Vortex-L is an educational organization. It does not compete with Forbes for advertising dollars. The attribution and link goes back to Forbes.com so they can make their money. Only the text was reposted, not the pictures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use Copyright Act of 1976<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Copyright_Act_of_1976>, 17 U.S.C. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_17_of_the_United_States_Code> § 107 <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html>. fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1)the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; Kevin, Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should your work ever be misappropriated without the thief even asking. [mg] ***My work has been 'misappropriated', many times. How do you think I came to be familiar with this section of the copyright code? Copying the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits. ***That's hogwash. Your real objection is because people will read it here or elsewhere rather than at Forbes, where the advertising dollars settle. If it was about wasted bits, you wouldn't even bother to bring it to anyone's attention. And as an FYI, I did you a favor. You need to understand how modern advertising links work on today's internet. 95% of the traffic goes through Google, and 90% of users will only go to the first 5 or 6 hits from Google. Google is Forbes's direct competitor for advertising dollars, so they include Forbes hits down below their own clients. By pushing your article on nonprofit educational sites, the search terms that lead to your article are now much higher on the hit list. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Andrew <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > I am with Mark. Kevin needs to grow some ethics. > > Andrew > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Mark Gibbs <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:28 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released: > > Kevin, > > Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should your > work ever be misappropriated without the thief even asking. > > [mg] > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Mark: >> Welcome to da internets. I hope you don't 'loose' your reputation. >> >> >> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Mark Gibbs <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Kevin, >>> >>> Publishing a summary or abstract of my piece would have been fine (under >>> the concept of "Fair Use") but posting my article in full to a list (and a >>> public list at that) is a breach of both my copyright and Forbes'. I'd be >>> less annoyed if you'd waited a week or two but for heaven's sake, this is >>> the Internet ... you can cite a link as Alan Fletcher did so people can get >>> directly to the original article (which, BTW, has been updated). Copying >>> the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits. >>> >>> William, please delete Kevin's post from the archive. >>> >>> Yours, >>> Mark Gibbs. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> posting it here on Vortex for purposes of using it elsewhere... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Alan Fletcher <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Mark Gibbs has an article up : >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ >>>>> >>>>> (Shout-out and plot to ... guess who? ) >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
