E. Macy:
The issue at hand is that people are posting COMPLETE copies of articles and either not providing proper references (which are required, otherwise you are portraying the content as having been created and owned by you) or not providing any additional comment or insight. Doing so is not constructive or conducive to disgussion. You'd be much better off just linking to the article and providing 1 or 2 lines of personal insight. Personally, I think if you feel an article is important enough to put up here, that you have a strong enough opinion on it to actually put forth your own thoughts and ideas.

Simply copying is ethically wrong, illegal and shows a severe lack of creativity and original thinking on your part.

E-Macy, there are two issues there:

1) Copyright violation is something we take seriously. This may come as a shock but we've been concerned about copyright laws long before JoeUser.com even existed on WinCustomize.com. You can't just take someone else's work and repost it without their permission. It's illegal and immoral.

2) But let's say it wasn't illegal. We would still have a problem with it. I could, for instance, simply repost other people's blogs, and articles ad nasaeum. So could everyone else. And the blogs would be meaningless.

BTW, E-Macy, I don't really care if you stay or not. One more intentional reposting of copyrighted material and you're gone.  You saw the notice and you've made a couple of new blogs that announce your intention to violate someone else's copyright.  Write your OWN stuff or LINK to other people's stuff but don't repost other people's stuff without their permission.

Perhaps the legal issues should just be dropped so as to avoid arguements.  Then you could just say "in order to maintain a high quality of personal blogging, reposting full copyrighted material of other poeple is not allowed."

KarmaGirl:"Copying an online article is no different than photocopying a page out of a book. Neither fall in "fair use". They are both against copyright law."

I would have to disagree with this statement. Copying an article in it's entirerty is very different than copying a single page from a book. Copying the book page, or even going so far as to copy the whole book for personal use only, is very much fair use. This is the same as the copying that goes on inside your browser when you navigate to an article online. The browser makes a copy of the article in your computer's memory, which is still fair use.

Where the usage starts to be illegitimate is when you start copying and sharing the content with a mass audience, or charging for the content. For example, reposting an article in full, or sharing copyrighted programs or music online. There is a very big difference beween this type of copying and distribution and simply copying a page out of a book for your own use.

You may think I'm just picking a nit here, but this issue is at the root of a lot of copyright controversy today. For example, the music companies and their movement toward copy protected media and DRM. Things that restrict what I do with material I buy personally, in my own house, restrict my fair use. See the copyright code posted by Jeff Allison above. Nobody has a right to control what I do, as long as I'm not distributing it.

If it is okay to copy an entire article onto a blog with my commentary attached, then what is there to stop me from posting the entire Lord of the Rings novel with a review written by me attached. I just can't buy the argument that it is okay to copy an entire article. What is so hard about providing a hyperlink to the article you wish to share?

Nobody has a right to control what I do, as long as I'm not distributing it.

Publishing a copy of an article here with your own comments attached is a form of distribution and would therefor violate the rights of the author of the article being copied.

I have watched this blog develop and must agree it has all the markings of another phase of censorship, done by a group of political shills having an agenda, who have lost the ability to respond to and refute the truth on their own site. The facts of copyright law are being used as preface to censorship, and I would know first if copyright was violated as I have put up dozens of articles for my archive here.

You neglect to consider the 'intent' aspect of the definition in infringement. If one were to 'plagiarize' as one poster points out, then one is subject to anathematization as a intellectual fraud. By posting whole articles it also respects the author by not selectively representing his/her view on a matter. Often I have disagreed with the author's conclusion, but believe the author has the right to full and honest representation of their view, not my selective -and often abused aspect of copyright law, which is the birth place of plagiarism - excerpting, but the whole verbatim text. This is lawful intent and not profit, or plagiarism.

As a non-paying member, I have no vested right to object to ANY alteration of the site guidelines, and have always been agreeable to any and all changes, however suspect they are to me personally. If Brad & Co. wish me to stop such practice, I have no choice or be banned, and this is the law, without regard to copyright law. I view this as a veil for suppressing opposing views and information a certain political party wants its puppets to not learn of. Another gesticulation done when the day is lost for failing political views under the glare of free and open information on the issues.

In the end it is not I who censors, not we - the averagejoes - who suppress. Do not hang your head and feel as if you are criminal or wrong to put up views that are oppopsed by the owners. They have no response to truth but this. It is but another step toward the end of this site when all is said and done, as it turns into the censored and biased site Brad says he started it to escape.

Now I would leave out a word or sentence of each post just to mess around but it isn't worth it to me. Should we all just submit our blogs with any quotes to a censor board or body you obviously are become Brad? Tell us, what can we now say on YOUR site? Can we still disagree; post information not on Fox news?

I feel kind of chilly in here. Must be my free speech.

"Nobody has a right to control what I do, as long as I'm not distrbuting it." is suppose to be a quote from programcsharp.

If you wish to make this an issue of User Policy Agreemnet, feel free and go for it. But please don't make this an issue of copyright infringement because you have no case. If Arianna Huffington has an issue I'm certain her lawyers will be contacting me. On the other hand, and knowing Arianna, I am certain she is quite happy to have her materials distributed far and wide, especially on a site wish such bias as this one.

Wahkonta, what is so hard about providing a hyperlink to the articles you want to share? All you have to do is write a few comments about what you think then provide a link to the article. People can still click on the link and read the article.

This is part of a vast right wing conspiracy to silence free speech.

Hmm I think everyone should attend college-level Writing.

Citing all quotes and making sure all quotes has a " " is a very basic part of writing a essay or even a summary.

Why does all my articles has no " " or cites? It's because it's purely my own work.

I think some individuals are making a big fuss over this new rule because they want to believe that there is a conspiracy to censor what they say, and they want to believe that they are victims of oppression. They enjoy protesting too much.

Tech Cat:"If it is okay to copy an entire article onto a blog with my commentary attached, then what is there to stop me from posting the entire Lord of the Rings novel with a review written by me attached. I just can't buy the argument that it is okay to copy an entire article."
Assuming this is a reply to my post, I'd have to ask you to reread my post or at least quote the portion you disagree with. If you actually read it, rather then just posting "What is so hard about providing a hyperlink to the article you wish to share?" with no supporting arguments, you'd see that I am not saying that one should be able to copy an article. Actually, I'm arguing for the opposite -- as I say above,

"Where the usage starts to be illegitimate is when you start copying and sharing the content with a mass audience, or charging for the content. For example, reposting an article in full, or sharing copyrighted programs or music online."

That seems pretty clear to me. If you are just copying an article in full, that's not acceptable. However, if you are adding significant value -- say you're refuting it's points one by one, it makes sense to quote the parts you are refuting. That's fair use. If you look at the copyright code posted by Jeff, "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" are specifically protected as fair use. As XX said, citing quotes and using them in an article is fair use, and standard journalistic practice. Just copying verbatim rather than for use to comment or criticise is not.

As for your assertion that my position fosters "posting the entire Lord of the Rings novel with a review written by me attached", that seems valid on the surface. However, when you look critically, you'll see that there is a big difference in the ratio of newly generated material to original material. In the case of quoting someone in an article, or citing specific points of contention, there is going to be at least a 1:1 ratio, probably much higher of material created by the new author verses the original material. In your hypothetical situation of posting a full book with a (probably 1000-2000 word) review attached, you are posting mainly the original author's work, with just a tidbit of your own in comparison.

To sum up: I believe that distributing copyrighted works is wrong and illegal. However, quoting them (even in full, if that is necessary for the criticism) for the specifically granted types of fair use _is fair use_. That is the definition of fair use. Look at the copyright code. It is fair use. I am not defending those who plagurize -- plagurism is wrong. I am asserting that quoting is not plagurism, but fair use. As is personal copying in whatever amount, for whatever use, as long as the copies are not distributed to others.

Forgive my naivety, but if our blog sites belong to us, so much so that we accept the terms of use, and so much so that we even have the comments to our articles, wouldn't it be us that are pursued in a lawsuit and not JoeUser.com? I realize this is a rule now that is being enforced here, and as a rule to use the services, we accept it or leave, I'm just trying to understand the legal part of it all.

*sigh*  it has nothing to do with whether you make money on something.  People sharing songs on napster don't make money, and neither do people who carry off material and post it in its entirety.  Again....

U.S. Copyright Office - Can I Use Someone Else’s Work? Can Someone Else Use Mine? (FAQ)

"How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?
Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See FL 102, Fair Use, and Circular 21, Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians.

Could I be sued for using somebody else's work? How about quotes or samples?
If you use a copyrighted work without authorization, the owner may be entitled to bring an infringement action against you. There are circumstances under the fair use doctrine where a quote or a sample may be used without permission. However, in cases of doubt, the Copyright Office recommends that permission be obtained."

"Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians." in the first section refers to the circular linked, not the section as a whole.

This is *not* persecution.  This is the law.  You would think that all you muckrakers would watch the news enough to hear about people getting sued for this periodically.

Also in the first line is an important item being missed:

"Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. " keyword: all

and in this particular case, I believe we are entirely within fair use. occasionally people post full columns of known interest to a limited audience for private eduactional purposes, and generally referring from authors whom I know persoanlly would be happy to have their work reposted here (or elsewhere).

So, whether it is fair sue or copyright depends on all circumstances. I personally probably post a higher percentage of full columns than maybe anyone on this site (brad may know). Anyway, there are a handful of people on JoeUser who I know are interested in what I post and it for their benefit and that we may comment to each other about it. Often we are having a conversation about it. This is no different than if I made printed copies and handed them around or posted one at the coffee shop. I am quite confident I am in no difficulty under any form of copyright law.

If JoeUser wushes to have a policy restricting such use, this is their prerogative. Please just let us all know what your policy will be and if we need to agree to a new user agreement.

BTW, is this really about fair use issues, or is this about storage space on the server? Certainly we can just use quotes and a link.

No, again Jeff, no where does it ever say that you can use all of an article.  It specifically says in numerous places "limited portions" and "a quote or a sample". 

When it says "Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances." it means that even small amounts can be too much depending on the character of the work, like a hook stolen for a Rap song.  If I quote ten lines of a Time article, that is probably okay.  If Emenem quotes ten lines of someone else's work, it probably isn't.  That is why they make the point of saying:

"There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances."

They can't say exactly how much of a "a quote or a sample" is inappropriate, because every case is different.  No where, no where at all, does it say an entire work can be copied via fair use, except perhaps educators or librarians, and even then I doubt it.

This is one of those issues that you guys simply can't 'agree to disagree' on.  You won't have to deal with it when Time's or Slate's lawyer sends an email to JoeUser accusing them of copyright infringement.  As we have seen time and again with Peer to Peer, the excuse that "The user did it!" doesn't work.  It is the site they go after.

It's chilled plain and simple. Since I may expose the site to undue legal risk to quote without knowing what they are holding as enough or too much, I refer to the extensive disclaimer and coverage of relevant statutes at: httP;//www.rense.com/disclaimer.htm
Included there is a letter from Condoleeza Rice on the matter and substantial links to legal opinions and interpretations.

I still agree with Jeff on this matter and never thought for a moment to fear reprisal for posting a portion of the NY Times, qua ONE article in a substantial news paper, which is what it sold. Our posting is clearly done to educate and archive, never to profit or represent ownership of anothers' words or work.

Personally, I try to avoid posting a portion, as it takes away fom the authors work and does not allow them to express the true intent of that work, which may be contrary to my own. Far from criminal, I consider it moral, honorable and integrated to do so. Most authors would agree that if you are to use their work, grant the courtesy of offering all of it, as it avoids plagiarism, falsification, and mis-representation.

As I said in another post, I will abide the wishes of the owners of this site and abide whatever conditions they lay out, or take my postings elsewhere. I do apologize if any work I post causes the owners any legal hassle from such practice. I spout and spew, but am not immoral and do not intend to cause injury to the owners by acting against their wishes on such policy or practice.

Now I will move on and let this issue go, but invite the owners to send any inquiry as to my posts - by any party or agency - to me and I will address them promptly. Fair enough?

Wahkonta Anathema : the NY Times is *notorious* for this kind of litigiousness.  You have to register with a valid email just to even *read* most of their online content.  That is not the kind of folks who want their stuff reprinted... for the good of mankind or not.

 

Re: Copyrights~

I don't sign everyday to see stuff I could have found at NYTimes.com. There's a cool thing called "custom links" that you can use for that stuff. I personally avoid sites that contain excessive quoting and linking, because this is a forum of original thought, and I support that. This doesn't have to be a legal issue. And speaking of legal issues...

Re: EMacy or whatever his name was

Brad, remember Deleted_? lol stupid question, right? Well I thought that was somewhat immoral because this is a weblog and he had the right to say whatever. And besides, I've always been a sucker for the underdog:) But in this case, I would fully support EMacy leaving, since it's legal and moral turf. Hope you know what I mean.

Breath easy folks,

~Dan

Dan, this is a private forum and not a publicly funded gov. forum. the owner has the right to decide what people may say on his site. deleted_ deserved to be removed for harassing other people on their blog sites. Allowing people to behave the way deleted_ did may prevent future participants from submitting blogs to this site since that kind of harrassment is not something they would want to go through.

Guys, if you can't follow copyright law then go away. It's as simple as that. Wahkonta, Jeff, I don't care if you have blogs here.

But if you want to have a blog here you obey the law. The lawyers would contact US as well as the owners of the blog just like if a warez site is located oh Yahoo personal pages or something they're going to go after both Yahoo and the person in question.

We're willing to be as flexible as humanly possible but there's no excuse for simply regurgitating someone else's work.

I find the censorship clame laughable. Who's being censored exactly? Someone reposting someone else's work is not saying anything, they're just distributing, without permission, other people's work.

If you aren't interested in writing your own stuff then go find another site.

Besides the copyright issues, there's the issue of basic fairness. Why should those who actually WRITE their own stuff have to get buried by those just pasting onto their blogs other people's articles. If we allowed that, someone could simply point whore by reposting dozens of articles per day.