Post #53,252
9/25/02 6:23:23 PM
|
You *DO* know that that is a copyright violation?
Why isn't the link enough? If we are interested, we can follow it. And having to scroll through the whole article stifles discussion about it.
Incidentally I think they took the wrong Scott McNealy quote. The best was that when asked if he sees the HP Compaq merger as eliminating one competitor he said, "No, two." :-)
Cheers,
Ben
"Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly."
- [link|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html|Walter Mead]
|
Post #53,310
9/26/02 9:31:30 AM
|
Yes, but...
I prefer to put whole articles here because:
1. I know that the post will remain longer than 1, 2 or 7 days, which is the longest time most sites make articles available before sticking them into their pay-per-view archives.
2. I know that the talented people running IWETHEY are doing regular backups so that this post will be here for months, available for easy reference if I want to reread it or send others to it.
lincoln
"Four score and seven years ago, I had a better sig"
|
Post #53,320
9/26/02 10:20:44 AM
|
Er.
The Register doesn't do pay-per-view archives.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #53,326
9/26/02 10:54:29 AM
|
Which is why I said "most" sites, not "all"
While not every site has pay-per-view archives, there are less free archive sites compared to years past. Here, for the moment, we're free since the dawn of time.
What I'm having a hard time understanding is how "having to scroll through the whole article stifles discussion"? I find that having the whole article here, which saves time going compared to going back and forth to sites, which can be very slow on dialup, makes it easier to focus on the major points and for copying specific passages of text.
lincoln
"Four score and seven years ago, I had a better sig"
|
Post #53,374
9/26/02 4:05:14 PM
|
Exactly. You violated copiright consciously, then.
When (and if) the authors decide that the article should now become a paid content, you will have your illegal copy.
I just hope you'll never have to write for living.
We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
|
Post #53,391
9/26/02 5:47:25 PM
|
I am a writer
of computer software, and have been going on 25 years. However, since I've never copyrighted any of it (and since my employers retained ownership of the source code) I can't say that I know how the author(s) feel about the situation.
They have already been paid for their writing already, and they're free to charge anybody and everybody for a pay-per-view. If they get more than 1 person willing to pay to see their work, more power to them. If they come here asking for money, the admins just have to delete the post, and end of story.
lincoln
"Four score and seven years ago, I had a better sig"
|
Post #53,544
9/27/02 1:16:26 PM
|
If it's written, it's copyrighted.
[link|http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/102.html|17 USC 102(a)]: Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the
aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works. Emphasis added. Fixation is the key. This is a work governed by copyright. There are limitations. If you're a federal government employee, you belong to one of the few classes of people who may create works not governed by copyright, and there are exemptions to copyright protections. See link above for details. Works for hire are owned by your employer. --
Karsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]
[link|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/|[link|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/]]
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
[link|http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/|TWikIWETHEY] -- an experiment in collective intelligence. Stupidity. Whatever.
Keep software free. Oppose the CBDTPA. Kill S.2048 dead.
[link|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html|[link|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html|http://www.eff.org/...a_alert.html]]
|
Post #53,390
9/26/02 5:46:41 PM
|
Ameliorated by complete attribution.
Was the purpose of publishing the article - by the Reg - for it to be viewed as widely as possible? Is there current pecuniary quid to read it at Home?
So then.. we should bear constantly in mind that - someday, someone might.. decide to exact a fee to re-read this essay?
Offhand.. I go with Lincoln's sane? rationalization -- given the probable future of free web access in the present Warfare + Security Administration in the US. Read and spread What you can While you Can IMhO.
(We have no Library of Alexandria, recall - Billy bought Bettmann Archives and much else: which no one next may view unless Billy wills it. Screw protocol; we're already in Post- rule-of-law territory)
Ashton
When reading becomes Outlawed -
451\ufffd
Why.. some have ventured the thought ~ Information is Life!
(though I'd quibble on the difference between biz-talk and information)
|
Post #53,394
9/26/02 6:09:00 PM
|
Yes we do
We have no Library of Alexandria, recall It's been [link|http://www.bibalex.gov.eg|rebuilt]. They're soliciting for contributions for their archives. ===
Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978|Andrew Grygus]
|
Post #53,542
9/27/02 1:09:04 PM
|
Particularly since...
...la Reg has a [link|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/62/26151.html|pretty liberal snarfing policy]. Copying anything less than the full article is definitely legit. We might fall into a [link|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/62/26155.html|user-group chatty], and, well, some of them like some of us, so I don't see major fallout.
As a courtesy measure, though, I'd try to keep exerpts to a Skil-Saw fistful of paragraphs.
--
Karsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]
[link|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/|[link|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/]]
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
[link|http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/|TWikIWETHEY] -- an experiment in collective intelligence. Stupidity. Whatever.
Keep software free. Oppose the CBDTPA. Kill S.2048 dead.
[link|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html|[link|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html|http://www.eff.org/...a_alert.html]]
|
Post #53,581
9/27/02 3:01:11 PM
|
Not disagreeing with you on points made
But I just didn't see a select few paragraphs doing justice to the theme of the story.
I'm still waiting for an answer to the question of how posting a whole story here "diminishes discussion" about the topic at hand.
lincoln
"Four score and seven years ago, I had a better sig"
|
Post #53,695
9/28/02 9:23:38 AM
|
Your answers
First of all why bother quoting any of it? You will note that I link to a lot of articles. Generally I don't quote anything, and it doesn't seem to be a problem. People know what the article is about before they go there, they know that I like it, and the article can stand on its own. If it can't do justice to itself, then I shouldn't be linking it anyways..
The only time that I will quote is if there is something important buried in the article that I think that people will miss. Then I quote, not to encourage people to read it, but to ensure that they notice what I did.
As for conversation being stifled, what happens is that your post is so long that it is hard to indicate which parts of it you did or did not want to reply to. Besides which if a conversation did start, it is such a pain to enter into the top and get to the discussion that people don't bother.
As a demonstration note that the real entry point for this discussion is not your post. It is my much more managable brief response. You posted, I replied, and discussion got going below that.
I mention this because you do find a lot of interesting things, but don't get as much discussion about them as I think you deserve. Take it not as an insult, but as a tip on how to more effectively spark discussion going forward.
Cheers,
Ben
"Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly."
- [link|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html|Walter Mead]
|
Post #54,895
10/4/02 12:08:05 PM
10/4/02 12:08:35 PM
|
Mein Gott, ben
I don't know quite how to properly post my appreciation for your considered, intelligent, and damn-all brainy responses. My IQ is high, but I feel like an insect compared to you (which is my best way of describing it, no offense.)
Or maybe I should just say "damn, you're good". :=)
The lawyers would mostly rather be what they are than get out of the way even if the cost was Hammerfall. - Jerry Pournelle
Edited by wharris2
Oct. 4, 2002, 12:08:35 PM EDT
|
Post #55,074
10/5/02 5:01:42 PM
|
*blush*
/me resolves to hit [link|http://www.google.com|Google] more diligently to avoid letting wharris' expectations down...
Cheers,
Ben
"Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly."
- [link|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html|Walter Mead]
|
