Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Legal proceedings via SI -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cheeky Kid who wrote (155)	12/15/1998 7:37:00 PM
From: HairBall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 242

Cheeky: You make a valid point as well, of course it does not make either right. Regards, LG

To: Cheeky Kid who wrote (155)	12/15/1998 8:18:00 PM
From: jbIII	Respond to of 242

I think that's a very loose interpretation of "Copyright". There has to be intent to distribute for profit or use the information in a way that is not beneficial to the originator. Every sports broadcast has the obligatory copyright disclaimer. That doesn't mean I can't tape it and then invite some friends over to watch it. It means I can't charge them a fee or duplicate the tapes for sale in some other market. Where would Xerox be if you took the literal translation for every piece of information copied on an office machine ? The argument against posting Business Wire releases here on SI, is the location of the original probably has some advertising that has paid for the posting. If people read it here then they don't bother going to the link and seeing the ads that paid for it. jb3 ps. Don't think I need a chewed up Dell ;O) What else you got?

To: Cheeky Kid who wrote (155)	12/16/1998 11:30:00 AM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 242

And it isn't right. But there is a fair use doctrine. And it is somewhat different to make one copy to share with a co-worker whom you could have (legally) loaned the magazine or newspaper to; it is entirely another to give copies to thousands of people who wouldn't otherwise be able to read it unless they or somebody they knew bought the original. After all, some people depend on others buying their work for a living. How long could the Wall Street Journal stay in business if only one person in the US bought a copy and they posted the whole thing on the web for everybody else in the country to read? Extreme, but once you start that way, where does it stop?