Would you pay $500 dollars for a bottle of wine?

But this was a case where the URL was not sufficient enough to persuade the "locals" on this BBS to actually read the article and understand my concern.

You are violating copyright (Robin is being too kind). Your need for people to read the article does not change that fact.

David: Well said. The Intelligent Designer save us from the self-anointed self-righteous.

Not exactly.

I think David needs to check the laws regarding copyrights.

Been there, done that....I have done my homework.



I'm in the clear on this one.

What's trippiest is the bit about feeling a "need" for a whole bunch of people, most of whom are probably strangers, to read this article.

"Copyright violation". Such an ugly phrase. But I have to say it does seem to bethe case here. And the motivation is, at best, rather odd.

See my above post

[David M. Bueker]

Oh this is pointless. I came here for an argument.

I have only 1 sentence for the board, and it will apply to me from now on: Don't feed the troll.

The reproduction of the article is probably alright under fair use provisions, but don't you think you should have more respect for the person running the board to comply with their wishes as to what they would prefer you don't post?

Oh this is pointless. I came here for an argument.

Is that the 5 minute argument or the full half hour?

Tim
Right or wrong, I think Cam's called it right. Robin provides this forum and is responsible for it's content. He's also in the firing line if there's any issues, so if he has concerns, I'm happy to respect them.
regards
Ian

[Robin Garr]

Oh this is pointless. I came here for an argument.

Is that the 5 minute argument or the full half hour?

Tim
Right or wrong, I think Cam's called it right. Robin provides this forum and is responsible for it's content. He's also in the firing line if there's any issues, so if he has concerns, I'm happy to respect them.
regards
Ian

Let's try to sort this out, once and for all, and then move on:

1. Republication of a fairly long copyright article like this one in full can in no way be justified as "fair use." It's too much. It's legally wrong, and it's ethically wrong.

2. Fair use is not clearly defined under law. There is no way to know if you've offended until an aggrieved copyright holder sends his lawyers to talk to you.

3. I frankly tend to be somewhat casual about enforcing a strict standard in these forums because the transient nature of the message board is such that, to be honest, a violation isn't likely to stay high up on the board long enough to attract attention. But I do encourage folks to do the right thing, and try to lead by example. As I told Tim, a URL to the full text is fine. So is a BRIEF excerpt; better still, although it requires more work and thus is not a refuge for the slothful, is a paraphrase in your own words.

4. I was more irritated by Tim's original post because of its excessive length, frankly, than by the copyright issues. It's just way too long to be useful in this format. The link is fine. Those who wish to do so will follow it.

I've let this one slide, and will continue to do so, for the reasons stated above. But I don't want to see a full-length copyright posting of this scope again.

I don't really want this to trigger a long debate about copyright law. As the bartender of this virtual saloon, if any pronouncements are to be made, I'll make 'em.

Speaking of buying preposterously overpriced wine as "baseball card collecting", an analogy used in the copyrighted material attached at the beginning of this strange little thread, it's worth checking out this article, which recently appeared in Slate.com:

http://www.slate.com/id/2146218/

(Follow the link, if you please. No will to paste pages and pages of copyrighted material here.)

Maybe the Hollerin' Chicken people are lucky their customers don't drink the wine.

From the link:

"Our parents, who lost a small fortune when their parents threw out all those Mantles and Koufaxes, made sure we didn't put our Griffeys and Ripkens in our bicycle spokes or try washing them in the bathtub."

I recall using the triplets of my '58 Warren Spahn in my bicycle spokes.

From the link:

"Our parents, who lost a small fortune when their parents threw out all those Mantles and Koufaxes, made sure we didn't put our Griffeys and Ripkens in our bicycle spokes or try washing them in the bathtub."

I recall using the triplets of my '58 Warren Spahn in my bicycle spokes.

Yeah, and I'm still bitter that my mother threw out my Bill Spohn rookie card

Mark Lipton

That's a great article, Manuel.
I stopped collecting baseball cards in the early '90's when I was really priced out and overloaded by my childhood hobby. By "priced out" I just mean that it wasn't worth it to spend going rates on cards and overloaded meaning that there was just too many options for cards, too many producers, and too may specialty sets. New cards of unproven players were costing more than early cards of Hall of Famers. (Sound like '05 Bordeaux?). Prior to that I had been an avid collector since the mid 60's. My dad retired and opened a baseball card shop just so he had a place to talk baseball all day.
The parallels to wine are there although I've never bought a wine just to look at it. I look forward to the day I get to consume any wine I have. But there are rates that just aren't worth paying and there are more and more options (mostly crap).

And, echoing Howie, the cards that went into my bike spokes were the much despised Yankees...Mantle, Pepitone, Munson, Pinella...all torn to shreds.

Following David's advice, no more troll feeding for me either.

I collected baseball cards until about 1975. That's when my parents moved us from Puerto Rico to the Dominican Republic because they wanted to start their own business. Fleer and Topps were widely available in Puerto Rico but--strangely enough for the more baseball-crazed Santo Domingo, yet not strangely at all because it was a Third World city in which imported goods, such as gringo baseball cards, were hard to come by--I had to find other collectibles in the Dominican Republic. Also, as of about 1979 or so, baseball fell off my radar and I decided to become a musician, so I started putting my allowance into records. Who needs baolplayers when there's Bowie, Blondie, The Clash, or the earliest Police (before Sting became Stink)?

Still, to this day I keep seeing a big plastic box filled with all the baseball cards I collected in those early years of my life and wonder if they're worth anything. The cards, I must say, are in much better condition than any record or musical instrument I ever cared for.

Robin,

Educational use, that is the key....and my motivation.

For the record, I have posted one other article this way and deleted it. TBH, this has never been an issue on a BBS before now, but I will comply with your wishes.

The article on this thread has been deleted. It won't happen again.


Peace.


Tim

[Robin Garr]

Educational use, that is the key....and my motivation.

I understand, Tim, and I'm not angry or upset or anything else. As a teacher, though, you really should get advice from someone you trust, if you don't want to believe me: "Educational use" will NOT protect you from charges of copyright theft, in the very unlikely case that the aggrieved individual chooses to pursue it through the courts.

The article on this thread has been deleted. It won't happen again.

Let the record reflect that I never suggested you delete it. I said I was willing to let this one stand, because it's not worth fighting over. I also explicitly spelled out the procedure(s) that I consider optimal: Post a link, and quote a brief excerpt, or post a summary paraphrase in your own words.

Since I never asked that it be deleted, and never suggested that a short excerpt wasn't a fine idea, I'm a little bemused about how you came to the conclusion that deleting the whole thing was what I wanted. Or why you deleted the story but not the copyrighted illustration. Or, for that matter, why I care.

Really, it's okay, Tim. I'm dwelling on this in the interest of reinforcing this forum's (i.e., mine) general attitude toward the use of copyrighted material: Link, feel free to post a <i>short</i> excerpt, or paraphrase. That's the ideal.

I figured deleting it would be the best way to take care of any issues. The photo as well.

As a teacher, I have already gotten the best information available [the school district, the teacher's union and the state] and copyrighted material used for educational purposes is allowable. By law.

Look...this is your place and I will respect your wishes. I meant no harm.


Peace to you, Robin.


Tim

[Robin Garr]

As a teacher, I have already gotten the best information available [the school district, the teacher's union and the state] and copyrighted material used for educational purposes is allowable. By law.

It's no skin off my nose, Tim, and not even really my business, but the "best information" you are receiving is flatly wrong, and if your union and school district really are saying that (as opposed to the possibility that you may have misunderstood them), it would be almost shocking misfeasance. And you may tell them I said so.

Look...this is your place and I will respect your wishes. I meant no harm.

Never thought you did, Tim! To repeat, I didn't even ask you to delete it in the first place. I just asked that you avoid reposting the complete body of copyright material in the future. At this point, I'm just bloviating about copyright issues because it's a topic I find interesting.

Tim, as a retired lawyer, and a sometimes adviser to WLP and WLDG, I really have to chime in here. I am very familiar with the way educational institutions in New York and Wisconsin (where I practiced and was trained, repectively) approach these issues; the most current opinion of the Office of the General Counsel of the University of Wisconsin System reads as follows (the New York approach is similar):

Fair Use

In using works for educational purposes, the most commonly relied upon exception to copyright use restrictions is "fair use." Codified at 17 U.S.C. § 107, the fair use exception is a four-factor test that balances the rights of copyright owners in their creations against the public interest in the free exchange of ideas. The four factors are:

The character of the use, for instance, scholarly criticism or commentary;
The nature of the work you want to use;
How much of the work is used; and
The effect of the use on the market for the work.

Use of a copyrighted work need not satisfy all four factors to qualify as fair use; rather, the factors favoring fair use must outweigh the factors favoring obtaining permission. Since the fair use test is not easily applied, you should contact the Office of the General Counsel or Campus Legal Counsel whenever a copyrighted work will be used without obtaining the permission of the owner.

I'm assuming you didn't get the permission from the publication you quoted or from the various legal beagles in the California system for your post on WLDG. If either assumption is wrong, please accept my apologies.

Failing either, I have to tell you as a lawyer who used to review these matters, there is no way your quote constitutes "fair use" under US law. Robin has carved out a practical, pragmatic approach in this case which I can applaud as a lover of the First Amendment, much as I may shudder as a lawyer. He is a very generous Janitor (and it gives me pleasure to applaude him in this matter as well as in so many others.) [ :-) ]

I would just like everyone who participates on WLDG to have a clear understanding of the state of US law on the matter. What Robin does on his site is up to him.

Regards, Bob

1961 La Chapelle?

I'd eat PB&J for two months to own a bottle.

Screaming Eagle?

I'd rather pay $500 for the PB&J.

Tim, as a retired lawyer, and a sometimes adviser to WLP and WLDG, I really have to chime in here. I am very familiar with the way educational institutions in New York and Wisconsin (where I practiced and was trained, repectively) approach these issues; the most current opinion of the Office of the General Counsel of the University of Wisconsin System reads as follows (the New York approach is similar): <SNIP>

Bob,
I feel compelled for unknown reasons to chime in, too. I am also an educator whose institution has issued an official policy on intellectual property issues for teachers (covering the Internet as well as print media). You are indeed correct in pointing out the complexity (and uncertainty) of the Fair Use doctrine. I am basically instructed to clear the use of any copyrighted material in my class notes with University lawyers beforehand. The definite implication is that the issue is too complex for us mere Ph. D.'s to grapple with. C'est la guerre!

Mark Lipton

Thanks, Mark. The test is extraordinarily difficult to apply. PhDs and I have spent hours trying to find the correct balance -- 'taint easy McGee.

But on a public board like this, with open membership, proving an educational purpose is awfully tough. I wish all of the issues I faced in the past were this simple. Slam dunk, actually, unless there is consent or some factor I haven't thrown in to the pot.

Regards, Bob

But on a public board like this, with open membership, proving an educational purpose is awfully tough. I wish all of the issues I faced in the past were this simple. Slam dunk, actually, unless there is consent or some factor I haven't thrown in to the pot.

Thank you, Bob. Briefly and precisely put.

Having once in my brief existence been an educator who dabbled in the creation of a few "bulk packs" of photocopied copyrighted crap to trouble young minds under my tutelage (not to mention the uploading of said copyrighted crap onto our class website and the propagation of additional copyrighted crap by countless overlong e-mails), I can say that the copyright exceptions were to be applied only within the limited context of the class and our university. A public forum is a completely different game.

Now, could somebody slap the Perry kid upside the head for me? Not that he's said anything particularly wrong or uncharacteristic of him. I just feel he needs it.

[Robin Garr]

Having once in my brief existence been an educator who dabbled in the creation of a few "bulk packs" of photocopied copyrighted crap to trouble young minds under my tutelage (not to mention the uploading of said copyrighted crap onto our class website and the propagation of additional copyrighted crap by countless overlong e-mails), I can say that the copyright exceptions were to be applied only within the limited context of the class and our university. A public forum is a completely different game.

Actually, Manuel, it's not. It's the same game. It's illegal to do it here. It was illegal to do it there. Nobody minded. Nobody said anything. But you (and your colleagues) were in fact breaking copyright law. It's just that it's a little more chancy in this post-Napster era, when the music industry sees fit to sue grandmothers for letting their kids download pirated music ...

So you mean legal was just telling me it was cool to make me feel good?

Man, am I glad I left that world...

[Robin Garr]

So you mean legal was just telling me it was cool to make me feel good?

No, I think they were telling you it was cool to make THEM feel good.

As the legal beagles have pointed out, "fair use" is poorly defined. But at its base, copyright law is not complicated, it's simple: Any intellectual creation (even, technically, a grocery list) is the property of its creator, with the limited exception of contractual "work for hire," in which case it's the property of the entity that paid the creator for the rights. Period. Any use without permission and payment may be subject to copyright enforcement through civil action.

You don't need to register it. You don't need to put a little © on it.

The law, just like the law that says you can't drive faster than 25 in a school zone, is often ignored, and it's not often enforced. But the letter of the law is not all that complicated. It's really quite simple.