Like I said: "dodgy" -- indeed at best. This sort of debate doesn't belong here.
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? ) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
