrictions) why can't others help you in the distribution?

Paul

The original point of this posting thread was not to plagiarize the material but cut and paste it here which does not violate any copyright.

By the logic of some here, if you buy a newspaper and cut out with scissors an article and post it on a public viewing board somewhere you are violating the law, are immoral, and going to be found out, charge, trialed, convicted, and punished for some yet to be shown 'law'.

I can't quite tell if you understand that if you cut it out with scissors and post it, you're just fine. If you make a Xerox(tm) copy and post IT, then you've violated the law. Technically.

Bzzzt! Wrong, but thanks for playing...

~re-posting~ information from the originator's web site - these are the terms to which you agree when you sign up for access to their news content:

"You may not, for example, republish any portion of the Content on any Internet, Intranet or extranet site or incorporate the Content in any database, compilation, archive or cache. You may not distribute any Content to others, whether or not for payment or other consideration, and you may not modify, copy, frame, cache, reproduce, sell, publish, transmit, display or otherwise use any portion of the Content. "

Do you see how reposting the content is ~specifically~ prohibited?

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

Laws are in the public domain, IOW specifically not copyrighted.

as well as getting permission to quote

That's covered under Fair Use, according to the article you linked...

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

And someone claiming to be "Ken [NY)" managed to scribble the following anguished bleat:

If you'd actually read (or, more correctly, understood) the note to which you refer, you'd have discovered that it said the same thing. E.g., "As with all legal matters, reasonable folks may have different opinions."

If you'd actually read the copyright law, or had the vaguest idea of its content, you'd have discovered that what I wrote was my own summary -- NOT a quote from any other source.

JR Hill

PS: And if you are, as you claim, a graduate of the Skip Barber Racing School (which would make you an "alumnus", not an "Alumni"), bring your car & gear to Road America September 17-19 and we'll see what you've learned :-)