My responses are designated by 3 asterisks***. On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Mark Gibbs <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Vortex-L is an educational organization. >> > > Not relevant. If Harvard wouldn't do what you did because they'd be > opening themselves up to a copyright infringement lawsuit. > ***Harvard and thousands of educational institutions do this all the time. Even in the copyright code it talks about multiple copies, because that's what's going on. > > >> It does not compete with Forbes for advertising dollars. >> > > True, but that's not the point > ***Eventually that really is the point. You subtly acknowledge this when you said you'd be less irritated if it happened a few days later. If your real issue were over real copyright, such an irritation would not diminish. > > >> The attribution and link goes back to Forbes.com so they can make their >> money. Only the text was reposted, not the pictures. >> > > Doesn't matter ... you published the full text. > ***As the copyright fair use code tells me I have the right to do. > >> 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; >> >> Sure, but your interpretation is wrong because republishing the complete > text of a work is not fair use. > ***In the code it explicitly says copying the full text is allowed for educational purposes. Come on, look at that first sentence. > >> 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? >> >> > Your familiarity with the copyright code should have therefore told you > that you were violating copyright. > ***My familiarity with the copyright code tells me it is allowed nonprofit educational purposes > >> 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. >> > > I was making a joke ... and of course I want the hits. > ***There you have it, then. No harm, no foul. > I don't write for my own pleasure. And you have violated my and Forbes' > copyright and stolen our hits. > ***On the contrary, I increased the number of hits to you and Forbes. > I didn't raise this with my editor at Forbes because I didn't want the > list and William Beatty to have to deal with the fallout. I also thought > you might have been sensible and handled it but evidently you aren't > willing to and I've heard nothing from William. Now it's all a moot point > because enough time has passed that it's not going to have much impact on > the posting's hits. Even so, no matter what BS arguments and > self-justifications you make, you violated copyright. > ***If a copyright violation occurs, the passage of time does not make it moot. > > >> 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. >> > > Wrong. I don't have time to educate you but you are simply wrong. > ***No, you are wrong, and you risk 'loosing' your own reputation as a journalist. I don't have time to educate you, but read your own article to find the humor reference. > >> > > >
