As Carol says - Yes please - We would like Posters to follow the 80/20 Policy as a Guideline...

I am glad it's not 20/80 . That would be really frustrating.

Love from me
mudra

I usually say the last 20% in My own words anyways with the Link attached. This way the Post still flows yet the Link is there to Vet what I'm saying if the reader needs further Information.

From now on - Please do not Link to or Post any Information other than a Link back to the Site for Helium.com if necessary.

They just sent Us an abuse for doing so.

Status - Abuse Thread Deleted and Dealt with...

Sheesh. How long before it'll be illegal to read a book out loud...

Yeah - My thoughts too but WHADAYAGONNADOO ?

Mercuriel wrote:Yeah - My thoughts too but WHADAYAGONNADOO ?

Stop buying books written by fools who don't want their contents shared.

Yeah - You'd think It would be about the Message right - Not the Messenger but then that IN ITSELF - Is telling about where the Authoring Mindset is likey @ in Worldview...

Owell - We'll play and do it better in the process...

Carol wrote:Yes. Sometimes I fudge and post more then 80% (small article). Not good. But I always try to post a link back to the source.

Well generally speaking 20% is the amount allowed for 'fair use' and even at ATS, as you mentioned they are in legal battles, and they are VERY STRICT on limiting clips

80% is way out of line and trust me it WILL land you in hot water, especially when SOPA and ACTA like legislation gets approved

You better add Associated Press to your list as well. AP and Reuters PAY reporters and then sell those short news briefs... so posting those in full or 80%, yeah they will come and get you

Associated Press expects you to pay to license 5-word quotations (and reserves the right to terminate your license)
http: //boingboing.net/2008/06/17/associated-press-exp.html

There are many sources that are copyright free Wikipedia, NASA, press releases etc... but copying more than a paragraph of a News Service... well hope you have good lawyers Your gonna need em

Fair Use is also not so easy to defend... I would suggest you read up on it. Reprinting an article or 80% of an article without quotes is not a good idea...

The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken

The less you take, the more likely that your copying will be excused as a fair use. However, even if you take a small portion of a work, your copying will not be a fair use if the portion taken is the “heart” of the work. In other words, you are more likely to run into problems if you take the most memorable aspect of a work. For example, it would probably not be a fair use to copy the opening guitar riff and the words “I can’t get no satisfaction” from the song “Satisfaction.”

http: //fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html#3

Some people mistakenly believe it’s permissible to use a work (or portion of it) if an acknowledgment is provided. For example, they believe it’s okay to use a photograph in a magazine as long as the name of the photographer is included. This is not true. Acknowledgment of the source material (such as citing the photographer) may be a consideration in a fair use determination, but it will not protect against a claim of infringement. In some cases, such as advertisements, acknowledgments can backfire and create additional legal claims, such as a violation of the right of publicity. When in doubt as to the right to use or acknowledge a source, the most prudent course may be to seek the permission of the copyright owner.

http: //fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html#3

Welcome standoffish and thanks for the tip.

Carol wrote:Yes. Sometimes I fudge and post more then 80% (small article). Not good. But I always try to post a link back to the source.

Well that is also an admission to wrong doing on your part and can be used against you in a court of law. You will not win a fair use case if you admit to knowingly 'fudge' it

Also I noticed you have a 7 day policy on posting links... How can a new member then source a quote?

There is another issue... and that is posting of hotlinks to other websites. Big ones like ATS and others can handle the bandwidth, but a small site can get hurt by it. You are LITERALLY stealing by doing that because those people that do not have unlimited bandwidth have to PAY cold hard cash for it. So every time someone on your forum views an image you hot linked, they rob the bandwidth of that site and can cause them to go over their limit and have to pay, without getting the benefit of the viewer visiting their site..

This is really bad etiquette and just plane wrong. A simple request for permission is normally honored

Now when someone who has worked many months on making a presentation, come to a site that is copying 80% or more of that work and creating a new work out of it, that is no longer 'fair use' that is outright plagiarism. When that knowledge is being used to write a book on top of that... well its time to chat with the lawyers

Sharing information is all well and good... but simply copying page after page of others work, all the images and then adding insult by hot linking to the original site? That is neither 'research' nor 'fair use' That is just plain criminal.

You might want to think about that

ClearWater wrote:Sheesh. How long before it'll be illegal to read a book out loud...

If you buy a CD or a video you own the license to use it. If you play that CD at a restaurant bar or event where you make MONEY, you are performing it and need to pay royalties Technically if you perform it for a group of friends you are breaking the law, but no one is going to bust you for it. If you copy them and give them away free you are still distributing....

Utah task force just raided people doing that I hear one kid got fined $600,000 for that

I love how people seem to confuse free speech with copyright True the laws need fixing, but on the other hand if no one got paid for their work, they wouldn't do it

It seems to me the whole thing can be solved with courtesy and simply asking permission In all the years I have been turned down only 3 times and one said I could use 25% of the article

standauffish wrote:

Carol wrote:Yes. Sometimes I fudge and post more then 80% (small article). Not good. But I always try to post a link back to the source.

Well that is also an admission to wrong doing on your part and can be used against you in a court of law. You will not win a fair use case if you admit to knowingly 'fudge' it

Also I noticed you have a 7 day policy on posting links... How can a new member then source a quote?

There is another issue... and that is posting of hotlinks to other websites. Big ones like ATS and others can handle the bandwidth, but a small site can get hurt by it. You are LITERALLY stealing by doing that because those people that do not have unlimited bandwidth have to PAY cold hard cash for it. So every time someone on your forum views an image you hot linked, they rob the bandwidth of that site and can cause them to go over their limit and have to pay, without getting the benefit of the viewer visiting their site..

This is really bad etiquette and just plane wrong. A simple request for permission is normally honored

Now when someone who has worked many months on making a presentation, come to a site that is copying 80% or more of that work and creating a new work out of it, that is no longer 'fair use' that is outright plagiarism. When that knowledge is being used to write a book on top of that... well its time to chat with the lawyers

Sharing information is all well and good... but simply copying page after page of others work, all the images and then adding insult by hot linking to the original site? That is neither 'research' nor 'fair use' That is just plain criminal.

You might want to think about that

Altough all you say is definitelly according to the existing laws (and I'm by all means not an expert), I see few illogical issues here.

The first one, about posting hotlinks to other websites: well, why the owner of such sites with limited bandwith just don't 'protect' their images by implementing different codes to disable this? Just as easy as one can disable the embedding of videos and the user is 'forced' to visit the website first if he/she wants to see the image/video?

How about Google? All these images can be easily found by google and I don't even need a forum or any other hotlink to find these images. Would these owners sue Google? I wouldn't say so

So, if I would running my own website with limited bandwhite, I could definitely 'protect' my images or videos...but by doing this, I would definitely lose any potential clients/visitors to my website...for obvious reasons.

The second one, about copying more then 5%...or 10%...or 20% of any work (copyrighted or not): as long as the appropriate link to the actual website is provided, no one will risk to sue anyone for that. Just for the obvious reasons that in that case, no one ever will post something like that on internet any more and no one will ever know that there might be a website around with content appropriate to their own needs.

What we actualy do here (and on countles other forums worldwide, be it conspiracy or gardening one) is actualy advertising these websites. Basicly, if I do this...I should be asking not only for permition to post their content here, but also for money too .

If I am to post even 80% of any content from let's say "the Bild Zeitung" in Germany and all of you will want to read the other 20%...you will definitelly click on the provided link to the original article. The Bild zeitung become their clicks, with this they can ask for more money from their advertisers and we all win ;9, don't you think so? They will be more then happy to have me done this then to allow me to say sorry, I just read something very interesing, but I will not provide any link just because they will sue me for doing this???

Believe me...if this comes true and the peopple arond the world see and hear about any possible legal actions taken in such issues...you will have many, countles many websites closed down just because no one will be visiting them. Without visiting...no advertisers...without advertisers...no money to run the website...How about that?

And btw...the same apply here...One can easily 'protect' their own content by asking for daily, weekly, monthly or early fees. So no one ever will 'steal' their content, be it 1% or 80%. But then again...the outcome is known...

As I mentioned...what you said before, it's all according to the existing laws. No doubt about that. If one wish...they can easily close down this small forum or many other too...But the far-reaching consequences will be undoubtly harder then doing this today.

With much respect
Mall...

malletzky wrote:
As I mentioned...what you said before, it's all according to the existing laws. No doubt about that. If one wish...they can easily close down this small forum or many other too...But the far-reaching consequences will be undoubtly harder then doing this today.

Well it all depends on how much money the forum owners have... and how good their lawyers are.

Newspaper Chain’s New Business Plan: Copyright Suits

Steve Gibson has a plan to save the media world’s financial crisis — and it’s not the iPad.

Borrowing a page from patent trolls, the CEO of fledgling Las Vegas-based Righthaven has begun buying out the copyrights to newspaper content for the sole purpose of suing blogs and websites that re-post those articles without permission. And he says he’s making money.

“We believe it’s the best solution out there,” Gibson says. “Media companies’ assets are very much their copyrights. These companies need to understand and appreciate that those assets have value more than merely the present advertising revenues.”

Bill Irvine of Phoenix says he is fighting infringement allegations targeting AboveTopSecret.com, the site he controls under The Above Network. The site is accused of infringing a Review-Journal article on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The site is a user-generated discussion on “conspiracies, UFO’s, paranormal, secret societies, political scandals, new world order, terrorism, and dozens of related topics” and gets about 5 million hits monthly, Irvine says.

Righthaven, he says, should have sent him a takedown notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, because the article was posted by a user, not the site itself.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/copyright-trolling-for-dollars/


So a user, that you have no control over, posts an article from a news source that has such lawyers hired, will sue the owner of the forum/blog/website and will go for an out of court settlement because they know the owner can't afford to fight it, unlike a big one like ATS who have a staff of lawyers

So... when they interviewed some journalists to ask them how much is OK, they said generally 3 paragraphs for a decent size article, or less if it's very small.

Ya want to stay with 80%? Do you also like playing Russian Roulette?

Carol wrote:Welcome standoffish and thanks for the tip.

BTW its standauffish not standoffish

Big difference,