Krispy, you are indeed correct. My post of the entire set of EZBoard rules is most likely a copyright violation. Thank you for pointing this out. Those guys over there probably paid good money to have someone write that stuff up for them. As such, they own them and it is wrong of me to copy them for any purpose. No one here is above the rules and I should have considered what I was doing more carefully. I shall make no excuses or qualifications; I fucked up.
My apologies to all concerned. Apologies are also offered to the SDMB staff; you guys all have enough to do without my adding to your burdens.
Sheesh Tuba, I don’t think that you completely understood what I meant (either that, or I didn’t explain myself very well)…
You said:
Ok. But maybe I’m guessing. Or any one of thousands of other members are guessing. Or maybe sometimes a mod guesses…
The point I was trying to make is that it might be nice for everyone involved if these “guidelines” were out in the open, easy to understand, and examples were discussed.
Seems like it would save us all a little time and frustration.
My suggestion of appealing to someone with real expertise in the arena of copyright law (especially as it might pertain to the internet) was a good one I thought…good for this board and the Chicago Reader law team as well.
Lets fight a little ignorance about copyright law 'eh?
Oh, and in closing, you should know that it wasn’t my intent to try to tattle on Uncle Beer or try to make anyone look bad. Although you changed it, I’m still not sure that it WASN’T a copyright violation given the way in which was used.
Hello Krispy. I agree that it might seem that there is no black-and-white, unequivocal, clear-cut, unambiguous definition of the rules concerning copyright violations at the Straight Dope.
But I can tell you the rules I’ve followed in my past as a member AND as a moderator, and I can tell you that by following these rules I’ve never been advised that my post was against the standards of the Straight Dope.
a) If I am going to quote something from an article, quote less than 5% of the source. Include a link to the article if the article is available online.
b) Only quote directly in very rare circumstances. Instead of repeating a source word-for-word, I read the article, attempt to understand it, and rephrase what it says in my own words. Again, I include a link to the source if the source is available online. Otherwise I indicate a reference to the source (e.g. Science News, issue x, pages yy-zz).
I’m 99% sure that if you follow those rules you will be OK in your posts. If you do follow those rules and still get chastised for being against Straight Dope policy, I give you the permission to start a Pit thread entitled “That Arnold Winkelried - what a maroon!” and I will personally post in that Pit thread “Krispy Original is correct - I am a maroon.”
PS I just realized this week-end for the very first time that Krispy Original is a brand of crackers. Are they your favourite?
For the sake of argument, I’m willing to post no more than 4.9% of material that might be copyrighted.
And that’ll do just fine for a SDMB guideline.
I’m still extremely curious though as to the interpretation of copyright infringement IRL and in layman’s terms from someone that is actually in a position to know.
…and not just as it might pertain to message board posts.
For example, is it really illegal for me to record a broadcast TV show in order to share it with a friend or family member?
…you, know, things like that…
The Krispy Original handle was my 5th or 6th handle and I was running out of ideas…yes, I got it off of a box of crackers…my favorite cracker?..nah…just what happened to be around at the time.
…for all I know, my use of that handle violates copyright law…
Hey, in my forum at least I’ll allow you up to 4.999%, and even a smidgeon beyond!
I’m sure if you ask that in “General Questions” you’ll have a fine set of opinions and probably even some facts that will give us all plenty of food for thought. I’ll be looking for that question in GQ!
Well, if you had shortened it to KO, you would be using less than 5%.
Whoops! My math was way off. Even with KO you’d be over my 5% guideline. I guess you would be better off paraphrasing, with a username like “Brittle Innovative”.
Although there are tons of threads discussing copyright and fair use on the boards (many of them in the context of the legal issues surrounding Napster and similar services) I’ll give you a simple, quick explanation. (I am a lawyer, though I don’t specialize in intellectual property.)
In short, copyright laws give authors and artists the exclusive right to control how and where their works will be copied for a limited (though long) period of time. There are some exceptions to the author’s right of exclusive control, however. The relevant one here is known as “fair use.”
Fair use is a somewhat fuzzy concept, but the general idea is that there are some limited circumstances where it is fair to let someone copy all or part of an author’s works.
There are a number of factors that go into determining whether the use of a work would be considered “fair.” Among them are how much of the work was used (a small excerpt or the bulk of it), reason for the use (commercial use or educational/scientific use), the impact of the use on the market for the original, and a ton of other stuff. Some specific situations where “fair use” will be found is the quotation of excerpts for the purposes of a review of the works, or the copying of a broadcast for “time shifting” (i.e. taping a TV show to watch it later – you can watch it with family and friends, you can’t rebroadcast it or exhibit it commercially). In most cases, however, there are few hard and fast rules, and decisions would be made on a case-by-case basis (often after long and costly litigation).
The SDMB is a commercial enterprise operated by the Chicago Reader (even though it is free, it is still considered commercial use). In addition the Reader is a newspaper interested in the general protection of copyright rights in both “old media” and web based publications. Accordingly, the mods and admins of this site take a strict view of copyright violations on the board both to make sure the Reader is protected and to impliment its views regarding copyrights.
