Re: [Air-l] Copyright issues on material transmitted to AIR-L
In a message dated 5/23/01 9:17:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jhuns@vt.edu writes:
However, one can distribute within fair use guidelines, which is distributing the first paragraph a link to the rest.
Lord knows I've been guilty of this sort of thing and have see the issue raised elsewhere. On reflection I agree generally with Jeremy's view. However, the characterization of fair use is not accurate. Determination of fair use varies quite dramatically between contexts, and I've not seen any case law covering the topic vis-a-vis e-mail lists of any sort. (What if the article is just one paragraph?) As a practical matter on a list, I would prefer being informed *about* an article that someone thinks is important--as with other forms of lit reviews. And if a brief, relevant quote from the article helps to make the point, that's great. Cheers, Bob Briggs Westport, MA
for what it's worth . . . I don't think that this listserve is what the law refers to by "educational purpose." I've always interpreted that to mean a class . . . in which students are enrolled. If I put up material that is otherwise copyright protected, for a class, I have to block others' access. If I limit access to "outsiders" (those not signed up), I can do LOTS of things under fair use that I can't otherwise do. But I don't think a listserve (even of academics) chatting deserves the same level of "protection" under fair use. If it did, the fair use principle would be virtually meaningless, for every group of people who gets together to "exchange" ideas about stuff would then be "free" to claim that their use is educational. . . . I don't like to compromise fair use....cause I really really really want it for my courses . . . Edward Lee Lamoureux, Ph. D. Associate Professor, Speech Communication and Multimedia Editor, Journal of Communication and Religion Bradley University Peoria IL 61625 ell@bradley.edu http://hilltop.bradley.edu/~ell Fax: 309-677-3446
Ed Lamoureux wrote:
for what it's worth . . .
I don't think that this listserve is what the law refers to by "educational purpose." I've always interpreted that to mean a class . . .
I'm pretty sure the full text of the law states that doing research is an activity with an "educational purpose" they meant to exempt via "fair use," and this list's discussion is definitely an aid or adjunct to research if not an integral part of doing research.
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Christian Nelson wrote:
Ed Lamoureux wrote:
for what it's worth . . .
I don't think that this listserve is what the law refers to by "educational purpose." I've always interpreted that to mean a class . . .
I'm pretty sure the full text of the law states that doing research is an activity with an "educational purpose" they meant to exempt via "fair use," and this list's discussion is definitely an aid or adjunct to research if not an integral part of doing research.
Ed: sorry...but I also disagree pretty strongly with this. This list isn't doing research. It's chatting. It may be learning about research issues...but list members are neither signed up for credit for a class, nor are they engaged in active research as part and parcel to their participation here. I don't buy it. Further, even if one of us is doing research, we aren't all on/in the same project...so forwarding us copyright protected stuff goes outside the intent (in my view). Of course....I'm no lawyer . . . and this is a brave new frontier.
Isn't it interesting that a couple of the articles that this discussion refers to are about "viral marketing"? The combination makes me wonder about the marketing strategies that made the sources go online in the first place, but even more about what will benefit them most in the long run. Will more people learn about the existence of the source sites and start visiting them if people spread the stuff in the fashion that has been done here? Or will it just mean people get lazy and expect the stuff come flying their way forever? cheers Eva
I believe the Washington Post/NY TIMES, etc., to be the legal copyright holders of the material their reporters/writers produce. As such, they have a right (legally, ethically, and morally) to distribute the material in their environment(s) of choice and to profit from that distribution. On the web, that means in the presence of display/banner ads, for which they are paid. when readers refer to the url and link to the page . . . the copyright holders' rights and authorial positions are protected. When readers are shown plain text versions (copied and pasted), the display is not in the commercial context intended by the producer. Distribution in this fashion is akin to shoplifting. I don't believe that one can protect oneself with the "academic" veil on this one. We're not in class, we're not doing research on the list and its behavior (and even if we were, the full text of the copyright protected mateirals would not need to be part of the project), we're no different from college dormies who think it's cool to use napster as a way to not have to pay for the right to listen to music on their computers. except, of course, that we should know better. Edward Lee Lamoureux, Ph. D. Associate Professor, Speech Communication and Multimedia Editor, Journal of Communication and Religion Bradley University Peoria IL 61625 ell@bradley.edu http://hilltop.bradley.edu/~ell Fax: 309-677-3446
Ed Lamoureux wrote:
I don't believe that one can protect oneself with the "academic" veil on this one. We're not in class, we're not doing research on the list and its behavior (and even if we were, the full text of the copyright protected mateirals would not need to be part of the project)
research is more than data collection and number crunching.
, we're no different from college dormies who think it's cool to use napster as a way to not have to pay for the right to listen to music on their computers.
now that cuts to the quick ;-) and, of course, I disagree entirely but I guess that's well established
participants (4)
-
Christian Nelson -
Ed Lamoureux -
Eva Ekeblad -
Zunt＠aol.com