I understand it's a gray area, but as I've said, I've had a couple of rounds of difficulty with this. I'm open-minded about it, but I really think that reprinting an entire copyrighted article without author's permission isn't the way to go.
First, there is, in fact, something at stake here, which I've described
in earlier posts.
Second, some light reading of fair use doctrine and the impression
that there may be difficulties, are insufficient ground to sacrifice
what's at stake, not just at chiffandfipple but beyond it. I don't know
what the couple of rounds of difficulty amounted to--will you tell
us the issues? Details? So far these incidents may be zany or very local.
Third. copywrite law exists to protect money making publications,
so that people will write and publish, secure in the knowledge that
they will profit from their labor. It's like patent law, which
When an article or a news story is published on Yahoo, say,
for free and for all the world to read, publishing it in its entirety here
cannot do the author any financial harm. So there is no
violation of copywrite law. The copywrite holder has already
made the material available to the public for free.
Obviously publishing the MP3 file of copywrited music
does financial harm to the copywrite holder. They haven't
distributed the music for free.
Dale, why do you think copying an article in its entirety
here violates fair use law? Will you please say what you
think the problem is? Saying that you think doing this 'isn't the way to go' isn't informative. If there have been particular incidents
that concern you, will you please describe them in sufficient
detail that we have enough info to understand
Welcome to take it to PMs if you wish, It's your place,
you da man, and I would be grateful for something
more solid to go on.