New Shooter’s Forum Policy for Posting Copyrighted Materials

[unclenick]

Memory is a hard thing, sometimes. The correct quotation is in context, below, but you got the flavor of it:

Henry the VI (Part 2), where pretender to the throne, egocentric criminal gang leader Jack Cade, describes how things will be done when he rules:

Jack Cade
I thank you, good people:- there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.

Dick The Butcher
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

Jack Cade
Nay*, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parchment? That parchment, being scribbled o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings: but I say, 'tis the bee's wax; for I did but seal once to a thing, and I was never mine own man since.- How now! who's there?

*Nay means 'certainly; assuredly' in this context, and not the more usual 'no'.

[kdub]

Shakespeare certainly went the 'roundabout way to say something, didn't he?

[Anne Shoots]

I obviously should have read this before posting and have been guilty I think of hot linking an image in a post.

Sorry bout that, I'll endeavor to remember & comply in future.

Cheers

[unclenick]

Looks like the suers are getting sued. This will be fun to watch. The best part is not the article but the two published email back-and-forths at the bottom. Keep in mind the first email (the threat) was originally in all caps. Don't know why the LVSN publisher didn't keep it that way. The significance is in the response below it.

Righthaven defendant threatens to seek settlement refunds - Las Vegas Sun News

[William Iorg]

It certainly has the appearance of extortion doesn’t it.
No one has deep enough pockets to defend themselves against an accusation.
I fret over “fair use” and “public domain” with pictures that I post. I make a serious effort to ensure no copyright or current use before I quote or post. I wish an “honest effort” was enough but it isn’t. The internet domains make money and it is predictable that someone will learn how to take money from the domain holders for use of corpy right protected material. In this instance it appears to be a lucrative thing for the newspaper as there is no effort on their part. The newspaper receives a small percentage of the payment for use of material which available free on their web site. If Righthaven builds enough of a “bully” reputation, the threat of suit will cause capitulation. Very little a small domain holder can do but monitor his web site and be hard on us forum members when we stray off the path. Certainly makes it tough to discuss current topics!

[unclenick]

I have to update further. That link turns out to be from 2011. There is more to the saga. This letter to the Righthaven attorneys got even better:

http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/p...on03032011.pdf

Then it seemed almost over for Righthaven last year, but perhaps not quite:

Righthaven Victims

I don't know where this will wrap up myself. It appears to me the newspapers are the main thing to worry about quoting. As the Internet's influence on the economy grows, so will attempts to hoard every last nickel.

[unclenick]

The original post now has some additions. They are in violet so you can spot them more easily.

[William Iorg]

The comments on fair use present a narrow and rigid constraint for book reviewers.
It is difficult to determine if a quote “harms the commercial value” of a book or magazine article. I suppose a book such as Gerald Fords which has the “the most important part” quoted does remove the need to buy the book. I hope quotes from out of print books spark an interest in tracking down a copy of the book for purchase and further reading. If you like the tidbit the rest of the book will be sweeter.
The comments: “Fair use isn’t an exact doctrine,” “The Court decides…” The computer and the internet have opened new worlds in communication and the lawyers shut the door in our face. The important aspect seems to be to relate the facts in our own words rather than quote the author, which brings up: “derivative works…” The problem arises when we “upset” the copyright holder with our quote, and then the court makes a”subjective judgment.”
Until I reads Mr. Templeton’s article I never thought of UseNet posting or an email as “publishing,” I have difficulty with the thought, probably because nothing I have written has any actual value.
Templeton certainly makes the point, “copyright law is complex.” It appears we will be better off describing what we read rather than quoting. I don’t believe it could be described as fan fiction. With the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) we now have to use caution when posting a link, I don’t know how to sort that out. Reading of Rush Limbaugh’s use of DMCA, more to point out the absurdity than to silence critics, bring up the thought: I enjoy the Beartooth Shooters forum. I understand the forum started to promote Marshals business. Does the forum now make enough money with associated advertising and sales to run the serious risk of lawsuit due to the use of a commercial property picture or quote?

[unclenick]

Slim,

On old books! You've reminded me of several things I meant to put into the update, but got distracted and left out. If you go back and read under "What you can do" you'll find them down to and including the image. The one pertaining to old books is that because of changes to copyright law, anything published before 1923 has had its copyright expire. There seem to be estates of authors older than that who have somehow kept rights intact, though the ones that come to mind are all British (H.G. Wells, Arthur Conan Doyle) and the law there may be different. (That's a point worth investigating.)

Re your last point: the new owners own several boards and the banner ad business, so the potential is there. If you read through the Righthaven legal battles, you'll know the real objective was to use the threat of a lawsuit to extort a settlement of a few thousand dollars from each board, which even small businesses usually can get hold of. That action, which I consider to be legalized extortion, is what many legal operations refer to as "just business" or doing "business as usual".

[MikeG]

Logically, you are doing the copyright holder a favor by drawing attention to the book(s), which could lead to revenue for them. But, the world isn't always logical.

Unlike Gerald Ford's autobiography, books on shooting and reloading generally have a lot more useful information than you can get in one post .....

[unclenick]

Yep. That's one of the 10 myth points. Only the copyright holder gets to decide if it constitutes free advertising or not, so that takes prior permission if you want to avoid a law suit. Bunch of bother for something people won't care about most of the time, but it just takes one hungry lawyer…