Listowners-L Archives

Archiver > Listowners > 1998-07 > 0899663010


From: Patricia Tidmarsh <>
Subject: Re: Copyright - don't we hava a list for that?
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 14:23:30 -0400 (EDT)


If it is not -- will be glad to contribute my second site as a Rootsweb
sponsor to a private list of this type. Annoyed at having my requests for
assistant on this list accessed and used against me in my other list.

On Sun, 5 Jul 1998, Margaret Olson wrote:

> We have (or did have) a separate Rootsweb list for copyright discussions.
> Could those of you who wish to pursue this and quote the US law (and
> those who want to quote Belgian (Hi Georges) or other countrys' laws
> please subscribe and post there ?
>
> I forget the name ..... ? So - after I comment
> here, I may go see if the list is still there.
>
> The archives here must have a considerable amount on this - Cyndi Howells
> has pointers from her list on copyright - it's been a hot issue (as in
> "if it's on the web it's free for the taking and can't be copyrighted").
>
> First, the post which started this go-round on the topic seemed to show
> that the possible copyright violator was posting entire chapters from
> some work which was certainly still within US copyright. My personal
> opinion is that that goes beyond "fair use" and should be stopped.
> If the quotes are shorter and selected carefully, it may be allowable.
> If the listowner is worried, then it should stop.
>
> > to me. I think in essence that it mostly means something like this:
> "no harm > means no foul."
>
> Harm is the taking of someone else's material without attribution
> or payment. Money has nothing to do with it. Intellectual property
> can often not be given a monetary value. It belongs to the writer and
> needs the writer's approval for use.
>
> > I think the fundamental underlying purpose of copyright law is to
> protect the > rights of the creators of intellectual works to MAKE MONEY
> from their works. I
>
> No indeed - that is WRONG. I needn't make a cent, but the property is
> mine, nonetheless. If I write a 5 line poem, it is MINE. If I design
> a homepage, the design is MINE.
>
> > Also, the law provides limited exceptions for "purposes such as
> criticism, > comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies
> for classroom use), > scholarship, or research." I think these exceptions
> are examples of copying for
>
> And in every case, the copyright holder's permission must be gotten when
> copyrighted material is used that way - "fair use" allows all of us to
> quote parts of it - but we must always attribute the source and include
> the copyright notice. College students are notorious for ignoring that,
> but the administration and teachers do not ignore it.
>
> > If the copying is sold or used in any manner for monetary gain by
> the copier, > then I think it probably is a violation of the copyright.
> Nobody should be
>
> Not "probably" -- IS -- likewise if the copy is sold at a loss.
>
> > then I think it probably is a violation of the copyright. Most limited
> extracts > from larger works would not be sufficient to keep people from
> buying the
>
> Limited extracts? Is a whole chapter "limited? Is 10 paragraphs a
> day'until the entire work has been posted "limited"?
>
> Sorry to add to this. Is the copyright list still there?
>
> Margaret
>
>

This thread: