thread was started as an online criticism of someone's post (a violation of
etiquette and the group's rules), and further, a criticism of the group
owner (a Yahoo! Groups "definite no-no", a violation of etiquette, and a
violation of the group's rules).
Reminding the membership:
1. In YG, the owner is the owner; don't argue with the owner or the
moderators.
2. Let the moderators do the moderating. If you have a problem with
something someone has said or done, send a message to the group owner; do
NOT post your criticism to the group.
newnethboy, one of the moderators and (thus) an LOK (Lieutenant of Kim)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kim Noyes" <kimnoyes@gmail.com>
To: <californiadisasters@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2010 1:46 AM
Subject: Re: [californiadisasters] Re: Admin Read: Fair Use
> Mike,
>
> Since you have never before contributed anything here you were
automatically
> still on moderation as are all new members to prevent spamming.
>
> However, I approved your message because it gives us all a chance to air
> this matter out which seems to pop up on many Yahoo Groups from time to
> time.
>
> This matter has already been looked into in great detail by the ownership
> and management here as it has on many other groups.
>
> Thank you for sharing your opinion and for sharing your great links and we
> appreciate and hope our members will take a gander at them for their own
> edification.
>
> However, to be quite honest they do nothing to clarify anything nor do
they
> contain any new information we have not seen before.
>
> Contrariwise, they serve to further demonstrate just how murky and gray
and
> convoluted and wide-open the entire matter is.
>
> Go back through the pages of the links and notice what I mean: lots of
> speculation and hypothesizing and theorizing and generalizing and general
> wishy-washiness.
>
> Contained therein is not a lot of legal precedent applicable here or
really
> anywhere as it pertains to anything remotely in our circumstances as not
> much case law even exists because not a lot of lawsuits of the sort that
> involves us ever happen.
>
> The one big court case mentioned was 11 years ago and it was against a
> politically active, for-profit, large-circulation Conservative rag and was
> almost certainly a politically-motivated lawsuit. No mention of any suits
> involving any online forums or email lists, not even big groups unlike our
> medium-sized one
>
> Just about every line or element in these links serves to tell us what we
> already have come to notice and have debated before on other groups or
> discussed amongst ourselves which is that while one element of what we are
> doing could in theory bother somebody that is not very likely given our
> particulars.
>
> Yes, in theory posting articles in their entirety might piss off a
copyright
> holder but what we are doing is not what they are concerned about in the
> first place and they have much more important fish to fry than a Yahoo
Group
> with a mere 1500 members, some of whom are members of the very media
owning
> copyrights to which we are discussing.
>
> Yes, we have newspaper and TV reporters here and they aren't too worried
> about what we do. In fact they monitor the posts for their own
edification.
>
> By posting an article in full one can read it uninterruptedly and can view
> it in the full context of both itself and all the other content on the
group
> relating to what is being discussed be it a fire or an earthquake or some
> new study about some future hazard or some new research about some past
> event, etc. just as is mentioned in your links.
>
> Yes, they mention this is not in and of itself a defense but neither is it
> an indictment....like with this entire matter, it's very gray and vague.
>
> I am not aware posting entire articles keeps people from checking out the
> article on the website of origin. Speaking for myself I ALWAYS go to the
> website of origin when others post an article because I want to see the
> accompanying photos and any links on the margins to similar or related
> articles, etc.
>
> Perhaps I'm being Kim-centric believing others do, too, but I believe
others
> indeed do likewise or else I wouldn't do something that I thought caused
any
> harm to a newspaper's profitability or actually broke any laws as they are
> actually enforced in the real world as opposed to the world of legal
theory.
>
>
> Other than the percentage of article reposted here there is very certainly
> nothing else we do that could logically and reasonably be construed as a
> problem to anybody as it pertains to reposting copyrighted material and
Fair
> Use given our particulars.
>
> In our favor is that we are a non-profit enterprise, we are a discussion
> group filled with not only regular folks but also specialists and other
type
> authorities in fields relating to what we cover, and the material we
repost
> is not highly artistic like fiction but is fact-based which as your own
> material acknowledges is less thorny unlike highly-creative works of
> fiction.
>
> I have yet to hear to date of a single Yahoo Group or forum or other email
> list get a cease & desist order let alone a lawsuit and I have seen other
> groups that are not well-managed (unlike this one) where articles are
posted
> in their entirety without links and without a lot if any effort made
towards
> making adequate attribution and nothing has ever happened there nor
probably
> ever will.
>
> For this reason we continue to see this as a non-issue and a tempest in a
> teapot. We have never knowingly broken the law as it is interpreted and
> enforced nor encouraged or allowed others to do so.
>
> What we claim and charge is that the law is inexcusably vague and even
more
> vaguely enforced as to cause additional confusion.
>
> This is neither our fault nor our concern.
>
> However, in deference to the one hypothetical and theoretical soft spot we
> might have I will start reposting partial articles (instead of complete)
and
> encourage others to do likewise (and call it our "Steve" policy since he
> started this tonight) to eliminate any lasting concern anybody might have
> for the financial well-being of the LA Times as it pertains to California
> Disasters reposting their content. ;-p
>
> So Mike, with that out of the way, feel free to contribute stuff here
about
> disasters and such as well. ;-p
>
> Kim Patrick Noyes ~ California Disasters Legal Defense Team
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 12:20 AM, mountain1 <Lists@mountainnet.us> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Actually Mr Noyes, I don't know if you are a lawyer or not, or what your
> > experience is in Fair Use/Copyright claims are, but what you have posted
is
> > very incorrect and can get you, and others who follow it, in quite a bit
of
> > a legal mess.
> >
> > I'd like to recommend that you read a wonderful summary found on the
> > groundwire.org website at:
> > http://groundwire.org/support/articles/fair-use
> >
> > It lists 4 test cases as well as a judgement against FreeRepublic.com in
> > 1999 for doing exactly what you say is allowable. Here is a quote from
the
> > article:
> >
> > "The fact that the newspaper articles were republished in their entirety
> > also weighed heavily against the fair use defense. Where media criticism
is
> > concerned, one can well understand a critic arguing that an offending
> > article must be viewed in its entirety to assess the context and any
subtle
> > bias of the author. But the Court was unmoved by that argument, and it
held
> > that the Free Republic had failed to show how full-text copying was
> > essential to its discussion forum. The Court implied that posting
summaries
> > of the articles or providing a link to the newspapers websites where the
> > full articles could be read were alternatives that Free Republic should
have
> > employed. Finally, because the availability of the papers articles in
full
> > text on the Free Republic site fulfilled at least some demand for the
> > original works on the papers own websites, and because widespread
copying of
> > this type would have a deleterious effect on the papers markets, the
fourth
> > factor weighed against the fair use defense."
> >
> > The link on that page to the EFF's page is also a wonderful tool which
also
> > links to the Stanford.edu page which is a wealth of information. A good
> > shortcut link is:
> > http://fairuse.stanford.edu/commentary_and_analysis/2003_07_minow.html
> >
> > One key thing to take from that site is:
> >
> > "If you're found to be an infringer (and don't have reasonable ground to
> > believe your use was Fair Use), statutory damages are set by law at a
> > minimum of $750 and a maximum of $30,000 per infringement, "as the court
> > considers just." If the court finds that you've infringed on ten
photographs
> > that have registered copyrights, for example, you may be facing a
$300,000
> > lawsuit. If the copyright owner can prove that the infringement was
> > committed willfully, the court has the discretion to increase the
damages up
> > to $150,000 per infringement. Further, the court may determine that the
> > losing party must pay the winner's costs and attorneys fee"
> >
> > Of course another great resource for all things, not just legal or Fair
Use
> > doctrine is eHow which has had one of the best articles I've ever read
on
> > the subject at
> > http://www.ehow.com/about_4793360_copyright-laws-fair-use-issues.html
> >
> > One should take away from that link the following:
> >
> > "Misconceptions
> > Contrary to popular belief, there is no hard and fast rule as to the
number
> > of words which can be reproduced from a copyrighted work under the
doctrine
> > of fair use.
> > Non-profits do not automatically have free license to reproduce
copyrighted
> > work without attribution or compensation.
> > .....
> > Merely showing attribution for reproduced work does not provide complete
> > cover from the law--attribution is necessary but not sufficient to
establish
> > lawful use of copyrighted material."
> >
> > Yahoo and Yahoo groups are covered under the Safe Harbor clause, but you
> > the owner, moderator, and sell professed legal team, as well as anyone
who
> > posts a COMPLETE article, is pretty certain to be violating US Copyright
law
> > and not acting within the confines of the Fair Use doctrine.
> >
> > The basic rule of thumb is that you are never allowed to post/republish
> > someone's work in its entirety without expressed permission. That's
almost
> > always a given fail of the Fair Use doctrine. You are allowed to
summaries,
> > link to, use parts of, quote, and discuss an article to your hearts
content,
> > but republishing in its entirety, even for non-profit or educational
use, is
> > probably not going to win in any US courtroom.
> >
> > In the situation of the article posted here, it is obvious to see that
by
> > posting the entire article here, there is no reason at all to go to the
> > originating website which is ad-supported. By posting it here, and
having it
> > remain available in perpetuity, you are probably violating the 4th test
of
> > Fair Use by infringing on the market for the article.
> >
> > I am not a lawyer, but I am a part of various groups that work hard on
> > promoting Fair Use standards, and the rights of copyright holders and
> > content creators. These articles are some of the best that give one and
all
> > a better understanding of the murky waters of US copyright law, and the
> > legal and financial dangers they can find themselves in even if they
meant
> > no harm.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > --- In
californiadisasters@yahoogroups.com<californiadisasters%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > Kim Noyes <kimnoyes@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Steve,
> > >
> > > "Fair Use" laws make posting articles for discussion on online forums
> > where
> > > there is obviously no profiteering and proper attribution is shown
> > entirely
> > > legal or else Yahoo Groups and many, many other forums and lists would
> > have
> > > been shut down years ago while a large percentage of the content
posted
> > > thereon over the years had to be methodically removed.
> > >
> > > By posting articles with links included (as we always do here) we are
> > > actually providing a free service to the publishing source by
providing
> > them
> > > with free distribution and publicity and potentially drawing more
folks
> > to
> > > their website which in turn brings them more revenue.
> > >
> > > Kim Patrick Noyes
> > > Legal Team ~
> > > California Disasters Group
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Check out http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters/
> Read our blog at http://eclecticarcania.blogspot.com/
> Visit me on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/derkimster
> Visit my Myspace at http://www.myspace.com/kimusinteruptus
> We have an Ebay store at http://stores.ebay.com/K-K-Earthwerks
>
------------------------------------
Be sure to check out our Links Section at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters/links
Please join our Discussion Group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters_discussion/ for topical but extended discussions started here or for less topical but nonetheless relevant messages.Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
californiadisasters-digest@yahoogroups.com
californiadisasters-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
californiadisasters-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment