Discussion: View Thread

On 27 May 98 at 7:39, Coach Margie wrote:

> After forwarding what I thought was a helpful, innocent posting and article
> that I received on e-mail, I got the following message:
>
> >I would certainly appreciate it if people would refrain from posting
> >copyright material in this forum unless they have obtained permission
> >from the author or copyright owner.

If you and anyone else feels that the above request was offensive,
there is no grounds for discussion.


> Therefore, I apologize if I have done something inappropriate. I did not
> realize the article on spirituality in USA Today by Stephanie Armour was
> copyright material (is it????). This has taught me two important lessons:
> (1) Be more cautious about what I send or forward on e-mail to folks I do
> not know--perhaps find out ahead of time if a listserv has "rules," and (2)
> Become a lurker as I do not choose to receive and spend my energy on
> messages with a negative tone when I am giving out what I thought was useful
> information.

Coach, I don't think you are understanding this, which is why I don't
usually spend a lot of time explaining copyright to people who either
already know about it or don't want to hear about it. This has
NOTHING to do with list rules. This has nothing to do with
NEGATIVITY. It has to do with the LAW.

If you want to limit your choices to the ones you outlined feel
free...if you want to play out the victim role, that's fine. But
here's something to consider. If you break the copyright laws, you
may end up dealing with the legal beagles at USA Today or other
publishers. New laws are making copyright infringement a CRIMINAL
offense (rather than just a civil one).

Since the company you are advertizing PUBLISHES, (I checked the site
before I responded to the list), I would expect that you would both
understand and abide by the laws of intellectual property. If you
don't, educate yourself. I'm not going to argue copyright on this
list.



>
>
Robert Bacal, Inst.For Cooperative Communication, rbacal@escape.ca
NOW SHIPPING Conflict Prevention In The Workplace - Using Cooperative Communication
Samples and info at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal/prevent.htm
Visit our Resource Centre for articles on mgmt.,training,communication, and defusing hostility
at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal (204) 888-9290

After forwarding what I thought was a helpful, innocent posting and article
that I received on e-mail, I got the following message:

>I would certainly appreciate it if people would refrain from posting
>copyright material in this forum unless they have obtained permission
>from the author or copyright owner.
>
>Robert Bacal, Inst.For Cooperative Communication, rbacal@escape.ca
>NOW SHIPPING Conflict Prevention In The Workplace - Using Cooperative
Communication
>Samples and info at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal/prevent.htm
>Visit our Resource Centre for articles on mgmt.,training,communication, and
defusing hostility
>at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal (204) 888-9290
>
Therefore, I apologize if I have done something inappropriate. I did not
realize the article on spirituality in USA Today by Stephanie Armour was
copyright material (is it????). This has taught me two important lessons:
(1) Be more cautious about what I send or forward on e-mail to folks I do
not know--perhaps find out ahead of time if a listserv has "rules," and (2)
Become a lurker as I do not choose to receive and spend my energy on
messages with a negative tone when I am giving out what I thought was useful
information.

cookie@STINGER.NET (Coach Margie) wrote, in response to Robert Bacal:

>Therefore, I apologize if I have done something inappropriate. I did not
>realize the article on spirituality in USA Today by Stephanie Armour was
>copyright material (is it????). This has taught me two important lessons:
>(1) Be more cautious about what I send or forward on e-mail to folks I do
>not know--perhaps find out ahead of time if a listserv has "rules," and (2)
>Become a lurker as I do not choose to receive and spend my energy on
>messages with a negative tone when I am giving out what I thought was useful
>information.

Once again, we've beaten a person into silent submission. I find it
interesting that those who profess to teach conflict management and
communication, create much of the conflict and tend to stifle communication on
the various listservs. A better approach may be to help others understand, in
a coaching and mentoring style, why they should not post copyrighted materials
and how copyright is defined. After all, isn't that the art and essence of
teaching? Once again, I fear our "learned few" have shut the door on the many
seeking knowledge. Shame on us!

Charles Hannabarger
Process Solutions International

Actually, the issue of copyright and the internet is a grey area. While
there are clear restrictions dealing with photocopying, the laws are not
clear about sending out e-mails (If someone knows of recent changes in
the law that address the matter please provide a citation).

If you really are concerned about whether the article is copyrighted you
can always provide a link to the source document, or give the address
where the article is located.

> ----------
> From: Coach Margie[SMTP:cookie@STINGER.NET]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 9:39 AM
> To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> Subject: [MG-ED-DV] Apology
>
> After forwarding what I thought was a helpful, innocent posting and
> article
> that I received on e-mail, I got the following message:
>
> >I would certainly appreciate it if people would refrain from posting
> >copyright material in this forum unless they have obtained permission
> >from the author or copyright owner.
> >
> >Robert Bacal, Inst.For Cooperative Communication, rbacal@escape.ca
> >NOW SHIPPING Conflict Prevention In The Workplace - Using Cooperative
> Communication
> >Samples and info at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal/prevent.htm
> >Visit our Resource Centre for articles on
> mgmt.,training,communication, and
> defusing hostility
> >at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal (204) 888-9290
> >
> Therefore, I apologize if I have done something inappropriate. I did
> not
> realize the article on spirituality in USA Today by Stephanie Armour
> was
> copyright material (is it????). This has taught me two important
> lessons:
> (1) Be more cautious about what I send or forward on e-mail to folks I
> do
> not know--perhaps find out ahead of time if a listserv has "rules,"
> and (2)
> Become a lurker as I do not choose to receive and spend my energy on
> messages with a negative tone when I am giving out what I thought was
> useful
> information.
>

On 27 May 98 at 23:53, Leon Levitt wrote:

> Margie, The only thing you have to apologize for is quoting from a rag like
> USA TODAY. If the webmaster had thought you were violating copyright, he would
> have killed your message.

I am going to continue to respond on this issue when misinformation
is posted. First, Leon, there is no "webmaster" that approves or
kills messages on this list. So there's one.

It's just silly to fault someone for quoting a
> newspaper; the whole copyright thing has gone far beyond its purpose, to
> prevent the sale for profit of someone else's work. I would remind the
> complainer that this is an educational, not a commerical venue.

The copyright laws apply whether the venue is commercial or not. The
exception is for educational institutions or as below.

This is from US Code title 17...if you wish to access more
information about this you can do so at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive
rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the 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; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount
and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon
the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The
fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of
fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the
above factors.

Without presuming to offer legal advice,
> I consider what you did as protected; and I say, well done, even though I
> deplore your choice of source and was not impressed by the article.
> So, no need to be contrite.

It is NOT protected in the form it was posted. In the form it was
posted it is theft of intellectual property, probably unintentional.
In ANY case, it is proper to request permission, or simply redirect
people to the original source, either electronic or paper. It IS
permissable to reproduce a summary, selected quotes, or review the
article. It IS NOT legal to reproduce the article in total, just for
the hell of it, because it's "neat". #3 above is the KEY here.

If you don't agree with the laws, lobby to have them changed.

Robert Bacal, Inst.For Cooperative Communication, rbacal@escape.ca
NOW SHIPPING Conflict Prevention In The Workplace - Using Cooperative Communication
Samples and info at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal/prevent.htm
Visit our Resource Centre for articles on mgmt.,training,communication, and defusing hostility
at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal (204) 888-9290

Margie,

For what its worth, articles in newspaper are not copywright, as far as I
know. Ohterwise a large number of us would be in breach of sharing
newspaper articles. I appreciated it.

NIna

Margie, The only thing you have to apologize for is quoting from a rag like
USA TODAY. If the webmaster had thought you were violating copyright, he would
have killed your message. It's just silly to fault someone for quoting a
newspaper; the whole copyright thing has gone far beyond its purpose, to
prevent the sale for profit of someone else's work. I would remind the
complainer that this is an educational, not a commerical venue. (Note that he
got in a plug for his copyrighted material while he was at it! Heretofore, I
thought his contributions to this list were good; perhaps he's been burned by
someone appropriating his work for profit.) Iinvolved here is the free exchange
of ideas. You thought the ideas in the article were worthy of conveying to
your colleagues, hence copied it (with proper attribution) to the list without
thought of personal monetary profit. Without presuming to offer legal advice,
I consider what you did as protected; and I say, well done, even though I
deplore your choice of source and was not impressed by the article.
So, no need to be contrite.
Leon Levitt

Coach Margie wrote:

> After forwarding what I thought was a helpful, innocent posting and article
> that I received on e-mail, I got the following message:
>
> >I would certainly appreciate it if people would refrain from posting
> >copyright material in this forum unless they have obtained permission
> >from the author or copyright owner.
> >
> >Robert Bacal, Inst.For Cooperative Communication, rbacal@escape.ca
> >NOW SHIPPING Conflict Prevention In The Workplace - Using Cooperative
> Communication
> >Samples and info at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal/prevent.htm
> >Visit our Resource Centre for articles on mgmt.,training,communication, and
> defusing hostility
> >at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal (204) 888-9290
> >
> Therefore, I apologize if I have done something inappropriate. I did not
> realize the article on spirituality in USA Today by Stephanie Armour was
> copyright material (is it????). This has taught me two important lessons:
> (1) Be more cautious about what I send or forward on e-mail to folks I do
> not know--perhaps find out ahead of time if a listserv has "rules," and (2)
> Become a lurker as I do not choose to receive and spend my energy on
> messages with a negative tone when I am giving out what I thought was useful
> information.

On Wed, 27 May 1998 23:27:14 +0000, in Robert Bacal wrote:

>I am going to continue to respond on this issue when misinformation
>is posted....

>The copyright laws apply whether the venue is commercial or not. The
>exception is for educational institutions or as below.
>
>This is from US Code title 17...if you wish to access more
>information about this you can do so at
>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/

In general I have been in agreement with the facts if not the tone of
Robert's posts. He is citing the letter of the law ... however in my
Devil's advocate role, I wonder whether he thinks I should be concerned
about US Codes ... for those unfamiliar with the country codes in e-mail
addresses, the ".nz" domain indicates I am in New Zealand, and am not
subject to the provisions of US legislation.

Of course I am subject instead to New Zealand's Copyright Act (1993) which
since it too has its basis in the Berne convention, provides very similar
protection to copyright owners, but if I had posted the article ... in
whose jurisdiction did the breach occur? An American text posted from New
Zealand (or wherever) to a global list?

In any event, it was a very small breach and I seriously doubt that it
would have been worth the owner's time to pursue it.

regards








--
Brian Harmer
"Our luck is even better than I expected Don Quixote exclaimed
... I'm going to attack those mighty giants and slay them in their tracks" - Cervantes
http://www.vuw.ac.nz/~bharmer/

Sorry to list users for hitting the reply to all button rather than forward.
Anne Christie