A-oil vs B-oil

[John_W.Kennedy]

@Alex_Dubinsky

wait… so the law explicitly corrobates nearly everything that I was arguing for on merely wistful grounds. (thanks, gfactor)

It DOES protect the copying of works for educational and scholarly purposes, as i beseeched.

It DOES consider the monetary issues, so my argument that my act will, if anything, probably boost subscriptions IS extremely to the point.

The nature of the work in question I would assume also qualifies for exemption quite well.

The amount does, however, apprently play a role. It is not made clear to what degree, and it is only one criterion out of four. It is also placed third in importance.
So anyway, bibliophage, stop your bsing about copyrights, you oppresive [something]. You are on shaky terms even when sticking to the letter of the law, and anyone will see that you are certainly not doing the world as a whole any good.

The straight dope is about fighting ignorance! You would rather it remain, if only you can earn on it a penny.

Can we please ban this jerk?

[bibliophage]

@Alex_Dubinsky

So anyway, bibliophage, stop your bsing about copyrights, you oppresive [something]. You are on shaky terms even when sticking to the letter of the law, and anyone will see that you are certainly not doing the world as a whole any good.

Again, I remind you that the BBQ Pit forum is the place for complaining about board rules or moderator actions. The Great Debates forum is the place for arguing about the fairness of the law. The General Questions forum is for factual questions about what the law says.

This thread is beyond redemption. Anyone wishing to start a new thread in this forum on the abiogenic oil hypothesis is free to do so. Hijacks on the issue of copyrights or SDMB rules will not be tolerated.

@John W. Kennedy

Can we please ban this jerk?

Such remarks are best confined to the BBQ Pit forum. Please remember this in the future.

bibliophage
moderator CCC