 |
Re: Save the Internet - This means you !
Author: MG42
Date: 01-17-2012 - 16:28
Mozart Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MG42 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mozart, you seem out of arguments if you must
> now
> > resort to insults, not facts. BTW, if you
> credit
> > the source, and aren't making a profit off of
> > someone else’s work, I believe that's called
> "Fair
> > Use." Wikipedia wouldn't exist w/o it. From
> Wiki-
> >
> > 17 U.S.C. § 107
> > Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17
> > U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 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 The fact that a work is unpublished shall not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.[1]
>
> So, cool, publish a song, write an essay, what
> ever...
>
> and sit back and watch as a bunch of people steal
> your work under the banner of "Fair Use".
>
> You will whine like a pig when it's your
> intellectual rights that are being stolen.
If the use falls under the non profit uses mentioned above, such as criticism, education, or reporting news on a site like this, then no, I wouldn't be complaining if properly credited. When I say "credited," I'm not talking about being paid when I post something online and somebody uses it, I mean at least cite who the author was. Preferably ask permission. When somebody takes your work and tries to pass it off as their own, whether for a profit or not, that's what I'd have an issue with. Not somebody photographing UP, then being blacklisted as a threat to their profits. Not somebody buying used stuff on EBay/craigslist. Those are what SOPA is all about, giving companies boundless control over us, and the ability to block any page. SOPA is being pushed by large companies which haven't adapted to the internet age and clueless congress persons who don't understand our freedom of speech.
-------------------------------------------------------
> MG42 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mozart, you seem out of arguments if you must
> now
> > resort to insults, not facts. BTW, if you
> credit
> > the source, and aren't making a profit off of
> > someone else’s work, I believe that's called
> "Fair
> > Use." Wikipedia wouldn't exist w/o it. From
> Wiki-
> >
> > 17 U.S.C. § 107
> > Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17
> > U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 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.[1]
>
> So, cool, publish a song, write an essay, what
> ever...
>
> and sit back and watch as a bunch of people steal
> your work under the banner of "Fair Use".
>
> You will whine like a pig when it's your
> intellectual rights that are being stolen.
If the use falls under the non profit uses mentioned above, such as criticism, education, or reporting news on a site like this, then no, I wouldn't be complaining if properly credited. When I say "credited," I'm not talking about being paid when I post something online and somebody uses it, I mean at least cite who the author was. Preferably ask permission. When somebody takes your work and tries to pass it off as their own, whether for a profit or not, that's what I'd have an issue with. Not somebody photographing UP, then being blacklisted as a threat to their profits. Not somebody buying used stuff on EBay/craigslist. Those are what SOPA is all about, giving companies boundless control over us, and the ability to block any page. SOPA is being pushed by large companies which haven't adapted to the internet age and clueless congress persons who don't understand our freedom of speech.
