Re: KFPR

[<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>]

  Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> writes:
>soundwave50@my-deja.com writes ...
>>
>> In article
>> <19990816141658.27430.00000873@ng-ch1.aol.com>,
>>   cturley2@aol.com (Cturley2) wrote:
>>
>> >>U.S. there is a whole chapter of the copyright law
>> >>which exempts educational institutions from certain
>> >>violations, IIRC.
> ....
>
>> >I agree with you completely on all of the above as
>> >you outlined it.
> ....
>
>> >GS WorldView and it's contents are a non-commercal,
>> >online virtual Apple II educational and reference
>> >institution, presented to the public for  use as
>> >such containing educational and reference articles,
>>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong but I do not recall GS
>> WorldView being a registered educational institution
>> in the US.
>
>     Not necessary. As a news 'zine GSWV already has more protections than it
>needs.

Actually, your comment is out of context so not valid here. Soundwave50 was
asking
for clarification in the declaration "GS WorldView and it's contents are a
non-commercial,
online virtual Apple II educational and reference institution..."
Protections as a news magazine are not currently relevent when Charles'
assertion is that
it is exempt from copyright violation under the Educational section of Fair Use.


>
>
>> >certainly easier than  applying a "turley tax".  I
>> >certainly think reformation of the matters apply,
>> >have been covered completely and no more need be
>> >said on it.
>>
>> Considering the controversy taken by your original
>> action, I would tend to think that it would be wiser
>> to ask for posting permission ahead of time, for the
>> best interests of all involved.
> ....
>
>     Waste of time for a news 'zine. As a poster from an A2 group on Delphi
>observed, their own users' group 'zine does not always ask permission.
>Naturally; you'd never get the thing done if you asked everyone's permission
>for the quotes you use.

Once again your comment is not valid due to context. Charles is not defending
his action as a news magazine.  Additionally, delphi A2 does not have a group
'zine. The Lamp
is a publication (and a high quality one at that) by Ryan Suenaga.  I apologize
for
the misunderstanding regarding permission to The Lamp to reprint something of
mine. One
of us made a clerical error and Ryan has proved to me that he reprinted it under
 good faith. It is possible that the
error was mine and in any case, he now has my full and explicit permission to
reprint anything
that I post to delphi, and he may have had it all along. If he has reprinted
anyone else's without asking permission
 I am unaware of it.
My take on the whole affair (and I understand you didn't ask me :o)  is that
Charles trolled people who
specifically dislike him before he went on vacation. It worked. :o)
News, 'zine, education or Kfest were not ever the purpose. That is my opinion
and the context of the threads will support it.

>
>___________
>
>
>"Greg J. Buchner" writes ...
>>
> ....
>>
>> But those exemptions usually only apply to partial quotes, they don't
>> necessarily cover _completely_ copying something or someone else's work.
>
>     Chatting is not a "work".

No, here you are in direct disagreement with U.S. Copyright law. "Chatting" (in
the context you are providing)
 is considered a work of prose. You may not think you are an author by
"chatting" but the U.S. Congress does. :o)

>
>
>> Quoting everything without permission risks a lawsuit.
>
>     So does breathing.
>

Greg overstates here as there are specifically stated exemptions (almost
exclusively educational) in quoting whole works
in U.S. Copyright law.  (I emphasize U.S. here). Nothing Charles posted in the
KF thread, as far as I saw, is covered by
the exemptions stated in the law. Of course if somebody sued him we could find
out for sure. :o)
 I sincerely doubt that any lawsuit for breathing would get far in court. :o)

>>
>> Quoting specific parts of someones post very likely falls under the
>> protection of fair use, as in US Code 17, Chapter 1, section 107.
>
>     Unless you consider Sub-section R, Part 17, paragraph 5!
>

If Sub-section R, Part 17, paragraph 5 even exists, why would you be
contra-indicating a prescription for fair use (even in jest)?

>
>> Also completey quoting someone without asking isn't polite, but
>> then Turley, what do you care about being polite.
>
>     Considering the brain-dead garbage he has to put up with, Dr. Tom may well
>qualify as the most polite person on the net.
>

Brain-dead garbage aside, politeness is an asset. Trolling is not polite. Nobody
 is perfect, but we can try, right? :o)


<snip irrelevent stuff>

--
Eric  <chippys@earthlink.net>
      <habanero@delphi.com>

P.S.   Penman, I have sent this to:
mail2news_nospam-19990817-comp.sys.apple2@anon.lcs.mit.edu
from work. If it arrives then it is working for me.