Queen, I think that it's a lot more fuzzy.
First off, I would like to say that taking a complete electronic version Bob's of the Newsletter ( PDF or image format ) and posting it on the internet for ANYONE to read/distribute, is wrong.
For the record, in the last 10 years, I've only seen this once, when about 1/2 of the Newsletter was posted on USENET to a Mutual Fund Group. I found this about 2 years after the fact in a general Brinker search. Never once have I seen a this done on any thread I frequent.
There have been posters that have talked about sharing a single copy around the office amongst friends. Whether or not that is kosher or not, it's legal, just as is transferring a book/record/tape to another person is. I don't think that is matters if it is a periodical or not.
It's common knowledge that Bob did not like the idea that people could share a copy via a library and library subscriptions got cancelled. Of note, the Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily, Forbes, and other finance periodicals supplying 'timely opinions' are generally available at libraries. I suppose they are not are concerned/paranoid about the impact of this sharing in the overall scheme of things.
Sharing an electronic copy amongst friends creates an interesting quandary. The functional concept is both similar too sharing a hard copy by transferring, yet it has been copied. I guess the distinction might be whether or not a copy was kept by the originator of the electronic transfer. For the record, I do not know of any electronic sharing scheme being used by any poster or group of posters.
Next comes the concept of excerpts and editorialization. The press use these daily. Bob uses these weekly. If Bob talks about about something out of the WSJ, well that's editorialization. In a recent case, one of the Cable TV Networks took an exact copy of a parody that someone posted on the internet and inserted it 100% intact into a skit with some comic characters at the bottom of the screen making continual comments. The owner of the parody copied the clip from the TV Network onto his web page. He was proud that a network found his parody so good they used it. The network sued and won. Because they had editorialized using the comic characters, the network's use was OK. Since the original owner had just copied the network's clip, he lost. I think most would say 'not fair' that the network could take his work, yet he couldn't use their copy of his work, but that's the law. ( Finest law that money can buy? )
I agree that sitting down and wholesale transcribing of a Newsletter would violate the law. However, as evidenced what the TV Network did, one could create an 100% copy,yet still be legal because it has been editorialized. |
