Dude, I have no idea what your point is. Are you saying that I violated copyright law?
lucwarm, I’m not really in a position to seach for statutes and/or case-law (PDFs crash my machine), however, Templeton’s Ten Big Myths of Copyright* says about fair use:
Now, I tried to find specific references for the italicised portion, and I admit I found it difficult, specifically because copyright law, and fair-use in particular, is kind of fuzzy. But Standford University’s Copyright and Fair Use advice gives a link to this check-list which includes an item on the “Opposing Fair Use” side of the equation: Denying credit to original author. They also give cite some case-studies, in their study of Marcus vs Rowley you can find
but in the footnotes
Another site’s case study of Webster vs Modest says
Whatever, I should take back my implicit assertion that it is necessarily not fair use to include unattributed fragments of a web-document, but
a) it certainly is polite to attribute
b) there exists apparently informed advice to attribute
and
c)Zoe’s point was that you hadn’t attributed, not that you’d quoted, which was the essence of my first post to you (that there was no hypocrisy on her part).
You suggested Zoe could do her own weaseling, but it looks to me as if you could weasel with the best of them – you offered to admit to being wrong if I could demonstrate the illegality of unattributed quoting, however, that was never what you were being asked to account for, and certainly not by me:
So, do you see that it was more than irrelevant for you to show that Zoe had quoted what she quoted when she quoted it because she attributed it?
*ironically, if you want to view this, you may have to look in Google’s cache, the non-cached page won’t load for me, and references to URLs in Google’s cache get mangled by the hamsters.
Yep. And then the liberal and the conservative both hurl insults at World Net Daily and Salon respectively. Heck, I’ve even seen people provide CNN as a cite. So it seems like it’s pretty much anything goes.
Ok, fine.
**
Zoe accused me of violating copyright law. To avoid being labeled a hypocrite, she must show that my excerpt was impermissible while hers was. One way to do this would be to show that fair use does not apply when the commentator is quoted but not identified. So far she has not done so.
**
Err, perhaps you should clarify your position a bit by answering the following questions:
(1) Do you agree that Zoe accused me of violating copyright law?
(2) If so, then what did you mean when you said the following:
? I interpreted this as saying that my failure to provide a link was was the essence of the (alleged) violation. Or perhaps you were flat out lying? Please explain yourself.
**
Nope. Unless fair use does not apply when a commentator is quoted but not identified. But you seem to concede that this is not the case.
Firstly, if you looked at all at the links I gave, you would have seen that fair use is determined by a whole raft of details, it might well be that a particular claim of fair use succeeds or fails on the grounds of attribution/non-attribution.
Secondly, Zoe didn’t mention copyright violation in the thread she cited. Though she did do that here, and my first post could be read to imply the same (but read it carefully and you’ll see it doesn’t imply any such thing). However, nothing has changed about the nature of the original complaint against you, which was that you had quoted and not attributed.
I have conceded that it goes too far to say that failing to attribute, in and of itself, indicates a copyright violation, but it sure as hell mitigates against you should you claim “fair use” if you haven’t attributed, and it sure as hell is polite to attribute.
Whatever, even if Zoe had asserted from the get-go that mere non-attribution indicated a copyright violation, it was irrelevant of you to link to a post where Zoe had quoted with attribution.
Understand this:
Zoe had quoted with attribution
You quoted without attribution
How the hell does it follow that if you are in violation then she is, which was your implicit assertion “Shocking behaviour from a Junior Mod”?
This is the essence of my first post here to you, your argument was a non-sequitur, the issue has been clouded by this little aside about fair use, but I have set the record straight with regards to my understanding of such.
Time for you to cut the weaseling and do likewise, methinks.
Don’t hold your breath.
Better yet, follow Coldfire’s advice and don’t feed the twit.
Hurling insults at World Net Daily is hardly a shocking thing. They are more than a little lax with their fact-checking, and aren’t real careful about attribution, either.
Or it may not be. So what?
**
So what? I didn’t point out her own excerpt in that thread either.
**
At this point, I don’t really know what you were trying to say. I’ll repeat my earlier questions, although I’m not holding my breath waiting for a straight answer:
(1) Do you agree that Zoe accused me of violating copyright law?
(2) If so, then what did you mean when you said the following:
quote:
the only complaint against you was that you had quoted yet not attributed
**
There are two possibilities here:
First, if Zoe is asserting that failure to provide a link = copyright violation, then she had better back it up. She has not done so and you have not done so.
Second, if Zoe is NOT asserting that failure to provide a link = copyright violation, then my pointing out the fact that she herself has excerpted an article is entirely relevant.
She can’t have it both ways, and you can’t have it both ways either.
**
Err, I’m not weaseling. If you think I’m shifting my position, why not QUOTE me?
And speaking of weaseling, why not take a shot at the questions I asked you?
(1) Do you agree that Zoe accused me of violating copyright law?
(2) If so, then what did you mean when you said the following:
quote:
the only complaint against you was that you had quoted yet not attributed
Good thing I’m not holding my breath waiting for you to give examples of your claim that I used my opinion like a “club.”
You really are starting to grate. Here’s my first post in its entirety, I take you to task for thinking that Zoe’s quoting from the San Francisco Chronicle somehow amounted to the same misuse as your unattributed quote.
I have conceded that any implication that non-attribution indicates copyright violation, in and of itself, is probably wrong, other factors may mitigate for and against such a claim.
Still, any intelligent reading of my post should lead you to understand that my point was that your argument was irrelevant, Zoe had attributed, you had not. You have not yet acknowledged this, being happy to continue down some conversational cul-de-sac on the finer points of fair use. It’s nowhere near as much fun to be involved in this mental masturbation fantasy of yours as you seem to imagine.
Do you read my posts? What the fuck do you think “Zoe didn’t mention copyright violation in the thread she cited. Though she did do that here” means? Yes, she did make such an accusation, and it probably goes too far, I really don’t know, I am not a lawyer, but the little bit of research that I did (which was done in good faith so we could conduct a reasonable conversation (oh what an idiot I must look now)) indicates that it isn’t so.
Get this, and pay attention, because it isn’t being said again.
Zoe, originally complained that you’d provided unattributed quotes (which is bad form, lucwarm, any second now I am sure you will admit it), when the subject re-emerged in this thread she added that this represented a copyright violation.
In respect to copyright violation, I suspect, she is wrong. In respect to you using unattributed quotes she is undeniably right. You did do that, it is bad form, and when she asked you to provide a source you should have just done that and dropped your little whinge about how she should “Just ask (you) nicely”.
Whatever, it is true that the only complaint was your non-attribution, whether such represents a copyright violation is a point that has now been done to death.
Now fuck off.
It’s probably time to start following Jeff Olsen’s advice.
lucwarm has a nice spot sitting on the back of a fishing boat. He’s reeling you in, and couldn’t give a rat’s ass about whatever the fuck he currently happens to be arguing about.
I’d give you a cite that proves what I just said, but I refuse to do so until lucwarm bares his buttocks live on CNN and sings “The Great Pretender”. 
The unattributed quotations by lucwarm were from Howard Zinn’s article in The Progressive Magazine where he is a columnist. It is taken from his book which is copyrighted. The Progressive is also copyrighted.
My limited knowledge of copyright law comes from having worked in magazine publishing early in my career. To the best of my knowledge, it is still illegal to quote copyrighted material of any length without attribution.
I suspect that I had published copyrighted material of my own before lucwarm had soiled his first diaper.
Thanks to those of you who explained my position. You did it completely and fairly.
I’m taking Jeff’s advice.
Happy New Year!
That and 5 bucks will get you through the Holland tunnel, honey.
Look, you claimed that I violated copyright law. You didn’t say “based on my limited knowledge, I believe that you may have violated copyright law.”
I would hope that you would either back up your claim or apologize. So far you have done neither. And I’m not holding my breath waiting either.
**
Appropriate considering that he too refused to back up his claim.
[ Technical note ]
To link to Google’s cached sites, one must click off the Automatically parse URLs: box beneath the reply message window. (Google’s cache includes the whole original url, including the original “http” and the automatic feature parses that out with a second “url=” tag, interrupting the complete cache url.)
Given the length of most cached urls, it is generally also a good idea to give them an alias to prevent line wrap. (In other words, {url=the.whole.long.google.cache.name.with.odd.special.characters.etc}Look at this Google Cache{/url} (changing {} to , of course.)
[ We now return you to your bickering, already in progress. ]
Whatever. I note that you haven’t answered my previous question:
In that case, the fact that Zoe excerpted materials (while providing a link) is relevant.
**
Good.
**
Actually she didn’t do quite that – she simply stated that I had violated copyright without explanation.
But anyway, from your latest post I gather that when you said that her ONLY complaint was that I failed to provide a link, you meant that my failure to provide a link was part of her claim of copyright violation. Thus, when you said the following – “but read it carefully and you’ll see it doesn’t imply any such thing” – you were misrepresenting your own position. i.e. weaseling.
**
Irrelavant and false. Look at the thread – she did not ask me to provide a source. She was aware of the source and simply criticized me for failing to provide a link.
Since the whining twit needs everything spelled out for him:
IMO, holding steadfastly to one’s opinion in the face of unanimous (or nearly so) opposition despite the absence of evidence to support that opinion is tantamout to using the opinion as a club. Epecially when one is being smarmy when dismissing evidence which suggest the opinion is wrong.
If you’d like specific cites, you’re supposedly smart and should be capable of finding them on your own. Or you can go fuck yourself, I don’t care. At any rate, any further posts on this subject will not attract any responses from me.
I take it that AGAIN you refuse to back up your position. And I imagine that you will refuse to specify what opinions I supposedly hold that are unsupported and face unanimous opposition.
Yes I’m smart - doesn’t mean that I can find evidence to support your conclusory ravings, which seem to be more a product of hurt feelings than rational thought.
**
Good riddance, moron. I note that YOU first brought up the tailgating thread - not me.
Good riddance to you too, twit. Guess you’re not as great and powerful as you thought.
What did him in anyway?