More Press On UP Licencing

That'swhat I thought.

Bzzzt! Wrong, but thanks for playing....

That was from another newspaper. That was their own rule and NOT c>

I have no idea what you are trying to say but your attempts at what I think you intend to be humour are failing. Have a nice day I suppose.

...snip quote restrictions listed on a website....

Sorry, that list of restrictions on republishing etc was nothing more than a summmary of the copyright law. Why did that website owner think it necessary top spell it out? 'Cuz twits all over the world think that they can do what they like with any webcontent that they can access and download.

You still don't get it: Even if a website owner does not list the restrictions on republishing etc, copyright law still applies. Period. The only issue is whether it's worthwhile to enforce the law.

Now I'll spell it out for you, since you otherwise don't seem to understand (maybe I should put it into a signature, just in case someone finds something commercially valuable in my meandering maunderings. Heh heh.):

This post to rec.models.railroad is covered by international copyright laws and treaties, and I claim all rights thereunder as the originator of this post, save and except the quoted portion of a previous post. Readers of this newsgroup are reminded that fair use permits quotation of all or part of this post for the purpose of discussion, and are further reminded that any commercial use requires explicit permission by me, the originator of this post.

Wrong. Chicago Tribune:

So?

Let me spell it out in simple words fo you. The OP listed a link to the Cihcago Tribune. The complaint was that registration was required, and why not post the contents of the article? The reply was that that would invite legal repercussions. Some folks than went off on a tear, implying that they were experts on copyright law...

All we are saying is "nope"...

Nope. I'm covered under Fair Use, as I cited an excerpt for educational purposes. Though some people are hard to educate...

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

Oh, they're not failing... not at all. Perhaps they're just above your head?

...After all, trolls aren't known for their intellectual abilities.

As George Will once said, "You, sir, are impervious to facts."

Copyright law is pretty explicit in this area: unless the owner gives explicit permission you can't post the article except for education use (like in a school) or as part of a review of the content (you can't reprint the article in its entirely even for review purposes, but you may include quotes from it as long as you don't substantially reprint it). And all such use must include information about the copyright owner.

So the original suggestion that someone just post the content from an online news source suggests that the poster violate copyright law. Such reposting is not "fair use," "use for review," or "use for education."

But if someone wants to find out if the Chicago Tribune wants to enforce their rights, go ahead and post it. I assume we'll hear from you if you are contacted by the Tribune. ;-}

But I'll bet that the article in question contains facts available elsewhere from sites with less intrusive information gathering registration requirements.

in article snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com, Jeff Sc. at snipped-for-privacy@nowhere.net wrote on 7/4/04 8:52 AM:

Let me spell it out for you in simple form, you are as 'wrong' as the original poster would have been for simply posting the article here like you did.

Your level of twisting reality and the law to fit whatever it is you are trying to say, all the while adding in persoanl insults for no reason other being a very negative and insecure person, is simply amazing to observe.

If anyone, you are the troller, looking for attacks. Why are you doing this? What is it you wish to obtain in the process?

Another attacker. Why? So if I post it here and 'review' it then all is allowed?

I thought American's were known for their spirit and courage. Here, because someone here on the internet claims out of the clear sky someone can't post an a free article on the internet, you all run for protection and hide out?

Interesting. In all cases, it matters little since the original intent of this whole discussion has been lost by all the jumpers on top leading this down odd lanes as you did with yet another one in which you can launch your quotes.

Gee, Ratty, I was wondering where you've been.

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

Please, Edward, if you are going to say this, take my name off of it - I'm the one agreeing with you...

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

Yeah, sorry. I thought I deleted your post "from." It is directed at those who seem to think that copyright doesn't mean anything: that it's OK to post someone else's material just because they can. Kind of like Kazaa users.

Yes, I'm agreeing with you. Again, I apologize for leaving your name on the post.

Ed

in article snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com, Jeff Sc. at snipped-for-privacy@nowhere.net wrote on 7/4/04 7:51 PM:

The original poster's intent was simply to inform folks at RMR about yet another accident involving the UP and to show where this information was found in the event anyone wanted to read about it. As the original poster I'm fairly certain this was my intent.

It does not matter if is there is no victim or loss or that there would be no consequence for such an small and trivial act as cutting and pasting the article to RMR. Its a black and white issue so damn the law and damn the opinions. You either take something with permission or you steal something with out permission. The gray area is an individuals threshold for what is an acceptable or tolerable level of theft. The difference between men and monkeys other that a few percentage points in DNA is consistency. Monkeys never ask before they take a banana but occasionally a human will.

Bruce

Well said. Can I, er, borrow it???

Your conclusion is false. It is not illegal, therefore it is not stealing or stealing. There is nothing to tolerate.

Logically, you are off in this posting since you are basing you conclusion on something not proven or true.

As you must like monkeys, the correct mention based on your logic is, humans eat bananas, monkeys eat bananas, therefore, humans are monkey.

As determined as you are, don't you think you should give yourself time to fully recover from your stroke before posting to r.m.r.?

I said nothing about the legality of this matter. In fact I said damn the legal aspects and opinion and said something simple. Maybe you skipped that part for some reason.

What conclusion? I made a statement. A very clear one.You've made the conclusion apparently based on some form of logic about something or other that you must have thought was said.

I don't believe I said anything about "eating" Bananas. I said "taking" Bananas. I also said Men and monkeys have a small percentage of difference in DNA and that a humane will occasionally ask before taking a banana so I clearly indicated they were not the same. I only pointed out a way one might be able to spot the difference.

I never suggested that I liked monkeys. I don't. They make too much noise, are very excitable, have questionable tastes and always are up to no good. I don't like my neighbors for the same reasons.

Before one responds about the validity of a statement, re-defines the meaning of a word such as "take", determines what another might like, or attempts to show how logic may be applied to invalidate a position you must do more than read, you must also comprehend. Another difference between men and monkeys that will help one tell them apart is that Monkeys do not understand the written word but occasionally a humane can.

Bruce

Huh? What accident?

The article was about UP's licensing and the reaction from several in the model community, including the Chicagoland Association of S Gaugers, Bob Hundman and Maynard Morris - the poster boy for modelers standing up to the U.P.