*** Brinker Discussion. Move on if you choose...***
You know, I think it is quite interesting to observe the workings of the internet to the extent it os considered an unregulated exchange of ideas. Since there are relatively few rules on a thread, some people attempt to impose rules in an effort to control the discussion.
One of my favorite rules is the "agree to disagree" rule in conjunction with the "let's move on" mantra.These rules are often used by people who wish to continue the discussion on their own terms by first arguing their points and then calling up the rule.
With that said, let's begin.I must agree to disagree with your "fair use" argument and I could spend all day writing to you on how your argument fails. But I will just say that by a logical extension of your argument re UTEK, anything that Brinker says in his newsletter is not covered by copyright because he has at one time or another discussed this material in the public domain, i.e. on radio or on television. I don't think so. Section 107 of the Copyright Law which covers "fair use" states that "substantiality" of the use must be considered in relation to the whole work in addition to its character as a commercail publication.. Your words were substantial as they relate to UTEK and the value of the whole newsletter. Moreover, Section 107 states that one should consider how the quote diminishes the value of the copyrighted work. Well, in my opinion it does very much diminish the value of the work. By a simple extension of your argument with respect to using just a few words ("Brinker says sell") and not 1/2 page, then you are free to publish Brinker's sell signal. No way. Finally, (this is directed at Sergio and I2) when one reads something in the library they have license to do just that. Sure they can talk among their friends about it and they have limited copying rights but they are not entitled to publish that information on the internet or anywhere else. This thread is not an informal meeting of the Elks -- it is a publishing medium whether anyone likes it or not.
Here is my take and my opinion only and Brinker may well disagree. Short of getting permission from Brinker, one may feel free to publish (discuss) material contents of his newsletter on the internet once he explicitly puts the identical information in the public domain either on the radio or the televison. Otherwise, the information remains his and all subscribers have is a license to use it privately.
So let's move on to something more real like the notion of "respect." Let's forget the law. Obviously you must have some respect for Brinker, otherwise you would not be reading and perhaps subscribing to his newsletter. Yet in the time it took for you to post your self defense, you could have e-mailed the webmistress and had your post removed. Moreover, your "fair use" post leads me to believe that if you had to do it over again, you would. Well, if you really respect Brinker, e-mail him at brinkerbob@aol.com and ask him if what you did was allright by him. As a matter of fact, before you make your next Brinker newsletter post here, show Brinker some respect and e-mail him first to get his permission. Finally, your action in conjunction with your self serving defense shows nothing but total disrespect to your fellow subscribers who pay a license fee to use that information. It also shows disrespect to your own interests.How would you feel if you saw the Brinker sell signal (now how many words would that take to post) on the internet before it showed up in your mailbox? Would that be "fair use" to you? Not.
So let's move on and agree to disagree <g>. Now where is it we are going? A most sincere good luck to you. |
