I could accept getting BANNED for libel or slander, but the added charge of “posting copyrighted materials” stinks of the Niedermeyer-Sergeant-At-Arms gambit in the movie Animal House. Could you explain this rule? Are song lyrics and literary quotes excluded?
IANAM, but I think the general rule is that as long as you stay within the bounds of “fair use” (i.e., using only enough to answer a question, illustrate a point, cite evidence, flesh out a review, etc.), you are OK. My experience has been that the mods frown upon people wholesale posting lyrics to entire songs for no reason other than to say, “Hey, does anybody else like this song?”
It’s about copyright law and protecting the Chicago Reader from lawsuit, I imagine.
All ATMB Threads containing the word “copyright”
Your answer’s in there in full detail, although KneadToKnow is spot-on as well.
You’re probably better off thinking of it not as “our rule” but as the rules of the people or organizations you are quoting from. It’s really out of respect for the wishes of the author.
For example, The Onion tells us “The content of this web-site … may not be reprinted or retransmitted in whole or in part without the expressed written consent of the publisher.” MSNBC says that “you may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit, or distribute in any way any material from this site”. So posting full articles, or even parts of them is in violation of their copyright.
If posters to this board violate the copyrights of other organizations and we as mods are consistently apathetic about it, I’m sure even a mildly litigious lawyers could make a case against The Reader.
In general, if you can provide just a link, do it. Posting a link and a quote is redundant anyway.
Thank you for your interest in my question. It took two hours, but I feel that I am sufficiently informed. Furthermore, I’d like to thank the powers that be for their leniency towards my jerk-like behaviour and propensity towards chicanery. Unlike some others who have been recently banned, I need the SDMB far more than it needs me, and appreciate the times where my improper behaviour has been indulged. One reason for having asked is that I will eventually change my name, and:
Huge Throbbing
BANNED
will look pretty stupid to posterity.
Oh, pshaw. I thought this was a thread about why Satan was banned.
As a matter of fact, Montfort, it sorta IS. One of Satan’s most annoying habits (annoying to us mods, that is) was to post copyrighted material in its entirety, or nearly so, no matter how many times we’d warned him not to do so. I’m not talking once or twice or even three times…but he did this regularly, even after we’d talked to him about it. This wasn’t the only reason he was banned, but it certainly was a contributing factor. What’s worse, he was (he might still be, for all I know) in the music biz…so you’d THINK that he’d understand copyright, and why it must be protected.
I’ll know my self-esteem is back up to 100% when I have the courage to use this as a sig.
I would like to request that any attempt by eunoia or anyone else to become Huge Throbbing be administratively converted to Little Flacid Drippy.
Thank you for your support.