Text 2060, 85 rader
Skriven 2006-06-07 23:23:00 av Robert E Starr JR (2506.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Amy Guskin to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <0001HW.C0ACA8300081A265F0407530@news.verizon.net>
@REPLY: <mbul72l385asn52fk8ncp3s49hs61e57gl@4ax.com>
>>On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 15:22:56 -0400, Josh Hill wrote
(in article <8i4e821cacp22119l6gikeube2noo3tbgl@4ax.com>):

> On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 02:26:15 +0000 (UTC), Amy Guskin
> <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 17:33:25 -0400, Josh Hill wrote
>> (in article <31tb8219rvud9g7noppaf568t52pr7ov08@4ax.com>):
>> 
>>> 
>>> OK. Except that I just lied. Seems to me that it is fair use: after
>>> all, you can mail someone a news clipping, and that's considered fair
>>> use, so why shouldn't you be able to do the same thing electronically?<<
>> 
>> Because cutting and pasting and sending something electronically isn't the 
>> same as clipping a physical piece of newspaper.  With the paper newspaper, 
>> you're giving away the physical copy that you paid for.  With the 
>> electronic 
>> dissemination, you're making a copy.  You can only send the paper article 
>> once, and only by depriving yourself of it.  You can send the electronic 
>> one 
>> to millions of people without losing the benefit of _your_ copy, in the 
>> process unjustly depriving the NY Times of all that subscription income.
> 
> Well, there is that. OTOH, sending the occasional clipping to a friend
> doesn't really deprive the NY Times of subscription income -- no one
> is going to spend $50 to read a single newspaper column. And the
> physicality of the copy doesn't really mean much in practice -- you
> could send a photocopy of a newspaper clipping and keep the original
> in your file, and people routinely do.
>
>Were it illegal to email an individual clipping, people who purchase
> articles would have no way to share them with a friend or colleague,
> unless perhaps they erased their copies of the original file and
> agreed never to look it up in the newspaper's archives, which isn't
> exactly a realistic proposition.  <<

Right.  And certainly no owner of intellectual property is looking to 
obstruct people from doing that (the occasional sending around of information 
from their source to a limited audience of unlicensed people).

>> It seems to me that the net effect of such a restriction would be to
> limit the exchange of ideas that the copyright provision was intended
> to foster, and that the ultimate guide -- since as I understand it the
> fair use provision is rather vague -- is common sense -- e.g., if I
> were to email you the columns of your favorite Times columnist
> (something a friend actually asked me to do) or if you were to email
> me a copy of the intro to one of those B5 scripts I can't afford we
> would be violating copyright, because in those cases we really would
> be depriving the author of potential income.<<

Yes, fair use is a vague provision, but it isn't without parameters entirely, 
and "common sense" isn't one of them.  But again, as I said above, no one is 
going to spend the time and money to prosecute someone sending the occasional 
article around to friends or colleagues - which is, at the heart of it, good 
advertising for the source material.  But as you say, if you regularly 
e-mailed me the columns of my favorite columnist, that certainly wouldn't 
qualify.  Reposting an entire article in a newsgroup is definitely skirting 
the line of turning-a-blind-eye acceptability, and I'm sure that someday, 
someone's going to eventually get burned for doing something like that (if 
they haven't already).

It's another level entirely when you get to books and authors (as opposed to 
newspapers, which have that corporate sheen around them).  Most authors make 
little enough from their writing; to deny them their income from a sold copy 
of a book is just criminal.  I understand the enthusiasm of fans who want to 
know stuff but can't afford the script books, and I realize that denying 
someone's request to post here in its entirety the abandoned Sinclair story 
arc isn't necessarily going to make that person cave in and buy the script 
book (because he simply might not be able to afford it), but nor can I 
condone letting someone get away with it 'just this once' without opening my 
big mouth, pointing, and shouting "J'accuse" (or rather "Infringement")!  
Seriously, people, most creative artists (ones who aren't the Wachowskis, 
Britney Spears, or Stephen King) do _not_ make a lot of money on their work.

Amy
                                                                          
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)