Ian Sutton wrote:
David M. Bueker wrote:Oh this is pointless. I came here for an argument.
Is that the 5 minute argument or the full half hour?
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.
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.