standards and decency, gentlemen

[Nishin]

Posting in a public forum is a form of publication. As such, it enables U.S. posters to exercise their right of free speech, while simultaneously incorporating certain responsibilities. We can debate whether JUB qualifies as a “public” forum; however, I tend to think it does. ~Even within a limited private forum, legal parameters exist to prevent certain practices.
The fact that you have the technical capacity to post something does not mean that you own it, though you may “own” the liability for doing so. I am seeing more and more copyright infringements in CE&P and I think we should consider the implications of this practice.
To begin, I suggest that JUB has created this forum to enable its users to publish their unique expressions relating to various “ideas, systems, or factual information.” As such, JUB provides an integral component relating to the “technical capacity” associated with our publications. JUB, through the actions of its moderators, also attempts to maintain a spirit of decorum that is appropriate to the nature of the online community which it sponsors; however, individual posters most-certainly retain the essence of their citizenship within the context of broader society. This broader affiliation carries various responsibilities relating to the act of publication and also suggests limitations upon what some of us apparently regard as “free” speech.
In any circumstance where a poster maliciously and inappropriately associates a particular publication with a recognized news agency, that poster creates a situation of personal legal liability to the agency for damage to that agency’s reputation. I suggest that anyone guilty of such an idiotic malfeasance proceed immediately to beg the hosting site to remove the offending post. HINT: Most large corporations consider their trademarks to be rather valuable assets and they retain special attorneys concerned exclusively with the protection of the integrity of the corporation’s identity.
For those who may have developed a habit of copying and pasting entire articles from recognized sources, I also suggest that you immediately cease and desist from this practice. Of course, I cannot be certain that some posters have not obtained permission to replicate copyrighted material, but I don’t recall ever seeing “used with permission” or anything similar here on JUB. Most news sources provide mechanisms to facilitate “online reprints.” For example:
For permission to reprint an AP story or to use AP material in online/electronic form: E-mail AP Digital: apdigital@ap.org, or fax 212-621-5488.
For web posting, reprint, transcript or licensing requests for CNN material, please contact licensing.agent@turner.com
United States copyright law includes a provision allowing the “fair use” of a particular work.
All of us “publishers” should take notice. ~Interestingly, it is yet untested in the courts if you have a legal right to quote another person’s public message when you reply to it in the same public forum.
Here is a link to an educationally-oriented discussion of fair use:
http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/intellectualProperty/copypol2.htm#test
And here is what the U.S. Code defines as Remedies for infringement:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000504----000-.html

I was actually wondering about that no later than a few days ago as I noticed that copyright line at the bottom of some quoted articles... it did indeed strike me as odd to read do not reproduce at the bottom of a reproduced text... lol

This being said, I didn't give it much more thought as the strict observance of those copyright things seems to me a bit exaggerated at times... I mean as long as you give credit, provide a link to the source and copy the text unchanged, I don't really see what problem could arise... but maybe I just lack imagination (I suspect it has to do with sponsors of the incriminated pages??)... so thanks for your post and the info you provided.

Now in regards to practicality of the appropriate way to quote from copyrighted materal, what is your personal opinion?
Do you reckon we should satisfy with just posting a link to the article of choice and hope our readers will actually click it and read?
How do we emphasize on the specific part(s) of a given article we want to debate?
Is paraphrasing/rewording/synthesizing considered copyright infringement?
Would lawyers actually waste their time prosecuting (supposedly) anonymous members of an internet forum over such trivial things?
Is it possibly endangering the existence of the very board and/or engaging its administrators' responsibility (I think they utimately would be the ones facing charges were charges to happen ??).
Maybe all this is developped in the links you provided... I'm just too lazy to read right now but will do that first thing as I log tomorrow

 

[opinterph]

… in regards to practicality of the appropriate way to quote from copyrighted material, what is your personal opinion? …

Do you reckon we should satisfy with just posting a link to the article of choice and hope our readers will actually click it and read?

How do we emphasize on the specific part(s) of a given article we want to debate?

Simply providing a link would be the safest way to cite another source; however, the fair use doctrine suggests that small portions of a work may be copied for a variety of purposes; including news reporting, scholarly illustration, or commentary (including parody). NOLO suggests “as a general rule, never quote more than a few successive paragraphs from a book or article.”

It is worthwhile to note that ideas and facts cannot be copyrighted. Rather, it is the manner in which the ideas and facts are expressed that is subject to copyright.

Is paraphrasing/rewording/synthesizing considered copyright infringement?

Essentially, yes. Paraphrasing, or other minor alterations (including translation,) does not remove a work from copyright.

Would lawyers actually waste their time prosecuting (supposedly) anonymous members of an internet forum over such trivial things?

I would say no. Lawyers do not typically “waste their time.” However, people who sometimes hire lawyers might see the situation differently. In all likelihood the most dramatic thing I would expect to occur is for the “injured party” to issue a cease-and-desist letter.

Is [copyright infringement] possibly endangering the existence of the very board and/or engaging its administrators' responsibility (I think they ultimately would be the ones facing charges were charges to happen ??).

In my opinion, the onus is on the publishers – those who actually create posts. On the other hand, for lack of a better place to start, the hosting entity might become recipient to any initial legal correspondence. In most situations, I perceive JUB to be an “interactive computer service provider.”

Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC § 230) says that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” This federal law preempts any state laws to the contrary: “[n]o cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.” The courts have repeatedly rejected attempts to limit the reach of Section 230 to “traditional” Internet service providers, instead treating many diverse entities as “interactive computer service providers.” [Link]

JUB representatives should take notice of the section titled “Do I lose Section 230 immunity if I edit the content?” in the Electronic Frontier Foundation link above. ^


All members who publish posts should visit this link: EFF: Legal Guide for Bloggers

What if I don’t post to a “blog” and only post in the forums?

I am of the opinion that the same rules apply to discussion groups, discussion forums, message boards, online forums, et al.

 

[Nishin]

^ Well thanks a lot for these clarifications... I shall rethink my quoting methodology

 

[JayHawk]

It would seem to me that these publishers who own copyrights to the material don't pursue the rampant use on the net due to the added traffic that is then fed back to their sites and then their advertisers. The more traffic the more cash. The dollar rules and they dont mind.

 

[opinterph]

It would seem to me that these publishers who own copyrights to the material don't pursue the rampant use on the net due to the added traffic that is then fed back to their sites and then their advertisers. The more traffic the more cash. The dollar rules and they dont mind.

That’s a big part of the issue. If we post the entire article, there is no need to visit their web site.

From EFF:

This factor is often held to be the most important in the analysis, and it applies even if the original is given away for free. If you use the copied work in a way that substitutes for the original in the market, it's unlikely to be a fair use; uses that serve a different audience or purpose are more likely fair. Linking to the original may also help to diminish the substitution effect.

 

[Kulindahr]

original source.

On a side note have you ever googled your JUB screen name?

I think that many people would be surprised at just how private JUB is.

All someone needs to know is your screen name.

Welcome to the World Wide Web baby.

Ooh -- I'm famous!!

Okay, my screen name is famous.

But I didn't see a link to my oh-so-erudite blog.



Now, there's a standard: all posts should be erudite.

 

[Kulindahr]

just chill out and stop reading more into what is written than what is being said

this thread isnt about the moderators, its about the people who arent moderators

Right there is, I think, what Chance and others mean by their comments about you: that upper line is one you could take to heart. In fact, that's been pointed out to you before. But here you are -- note the second statement above -- calling for decorum....


I'd say we'd all go a along way just by following this one: stop reading attacks into things that aren't. Treat every statement as though it were erudite, and respond accordingly.

And here's another: make a hobby out of turning off-topic statements to the purpose of the topic.

Since good things come in threes, one more: ditch the derogatory, snide, insulting, bitchy remarks about people in other parties, positions, etc., even if you don't like them. It's just low-level baiting, and when a poster does it consistently it paints him as less than educated or intelligent. It isn't necessary to express your emotional opinion of a politician or newsman or whomever over and over. If I referred to "power-hungry control-freak bitch Hillary" or "clueless weak-willed lapdog Gonzalez" over and over, all I'd be doing is showing myself as small-minded and probably close-minded.


[This is where Chance jumps on me for being down on Giuliani and McCain.]

 

[Kulindahr]

It's a strange topic: One would think the answer is simple. Treat others as you yourself wish to be treated. That is all I really wanted to say!

Leave it to a woman to come in and try to make things simple.....