*** Copyright - Brinker ***
I will attempt to answer some points re this issue all in one post so as not to waste space.
Paul: Awesome post! Thank you for reconsidering. You could have easily responded in flame. What you did shows real character. I hope I will respond the same way when faced with a similar situation. I know now what I thought befere. Your intentions were good. You must think that no good deed goes unpunished. FWIW, I think that Bob should consider placing some brief license message in his publication as much for legal reasons as for giving us some guidelines on what he expects from us. Then again, that "brief" message might take up the entire newsletter if written by some lawyers I know.
William: I feel your pain on Nimmer. In rethinking my post which is certainly not a legal brief on the subject, I chose some poor wording re my view on how and when Brinker's information should be discussed. I suggested that Bob's material information could be "published (discussed)" once he mentioned the identical material either on
television or radio (for that matter, Barrons -- I'll bet Barrons calls Brinker for permission to publish excerpts) when he puts it in the "public domain." I would drop the word "published" and leave the word "discussed" as the word "published" suggests that one can then take the entire newsletter and do with it as one pleases at
that point which is not the case. I would drop the term "public domain" totally as that is a legal term which suggests that the copyright has expired on the newsletter which it has not. Finally, I would say that as time passes, one can make a *better* claim to "fair
use" as the commmercial utility of the newsletter diminishes with time, i.e. market conditions change and so do stock fundamentals. Newsletters as commercial publications inherently have a short shelf life.
I2: I do no feel comfortable discussing liability in the context of Paul. You didn't have the chance to read his last post before you posted your question. As you know, he is a real person with good intentions IMO and not a fictional character on a law school
exam. With that said, when you respond to someone on SI, you see right above your boxed space a "terms of use" link. You will see the deal. A real hot topic in internet law these days concerns the liability of sites like SI. In fact, the law is changing so rapidly on the issue anything I say might be dated and I'll bet their are disagreements amoung jurisdictions. Suffice it to say, boards such as SI attempt to write disclaimers but their very act of performing editiorial fuctions causes them problems because it suggests they have assumed then the duty to perform those functions throughout and if SI misses something it can be argued that they breached their duty and in comes Mr. Lawyer. Posters, of course, could be held directly liable for any of their actions but Mr. Lawyer only cares about deep pockets and the on-line services will thus be the targets.
Tom: If I were so smart, I wouldn't be here on SI in search of help. One smart thing for a lawyer to do IMO is not to wear his badge in public as it gives rise to all sorts of preconceptions in the minds of people and I can't blame them. I saw a tobacco lawyer on television today and this guy made me ill. I like law less and less each day but
maybe that has something to do with being long and totally invested in the greatest bull market in history -- as Brinker would say.
Moving on to UTEK...
|
