|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Ickimore
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 321
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2003 12:42 am Post subject: copywrite infringement
|
|
|
I am curious as to what the leadership of this website considers copywrite infringement? I consider this website as falling under Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 of the US Federal Code. Which states the following:
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > Sec. 107. Prev | Next
Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1)
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2)
the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3)
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4)
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors
What is the opinion of the leadership of the site please????? Does this section apply in this case, or should I modify my behavior to comply with some set of website laws that are not in agreement with this section of the US Code?
ICKIMORE
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Ickimore
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 321
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2003 12:44 am Post subject:
|
|
|
So Section 107 does not apply in your view Slek? OK, got it. Thanks.
ICKIMORE
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
sleK
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2003 12:50 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Your trolling is getting tiring Ick'.
| Quote: |
| the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and |
Read that carefully. When you are done read it again.
Let me clarify for you: You are entitled to reproduce portions of the copyrighted work for comment and criticism. You do not have free reign to re-publish anything your heart desires.
It's a simple concept.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
sleK
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2003 12:55 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Ick's just been banned for his idiocy in the Schmolitics forum. It seems his only purpose is to troll and push peoples buttons and I've had enough.
Discuss if you must.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Bodyguard
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:43 am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
I think we will be scared to discuss it. I read every post that both you and he had on the subject. He argued his point of view in his confrontational style. You did not like it. You banned him. That is how I see it. The Sears forum lost a valuable source of info. Like him or not he was one of the smartest posters on this forum.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
siggy
Moderator
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Posts: 127
Location: B.C. Canada
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:54 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| You are entitled to reproduce portions of the copyrighted work for comment and criticism. You do not have free reign to re-publish anything your heart desires. |
| Quote: |
| You did not like it. You banned him. |
BG I disagree with you, posters only get banned for trolling or for not abiding by the forum rules which apply to everyone, whether they be smart or not.
What would you have suggested happen to someone who breaks the posting guidelines? Without them there is mayhem.
What is the alternative?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Bodyguard
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:59 am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Siggy, several people have already sent me messages saying that it was the CONTENT of the posts and not the legality of it. More than a few are scared to say anything against slek or disagreeing with him now. I would not be surprised to be next. The PG is important....but in this instance it was a total personality conflict blown out of perportion. The PG was used as a tool to this end.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
kanaka
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 933
Location: roaming...
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2003 2:12 am Post subject:
|
|
|
I was going to post something else, but after a moment of deliberating decided to simply post a PM I sent in reply to another member's concerns. I believe it sums up my feelings well enough.
| Quote: |
I just read most of the posts relating to this. Ickimore made two mistakes. He broke copyright law, and I'm not kidding about this. Slek asked him not to post entire articles and to provide links to sources of his quotes. Instead, Ickimore quoted more without links and dared sleK to take action. Guess what (happens when dared)? Slek took the appropriate legal action. If this were you and me going at it, we'd go get a drink (separately) and come back tomorrow to settle it. Unfortunately, we just witnessed two people who do not back down, for anybody. We all know that to be true of Ickimore, he always has the last word. Now we know it about sleK.
IMO, nothing to be angry at. Two extreme personalities clashed. |
A day's suspension should have sufficed in this case. A member should really get banned only after several extreme banters/suspensions. My opinion.
(edit: syntax)
Last edited by kanaka on Wed Jul 30, 2003 2:23 am; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
siggy
Moderator
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Posts: 127
Location: B.C. Canada
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2003 2:17 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Siggy, several people have already sent me messages saying that it was the CONTENT of the posts and not the legality of it. More than a few are scared to say anything against slek or disagreeing with him now. I would not be surprised to be next. The PG is important....but in this instance it was a total personality conflict blown out of perportion. The PG was used as a tool to this end. |
BG I understand that some aren't comfortable.
Anyone posting something that is perhaps outside the PG's gets a fair warning and a full explanation as to why may be in conflict with the PG's.
Icki was warn'd and yet continued posting copyright. He would not have been banned if he just continued discussing it.
| Quote: |
| A day's suspension should have sufficed in this case. |
Your suggestion of the length of any ban should be something that is up for discussion.
Last edited by siggy on Wed Jul 30, 2003 2:24 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Bodyguard
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2003 2:23 am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
A fair warning but we now see there is no discussion of it or even questions about the interpretation of it. And a lot us are not comfortable now. The lesson learned is speak up and try to question and get slammed. I will shut up about this for now....I dont want the same to happen to me.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
siggy
Moderator
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Posts: 127
Location: B.C. Canada
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2003 2:28 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| A fair warning but we now see there is no discussion of it or even questions about the interpretation of it. And a lot us are not comfortable now. The lesson learned is speak up and try to question and get slammed. I will shut up about this for now....I dont want the same to happen to me. |
BG ... Icki was banned for posting copyright not for discussing about the right or wrong of posting copyright.
sleK informed Icki that his post was infringing and ask'd that he discontinue. There is no harm in quoting someone's material and then discussing it, but it is infringement to post the entire thing without express consent from the authors.
Icki would not be banned had he not continued to copy/paste.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Bodyguard
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2003 2:37 am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
OK Fair enough....will he be allowed back after some time on suspension?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
kanaka
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 933
Location: roaming...
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2003 2:42 am Post subject:
|
|
|
I hope so. Let's put this off to evolution of the enforcement of site PG's.
(Milk and cookies done, off to bed.)
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
siggy
Moderator
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Posts: 127
Location: B.C. Canada
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2003 2:58 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| OK Fair enough....will he be allowed back after some time on suspension? |
*Suspension* makes it sound like I'm at work BG ... Eeeeeew!
Although the PG's are not subject to change, discussion about them may be a good idea. If anyone is unsure of the intent of the PG's, the moderators and the admin would be more then happy to help explain there purpose and provide examples.
If you have questions or are unsure just email the mods or pm the mod's, or start a thread and ask away. Let's get this forum self mod'ing.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Bodyguard
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:06 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Sorry for the work flashback Siggy, I know what you mean! But you did not answer my question about Icki.
| Quote: |
| If anyone is unsure of the intent of the PG's, the moderators and the admin would be more then happy to help explain there purpose and provide examples |
Questioning of the intent of the Mods seems to me a dangerous thing, but I may be over-reacting.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Unhappy1314
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 613
Location: New Frickin' Jersey
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2003 4:13 am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
when slek violated the PG when he made personal attacks against me, and i called him on it, he blew it off...just who is watching him?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
realstuff
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 260
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2003 4:37 am Post subject:
|
|
|
seems to me it was content and not a rules violation.....and that equals censorship.
realstuff.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Bodyguard
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2003 5:04 am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
I would still like to know if it will be permanent......
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
realstuff
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 260
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2003 5:07 am Post subject:
|
|
|
I agree with bodyguard....
so when will he be back?
Slek, your true creditability is on the line.....can you take the heat?
realstuff.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
sleK
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2003 6:09 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Ick' was banned for trolling.
His last two posts were made with the explicit intent to provoke.
The copyright issue was nothing other then the means by which he sealed his own fate.
Had he been reasonable and realized the error in posting entire copyrighted texts, he would still be here. But, instead he chose to defy a fair, reasonable and common rule simply for the sake of provoking a reaction from me.
Trolling won't be tolerated. End of story.
realstuff - you're next. If you don't like the rules, leave. No one's forcing you to be here. I venture to think that the entire forum would be better off without your barage of petty trolls.
| Quote: |
| I would still like to know if it will be permanent... |
That's entirely up to Ick'.
A written apology that clearly demonstrates his understanding of the reasons why that type of behaviour shouldn't be tolerated may get him access again.
However, as this incident was simply the straw that broke the camels back, I'm not promising anything.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Bodyguard
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2003 6:46 am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
At risk of being branded as a troll, do you consider not agreeing with you as "trolling"?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
searsmatrix
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 477
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2003 7:00 am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
I agree with slek. We should be getting rid of people who try and provoke others. We have all made mistakes but i am willing to bet bottom dollar that slek has been more then fair to give icki his chance. Realstuff cries out "censorship" but this site has rules and if people dont want to abide by them then they are free to leave and slek is free to kick them off. Give me one place where you are free to say whatever you like and there is no laws to prevent you from saying whatever you want. You would be hard pressed to find anywhere so free. The u.s. is by bar your best bet but even here what you say can get you in trouble. So again i back sleks reasoning for banning this person. If icki doesnt like what is done he is free to run his own site and pay for it monthly like the generous people on this site do.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
sleK
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2003 7:02 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| do you consider not agreeing with you as "trolling"? |
No. Trolling is simply making inflammatory posts with the explicit intent to get a reaction and/or disrupt the forum.
As I've stated before, many times, you're free to post whatever opinions and/or positions and/or facts you want but if you don't post them in a respectful manner, within the guidelines of the PG, then there's a good chance that you'll be hearing about it from me.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
siggy
Moderator
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Posts: 127
Location: B.C. Canada
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2003 7:10 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Sorry for the work flashback Siggy, I know what you mean! But you did not answer my question about Icki. |
Yes a ban can be reversed, contact the admin.
| Quote: |
| Questioning of the intent of the Mods seems to me a dangerous thing, but I may be over-reacting. |
Read the PG's and pay special attention to #2 BG.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Bodyguard
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2003 7:23 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Then I respectfully dis agree with you on the intention of Icki. I really dont think he was trying to disrupt the site. He did not agree with you on your interpretation of the copyright laws. (I dont have a clue who was right actually) It sure looked like a escelation of a personal feud to me. That is my opinion and it seems of several others. Yes we have to play by the rules. But I think some flexibility should be used when personalities are in play, as they were today. It is also my opinion that a stated list of penalties should be listed. For example; first suspension= 1 week second=2 weeks third and you are gone. That makes it more fair for all of us. When you stated that Ick may beg back by writing an apology that you MAY consider, that was in my opinion humiliating.
| Quote: |
Quote:
Sorry for the work flashback Siggy, I know what you mean! But you did not answer my question about Icki.
Yes a ban can be reversed, contact the admin. Quote:
Questioning of the intent of the Mods seems to me a dangerous thing, but I may be over-reacting.
Read http://www.retail-worker.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4]the PG's and pay special attention to #2 BG |
I have read the PG VERY carefully today in light of what has happened. I will try to live by it the best I can.
I am done with this subject now. It is your site and really any more discussion of this is a waste of time. Thanks for listening.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|