Wow: Newsmax goes all-out freaking doomer

[periol]

And since there's no copyright protection notice included with their missives, I figured hey, why not reprint some of it here for all to see.

This is incredibly ignorant.  Under US copyright law, the copyright is implied even if there is no written notice.

fair use.  we qualify.

[guitarbuddy]

And since there's no copyright protection notice included with their missives, I figured hey, why not reprint some of it here for all to see.

This is incredibly ignorant.  Under US copyright law, the copyright is implied even if there is no written notice.

fair use.  we qualify.

Sorry, no "we" don't. Fair use is notoriously vague, but quoting an entire article without express permission from the copyright holder is absolutely a violation, and if you think "not for profit" or "for educational purposes" exempts you you're mistaken. My wife is a professional writer and I'm a professional musician, and we did copious research on this topic about 12 years ago when we started doing web development for hire. What is usually considered acceptable is a short quote, with attribution to the author, in the context of a research paper or something of that nature.

That said, in the last 5-6 years piracy of all kinds of digital media has gone through the roof, and with the recording industry calling off the dogs I don't see any end in sight.

[2handband]

And since there's no copyright protection notice included with their missives, I figured hey, why not reprint some of it here for all to see.

This is incredibly ignorant.  Under US copyright law, the copyright is implied even if there is no written notice.

fair use.  we qualify.

Sorry, no "we" don't. Fair use is notoriously vague, but quoting an entire article without express permission from the copyright holder is absolutely a violation, and if you think "not for profit" or "for educational purposes" exempts you you're mistaken. My wife is a professional writer and I'm a professional musician, and we did copious research on this topic about 12 years ago when we started doing web development for hire. What is usually considered acceptable is a short quote, with attribution to the author, in the context of a research paper or something of that nature.

That said, in the last 5-6 years piracy of all kinds of digital media has gone through the roof, and with the recording industry calling off the dogs I don't see any end in sight.

I went through the same stuff when I was a pro musician. I finally just accepted the reality that in the future intellectual property isn't going to be worth much. So has the recording industry, which is why they're calling off the dogs. It's a fight they cannot win.

[periol]

And since there's no copyright protection notice included with their missives, I figured hey, why not reprint some of it here for all to see.

This is incredibly ignorant.  Under US copyright law, the copyright is implied even if there is no written notice.

fair use.  we qualify.

Sorry, no "we" don't. Fair use is notoriously vague, but quoting an entire article without express permission from the copyright holder is absolutely a violation, and if you think "not for profit" or "for educational purposes" exempts you you're mistaken. My wife is a professional writer and I'm a professional musician, and we did copious research on this topic about 12 years ago when we started doing web development for hire. What is usually considered acceptable is a short quote, with attribution to the author, in the context of a research paper or something of that nature.

That said, in the last 5-6 years piracy of all kinds of digital media has gone through the roof, and with the recording industry calling off the dogs I don't see any end in sight.

i beg to differ, and did plenty of research on my own about 4 years ago while getting ready to start a different site that never got off the ground.  but i don't really want to argue about it.  fair use is notoriously vague, and i believe has probably been left intentionally so by the courts.  there are folks like you who take a narrower view of fair use, there are folks like me who take a broader view, and unless and until the courts really come out and make that distinction, the broader view wins.  Google Books being a great example of someone claiming fair use and getting shot down.  But we don't go as far as Google Books did here at LATOC.  until what we do is declared by the courts to not be fair use, i'm going to keep doing it. 

 

[guitarbuddy]

And since there's no copyright protection notice included with their missives, I figured hey, why not reprint some of it here for all to see.

This is incredibly ignorant.  Under US copyright law, the copyright is implied even if there is no written notice.

fair use.  we qualify.

Sorry, no "we" don't. Fair use is notoriously vague, but quoting an entire article without express permission from the copyright holder is absolutely a violation, and if you think "not for profit" or "for educational purposes" exempts you you're mistaken. My wife is a professional writer and I'm a professional musician, and we did copious research on this topic about 12 years ago when we started doing web development for hire. What is usually considered acceptable is a short quote, with attribution to the author, in the context of a research paper or something of that nature.

That said, in the last 5-6 years piracy of all kinds of digital media has gone through the roof, and with the recording industry calling off the dogs I don't see any end in sight.

i beg to differ, and did plenty of research on my own about 4 years ago while getting ready to start a different site that never got off the ground.  but i don't really want to argue about it.  fair use is notoriously vague, and i believe has probably been left intentionally so by the courts.  there are folks like you who take a narrower view of fair use, there are folks like me who take a broader view, and unless and until the courts really come out and make that distinction, the broader view wins.  Google Books being a great example of someone claiming fair use and getting shot down.  But we don't go as far as Google Books did here at LATOC.  until what we do is declared by the courts to not be fair use, i'm going to keep doing it. 

 

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

[periol]

And since there's no copyright protection notice included with their missives, I figured hey, why not reprint some of it here for all to see.

This is incredibly ignorant.  Under US copyright law, the copyright is implied even if there is no written notice.

fair use.  we qualify.

Sorry, no "we" don't. Fair use is notoriously vague, but quoting an entire article without express permission from the copyright holder is absolutely a violation, and if you think "not for profit" or "for educational purposes" exempts you you're mistaken. My wife is a professional writer and I'm a professional musician, and we did copious research on this topic about 12 years ago when we started doing web development for hire. What is usually considered acceptable is a short quote, with attribution to the author, in the context of a research paper or something of that nature.

That said, in the last 5-6 years piracy of all kinds of digital media has gone through the roof, and with the recording industry calling off the dogs I don't see any end in sight.

i beg to differ, and did plenty of research on my own about 4 years ago while getting ready to start a different site that never got off the ground.  but i don't really want to argue about it.  fair use is notoriously vague, and i believe has probably been left intentionally so by the courts.  there are folks like you who take a narrower view of fair use, there are folks like me who take a broader view, and unless and until the courts really come out and make that distinction, the broader view wins.  Google Books being a great example of someone claiming fair use and getting shot down.  But we don't go as far as Google Books did here at LATOC.  until what we do is declared by the courts to not be fair use, i'm going to keep doing it. 

 

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

from the actual copyright act, and not the copyright office's interpretation of the act (which isn't the same thing, btw):

The doctrine only existed in the U.S. as common law until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107, reprinted here:
“    
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

       1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
       2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
       3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
       4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

we can go back and forth on this all you want, but until there is a specific court ruling regarding the reproduction of an entire article (with link back to the original work if possible, etc.) the truth is it's fair use until we're told it's not.  this is one of those situations where if it's not explicitly against the law, it's legal.  fair use tends to be pretty generous.

[Ty Fjoyd]

And since there's no copyright protection notice included with their missives, I figured hey, why not reprint some of it here for all to see.

This is incredibly ignorant.  Under US copyright law, the copyright is implied even if there is no written notice.

fair use.  we qualify.

Sorry, no "we" don't. Fair use is notoriously vague, but quoting an entire article without express permission from the copyright holder is absolutely a violation, and if you think "not for profit" or "for educational purposes" exempts you you're mistaken. My wife is a professional writer and I'm a professional musician, and we did copious research on this topic about 12 years ago when we started doing web development for hire. What is usually considered acceptable is a short quote, with attribution to the author, in the context of a research paper or something of that nature.

That said, in the last 5-6 years piracy of all kinds of digital media has gone through the roof, and with the recording industry calling off the dogs I don't see any end in sight.

i beg to differ, and did plenty of research on my own about 4 years ago while getting ready to start a different site that never got off the ground.  but i don't really want to argue about it.  fair use is notoriously vague, and i believe has probably been left intentionally so by the courts.  there are folks like you who take a narrower view of fair use, there are folks like me who take a broader view, and unless and until the courts really come out and make that distinction, the broader view wins.  Google Books being a great example of someone claiming fair use and getting shot down.  But we don't go as far as Google Books did here at LATOC.  until what we do is declared by the courts to not be fair use, i'm going to keep doing it. 

 

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

[Cycling in Hollywood]

why does shit like this clutter the financial news sections?

every day it gets harder to find the stuff of real value in here. 

Aw come on, if you click on a thread beginning with 'NEWSMAX' you deserve whatever you find beneath ...

[periol]

why does shit like this clutter the financial news sections?

every day it gets harder to find the stuff of real value in here. 

Aw come on, if you click on a thread beginning with 'NEWSMAX' you deserve whatever you find beneath ...

true.  in my defense, i clicked on it specifically to complain.   

[2handband]

You will notice that the US has tried in recent years without success to get other nations to adopt out intellectual property laws. Most of them have certain protections in place to protect the owners of that property, but not nearly as stringent as ours and in fact they think we're slightly psychotic on the subject. Of course they don't have nearly as much of their GDPs wrapped up in software and entertainment media as we do...

[periol]

You will notice that the US has tried in recent years without success to get other nations to adopt out intellectual property laws. Most of them have certain protections in place to protect the owners of that property, but not nearly as stringent as ours and in fact they think we're slightly psychotic on the subject. Of course they don't have nearly as much of their GDPs wrapped up in software and entertainment media as we do...

yup.  you should check out cory doctorow's latest:  content (it's free to download)
http://craphound.com/content/download/

especially his essay "Happy Meal Toys versus Copyright: How America chose Hollywood and Wal-Mart, and why it's doomed us, and how we might survive anyway"

here's an excerpt: 

So the futurists told us about the Information Economy: they took all the "information-based" businesses (music, movies and microcode, in the neat coinage of Neal Stephenson's 1992 novel Snow Crash) and projected a future in which these would grow to dominate the world's economies.
 
There was only one fly in the ointment: most of the world's economies consist of poor people who have more time than money, and if there's any lesson to learn from American college kids, it's that people with more time than money would rather copy information than pay for it.
 
Of course they would! Why, when America was a-borning, she was a pirate nation, cheerfully copying the inventions of European authors and inventors. Why not? The fledgling revolutionary republic could copy without paying, keep the money on her shores, and enrich herself with the products and ideas of imperial Europe. Of course, once the US became a global hitter in the creative industries, out came the international copyright agreements: the US signed agreements to protect British authors in exchange for reciprocal agreements from the Brits to protect American authors.
 
It's hard to see why a developing country would opt to export its GDP to a rich country when it could get the same benefit by mere copying. The US would have to sweeten the pot.
 
The pot-sweetener is the elimination of international trade-barriers. Historically, the US has used tariffs to limit the import of manufactured goods from abroad, and to encourage the import of raw materials from abroad. Generally speaking, rich countries import poor countries' raw materials, process them into manufactured goods, and export them again. Globally speaking, if your country imports sugar and exports sugar cane, chances are you're poor. If your country imports wood and sells paper, chances are you're rich.
 
In 1995, the US signed onto the World Trade Organization and its associated copyright and patent agreement, the TRIPS Agreement, and the American economy was transformed.
 
Any fellow signatory to the WTO/TRIPS can export manufactured goods to the USA without any tariffs. If it costs you $5 to manufacture and ship a plastic bucket from your factory in Shenjin Province to the USA, you can sell it for $6 and turn a $1 profit. And if it costs an American manufacturer $10 to make the same bucket, the American manufacturer is out of luck.
 
The kicker is this: if you want to export your finished goods to America, you have to sign up to protect American copyrights in your own country. Quid pro quo.
 
The practical upshot, 12 years later, is that most American manufacturing has gone belly up, Wal-Mart is filled with Happy Meal toys and other cheaply manufactured plastic goods, and the whole world has signed onto US copyright laws.

[mgcardin]

Responding to periol's complaint that "shit like this is cluttering the financial news sections": You'll note that I very carefully and purposefully wrote a preface to the Newsmax email text that laid out my reasons for posting it here. You may disagree with those reasons, but my point is that I didn't just dump the text here in the Financial Doom forum without comment or stated rationale -- which I agree would have constituted a kind of trashing of the forum.

Responding to guitarbuddy's complaint about my "incredibly ignorant" comment about copyright notices and the lack of them: I was being rather flippant (consciously so, but apparently not overtly enough) when I mentioned the absence of a copyright notice and deemed it adequate permission to post the Newsmax text. Like your wife, I'm a professional writer (of both fiction and nonfiction), so I'm well acquainted with fair use laws. I have also been an English teacher for the past eight years, which, as you might imagine, has also familiarized me with the realm of fair use laws and their application. I'm pretty confident that my posting of the email text here would qualify, or at least would be in a gray area. What's more, the Newsmax email newsletter is free, and I'm not making any kind of financial gain from posting some of its contents here for discussion and comment (and no, I didn't post the whole text of that email; there was a substantial amount I left out). So this is all to say I think it's all easily above board.

[Connovar]

WTSHTF - will I be worrying about coyright - not a chance. I found this a useful post.

[pamela]

where is it?

[ZombieHordeLeader]

We can post links to the article, right?

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/04.09/pandemonium.html