Remedial action he demands should be taken. ***I have not commented on the remedial action requested by Gibbs. I have no problem with the text copy of the article being removed if that's what Bill decides to do. It's no big deal. The reason for posting it was for educational purposes and not for any profit motive, so it passes the fair use test. Simple as that.
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:03 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > Good grief. There is no argument here. Gibbs is right. Remedial action > he demands should be taken. Moreover, it is pretty clear that if O'Malley > keeps up his argumentation he should be banned. > > I'm not saying ban anyone who does something dodgy with copyright but > clearly when an author demands remedial action be taken regarding a clear > violation of of his work, the time for action is here and no further > discussion is necessary, desirable nor even tolerable. > > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:37 PM, 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. >> >> >>> It does not compete with Forbes for advertising dollars. >>> >> >> True, but that's not the point >> >> >>> 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. >> >>> >>> 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. >> >>> >>> 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. >> >>> >>> 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. I don't write for >> my own pleasure. And you have violated my and Forbes' copyright and stolen >> our hits. 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. >> >> >>> 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. >> >>> >>> >> [mg] >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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? ) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
