Budget trouble ahead

cynicist · Apr 16, 2010

imported post

I believe if you provide a link to a site with the original story, it qualifies as fair use.

As for the actual topic;

STOP PROSECUTING VICTIMLESS CRIMES

kparker · Apr 16, 2010

imported post

cynicist, you believe wrong. About the only situations where fair use could encompass an entire work would be (a) a parody, or (b) a fisking of an entire piece (though even there you might be pushing the concept.)

gogodawgs · Apr 16, 2010

imported post

gogodawgs wrote:

In this case, linking of online articles is still an undecided issue in the courts.

http://www.templetons.com/brad/linkright.html

However, notice on the Times page the explicitly have a "share" and and "email" link on the page.

In general you should post the link and perhaps the first paragraph. Allthough is no great amount of case law on this yet, this is what is generally accepted at this time. IANAL

Wow....please read...

Linking and posting a paragraph is where it seems to be 'fair use'...

However this has not been decided definatively in the courts.

BigDave · Apr 16, 2010

imported post

gogodawgs wrote:

gogodawgs wrote:

In this case, linking of online articles is still an undecided issue in the courts.

http://www.templetons.com/brad/linkright.html

However, notice on the Times page the explicitly have a "share" and and "email" link on the page.

In general you should post the link and perhaps the first paragraph. Allthough is no great amount of case law on this yet, this is what is generally accepted at this time. IANAL

Click to expand...

Wow....please read...

Linking and posting a paragraph is where it seems to be 'fair use'...

However this has not been decided definatively in the courts.

A fair way to decide this is to asked the owners of the forum there are those that are placing them into a position of possibly being the test case, why would we do that?

gogodawgs · Apr 16, 2010

imported post

BigDave wrote:

gogodawgs wrote:

gogodawgs wrote:

In this case, linking of online articles is still an undecided issue in the courts.

http://www.templetons.com/brad/linkright.html

However, notice on the Times page the explicitly have a "share" and and "email" link on the page.

In general you should post the link and perhaps the first paragraph. Allthough is no great amount of case law on this yet, this is what is generally accepted at this time. IANAL

Click to expand...

Wow....please read...

Linking and posting a paragraph is where it seems to be 'fair use'...

However this has not been decided definatively in the courts.

Click to expand...

A fair way to decide this is to asked the owners of the forum there are those that are placing them into a position of possibly being the test case, why would we do that?

I agree. I do have a curiousity as the Seattle Times website does have an option to send the article as an email.....AND.... it has a sharing link to dozens and dozens of different types of sites and forums. (over 250) Seems to me (a reasonalbe person) that they encourage the link to their site.

BigDave · Apr 16, 2010

imported post

gogodawgs wrote:

I agree. I do have a curiousity as the Seattle Times website does have an option to send the article as an email.....AND.... it has a sharing link to dozens and dozens of different types of sites and forums. (over 250) Seems to me (a reasonalbe person) that they encourage the link to their site.

Well as to the email this is what you receive;

Budget trouble ahead, criminal-justice officials warn King County Council King County's ability to respond next year to emergency police calls, investigate crimes, and prosecute and supervise criminals is in jeopardy because of a budget shortfall, Sheriff Sue Rahr and other criminal-justice officials told a County Council budget committee Wednesday.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011609373_kingbudget15m.html

I agree it is pretty clear they want a link to their site along with a teaser of sorts as in their email to entice traffic in which translate to advertising money for them.

gogodawgs · Apr 16, 2010

imported post

BigDave wrote:

gogodawgs wrote:

I agree. I do have a curiousity as the Seattle Times website does have an option to send the article as an email.....AND.... it has a sharing link to dozens and dozens of different types of sites and forums. (over 250) Seems to me (a reasonalbe person) that they encourage the link to their site.

Click to expand...

Well as to the email this is what you receive;

Budget trouble ahead, criminal-justice officials warn King County Council

King County's ability to respond next year to emergency police calls, investigate crimes, and prosecute and supervise criminals is in jeopardy because of a budget shortfall, Sheriff Sue Rahr and other criminal-justice officials told a County Council budget committee Wednesday.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011609373_kingbudget15m.html

I agree it is pretty clear they want a link to their site along with a teaser of sorts as in their email to entice traffic in which translate to advertising money for them.

Exactly! Which is to the case law so far... an introduction and the link!

BigDave · Apr 16, 2010

imported post

swatspyder · Apr 16, 2010

imported post

Fair Use
The "fair use" of a copyrighted work, including use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. Copyright owners are, by law, deemed to consent to fair use of their works by others. The Copyright Act does not define fair use. Instead, whether a use is fair use is determined by balancing these factors:

The purpose and character of the use.
The nature of the copyrighted work.
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.
The effect of the use on the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241476.html

No one here is using the article for profit. There is no value placed on the (news article).

kparker · Apr 16, 2010

imported post

swatsypder, did you even read the section you cited here? It describes 4 aspects which are relevant, one of which reads "The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole", which is exactly the point I've been trying to focus on.

Furthermore, the 4th point doesn't say a single word about profit, or attempt to profit, by the infringer, but only whether the use has some effect on value or marketability of the work.

swatspyder · Apr 17, 2010

imported post

kparker wrote:

swatsypder, did you even read the section you cited here? It describes 4 aspects which are relevant, one of which reads "The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole", which is exactly the point I've been trying to focus on.

Furthermore, the 4th point doesn't say a single word about profit, or attempt to profit, by the infringer, but only whether the use has some effect on value or marketability of the work.

All four are weighed equally.

kparker · Apr 17, 2010

imported post

All four are weighed equally.

I defy you to find those words in the section you quoted.

1245A Defender · Apr 17, 2010

imported post

you guys ruin the forum!!
this is a discusion about budget cuts, and law enforcement!!
then you guys start arguing about copy rights!

GO SIT IN THE CORNER!!!!!

sudden valley gunner · Apr 18, 2010

imported post

kparker wrote:

All four are weighed equally.

Click to expand...

I defy you to find those words in the section you quoted.

Interested in this argument, because I don't want to break the law if I happen to copy and paste something here,but you gotta do better than that.

Because I would defy you to show were they are not weighed equally? There is nothing to show the order of importance. Would it matter that he didn't copy the whole newspaper just one small article from it? Do we have any copy right lawyers here? Does this mean if I see a public display of art or live music I can only look at or see a small portion of that copyrighted material?

Maybe I'll just go sit in the corner.

Beretta92FSLady · Apr 18, 2010

imported post

1245A Defender wrote:

you guys ruin the forum!!
this is a discusion about budget cuts, and law enforcement!!
then you guys start arguing about copy rights!

GO SIT IN THE CORNER!!!!!

Thank you. Back on topic:

As crappy as it may be that there are budget cuts. And as crappy as it might be that when I pick up the phone to dial 911 because someone is breaking into my home. And as crappy as it may be that the police take longer to get to my house to rescue me....wait a minute I carry, I don't have to wait for the police to be protected, I will just protect my self and my family.

I think the budget cuts are wonderful. Yes, there will be more criminals on the streets but I am sure most of them would be released anyhow and wonderring around committing more crimes. Hopefully this will encourage more people to take an active role in defense of self and family or learn the hard way of relying on LEO's to save your butt the second SHTF.

1245A Defender · Apr 18, 2010

imported post

more and more agencies are admitting that the ability of law enforcement to protect the public safety has and will be compromised by the new economic reality..
judges, sheriffs, prosacutors are all going on record admonishing citizens to arm up, and be prepared to defend them selves...
this advice is too little and too late for many,,, and hard to accept for the antis and bradys..
but i think that in an ideal world, very much of the terrible level of violent crime and general thuggery would be negated if more law abiding citizens were shooting back at the a$$ holes that muck up our lands!!!

Beretta92FSLady · Apr 18, 2010

imported post

I have met anti-gunners who magically become pro-gun after an attack. It is unfortunate but some people are changed by bad experiences and do not budge until then.

I stated in my sociology class this last Friday (because I am openly pro-2nd Amendment)...I raised my hand and stated that if more people were armed and excercised their right to self-defense it would send a message to criminals.

This man raises his hand and states, "violence only encourages more violence, even if you are defending yourself."

After class was over I walked over to him and said that if he wants to just stand there while being attacked then go for it but I am sticking with fighting to defend myself.

gogodawgs · Apr 18, 2010

imported post

Sylvia Plath wrote:

I have met anti-gunners who magically become pro-gun after an attack. It is unfortunate but some people are changed by bad experiences and do not budge until then.

I stated in my sociology class this last Friday (because I am openly pro-2nd Amendment)...I raised my hand and stated that if more people were armed and excercised their right to self-defense it would send a message to criminals.

This man raises his hand and states, "violence only encourages more violence, even if you are defending yourself."

After class was over I walked over to him and said that if he wants to just stand there while being attacked then go for it but I am sticking with fighting to defend myself.

Follow up question sir, "if I am being raped and the rapist has stated he is going to kill me when he is done with me, I should NOT grab my firearm and defend myself, I should give up my dignity and my life?"............. and turn and walk away, because no answer he could give would be worthy of the breath of one human being.

(These people are sad)

Kildars · Apr 18, 2010

imported post

You think that the seattle times cares if he posts the full article, especially when he includes a link? This is splitting hairs. People do that on this forum and other forums all the time.

Anyways it always amazes me how the government shocks people into tax increases. When I clicked on the link I knew the article would go to the government asking for tax increases. They always cut fire, police and teachers first.

Beretta92FSLady · Apr 18, 2010

imported post

Kildars wrote:

They always cut fire, police and teachers first.

The question is...could we do with less police and more teachers? YES. I am fine with there being less police around. Not because I hate LEO's but rather they are inherently inefficient in arriving to stop an attack. It isn't their fault, just the way it works...they are not mind readers.

I say cut poilce force, increase teachers (smaller classes, productive classes) and increase CC and OC. WHEW...I just solved our budget issues. Well and a law that requires citizens who protect life and property to permanently stop the criminal from ever doing it again or receive a 101 dollar fine :celebrate

Budget trouble ahead

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Opt-Out Members

Campaign Veteran

Opt-Out Members

Campaign Veteran

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member