Lecture on "copyright" and "copyright violation"

The full title should have been something like:

Lecture to the IGNORAMOUS (Hugh Huntzinger and Lee Bell) on "copyright"


This is a condensed 'Reader's Digest version of what I posted earlier
in scuba-SE on a topic originated in rec.scuba and rec.scuba.locations.



On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 16:52:58 +0800, Bjorn Vang Jensen
<bvjensen@PACIFIC.NET.SG> wrote:

>Lee,
>
>I have in my inbox an e-mail from Hugh Huntzinger, received last night. It
>attempts, in an underhanded but unmistakable way, to entice me to visit
>rec.scuba and accuse Bob of violating my copyrighted work!


The subject of "copyrighted material" and "copyright" violation are
such important topics that I think the public should be EDUCATED
on the essence of the NONSENSE Hugh and Lee are trying to portray.


Background:

Hugh thought he was setting me up for his "copyright violation" by
saying that I mis-paraphrased and mis-reporesented what Bjorn said
in his e-nekton article about the LOSS of image quality by repeatingly
saving images in the editing process in .jpg format.

So, I quoted "verbatim" what Bjorn said, in his "copyrighted article"
in e-nekton.com.


Hugh IMMEDIATELY SPRANG on the clever trap (he thought) he set up
to catch my "violation" (alleged by Hugh), and wrote Bjorn and
Strike private email to try to goad them into action against my
'copyright violation' according to Hugh.


Short answer: Hugh and Lee are DEAD WRONG. 100% WRONG!!


Somethinng for everyone to LAUGH before getting down to serious
business. Hugh, while setting up the trap for alleging me to
have violated copyrighted material, cited a DEFINITION from a
copyrighted Dictionary item in a completely inappropriate context.
If his copyright violation FANTASY were correct, he would have
to accusing himself of the same kind of copyright violation!


Ok ... I'll pause briefing for you to ROFLYAO ... or just LOL.



Slightly longer elaboration on short answer:

I have LEGALLY copied (and distributed) more "copyrighted"
materials from books and scientific articles in my teaching
career than the TOTALAITY of copyrighted material Lee and Hugh
have read in their entier lives.

What can you expect from a low-level Army employee (Hugh) and
low-level US Goverment empolyees (Lee) who spend 24/7 on rec.scuba
to know ANYTHING about copyright laws and how they apply?



Longer elaboration on COPYRIGHT LAW in the USA.
Without being pedantic, it does NOT allow wholesale STEALING of
copyrighted material for profit OR for unrestricted distribution.

Professors are LEGALLY allowed to copy ANY copyrighted material
(Xeroz from Libraries, e.g.) for personal use. Professors are
LEGALLY allowed to copy pages, or a chapter from a copyright book
for DIESTRIBUTION to students in an entire CLASS, without
requiring the students to purchase the copyrighted book, just for
the selected page(s) or a small portion of it, such as a single
chapter.

The notion of personal use (for REFERENCE) as citing items in
dictionaries or me citing paragraphs from Bjorn's copyrighted
article is PERFECTLY LEGAL for ANYONE and EVERYONE to do.

That's the grossly simplified BOTTOM LINE: Hugh Huntzinger and Lee
Bell are completely IGNORANT about copyright laws and their
applications.


Now consider these OBVIOUS wishful thinking that are FALSE:

Lee Bell and Hugh Huntzinger would both WISH it were true --
Put a "@copyright" after each post to keep future readers from
citing any part of the posts for their LIES, FALSE STATEMENTS,
etc., from the archives, becaues they had "copyrighted" those
posts.


Ok ... I'll pause again briefing for you to ROFLYAO ... or just LOL.


>Grow up, Lee!

And try to EDUCATE yourself a bit, excavate your head from the sand
in your play pen, and elavate yourself from "Ignorance is Bliss".


Class dismiss.

-- Bob.

In article <8fb7380b.0403161808.4b055a0e@posting.google.com >,
Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com (Reef Fish) wrote:

> Professors are LEGALLY allowed to copy ANY copyrighted material
> (Xeroz from Libraries, e.g.) for personal use. Professors are
> LEGALLY allowed to copy pages, or a chapter from a copyright book
> for DIESTRIBUTION to students in an entire CLASS, without
> requiring the students to purchase the copyrighted book, just for
> the selected page(s) or a small portion of it, such as a single
> chapter.

Hate to get into an argument with you Reef but I think you are way
oversimplifying here.

In article <8fb7380b.0403161808.4b055a0e@posting.google.com >, Reef Fish
<Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:

#The full title should have been something like:
#
#Lecture to the IGNORAMOUS (Hugh Huntzinger and Lee Bell) on "copyright"
#
#

<snip>

#
#The subject of "copyrighted material" and "copyright" violation are
#such important topics that I think the public should be EDUCATED
#on the essence of the NONSENSE Hugh and Lee are trying to portray.
#

<snip>

#Professors are LEGALLY allowed to copy ANY copyrighted material
#(Xeroz from Libraries, e.g.) for personal use. Professors are
#LEGALLY allowed to copy pages, or a chapter from a copyright book
#for DIESTRIBUTION to students in an entire CLASS, without
#requiring the students to purchase the copyrighted book, just for
#the selected page(s) or a small portion of it, such as a single
#chapter.
#

Feesh, if your lectures on statistics are as knowlegable as your rants
on copyright law and fair use, you've spawned a litter of ignorant
students.

<snip>

#
#And try to EDUCATE yourself a bit, excavate your head from the sand
#in your play pen, and elavate yourself from "Ignorance is Bliss".
#
#
#Class dismiss.
#


English as well, I see.

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 02:57:11 GMT, chandler
<joechandlernope@earthlink.net> wrote:

>In article <8fb7380b.0403161808.4b055a0e@posting.google.com >,
> Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com (Reef Fish) wrote:
>
>> Professors are LEGALLY allowed to copy ANY copyrighted material
>> (Xeroz from Libraries, e.g.) for personal use. Professors are
>> LEGALLY allowed to copy pages, or a chapter from a copyright book
>> for DIESTRIBUTION to students in an entire CLASS, without
>> requiring the students to purchase the copyrighted book, just for
>> the selected page(s) or a small portion of it, such as a single
>> chapter.
>
>Hate to get into an argument with you Reef but I think you are way
>oversimplifying here.


I agree... I'm a uni student, and as part of our class we have to know
copyright laws :) it's only 10% or less or 1 chapter from a book,
whichever is the lesser.

blah blah. we get a handout on copyright laws as part of class texts
and notes to brief us on what we can photocopy/scan etc for use as a
presentaion aide for class presentaions/test/assignment and so on. I
could root around and post that for y'all.

rnf2 wrote:

> blah blah. we get a handout on copyright laws as part of class texts
> and notes to brief us on what we can photocopy/scan etc for use as a
> presentaion aide for class presentaions/test/assignment and so on. I
> could root around and post that for y'all.

I don't know if the group is interested, but I am. I do presentations
regularly. While it's not likely that I'll run afoul of copyright laws
during one of them, I'd like to know.

Lee

"Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<WLW5c.6658$CJ5.4112@newsread2.news.atl.earth link.net>...
> chandler wrote:
> > In article <8fb7380b.0403161808.4b055a0e@posting.google.com >,
> > Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com (Reef Fish) wrote:
> >
> >> Professors are LEGALLY allowed to copy ANY copyrighted material
> >> (Xeroz from Libraries, e.g.) for personal use. Professors are
> >> LEGALLY allowed to copy pages, or a chapter from a copyright book
> >> for DIESTRIBUTION to students in an entire CLASS, without
> >> requiring the students to purchase the copyrighted book, just for
> >> the selected page(s) or a small portion of it, such as a single
> >> chapter.
> >
> > Hate to get into an argument with you Reef but I think you are way
> > oversimplifying here.
>
>
> Remind him that he's not a professor any more.

Wrong as usual, Lee, on TWO counts, in your CHEAP and BLIND shots.

Lee, reading 2nd-hand, of course DID NOT SEE the paragraph which
Chandler didn't clip:

RF> The notion of personal use (for REFERENCE) as citing items in
RF> dictionaries or me citing paragraphs from Bjorn's copyrighted
RF> article is PERFECTLY LEGAL for ANYONE and EVERYONE to do.


I had already posted that I had no argument with Chandler. The
IGNORANCE is all yours, Lee (sorry you had to share the IGNORANCE
NoBell Prize with Hugh Huntzinger .


Lee> I do presentations regularly. While it's not likely that I'll
Lee> run afoul of copyright laws during one of them, I'd like to know.

So, Lee lectures on something, just as he does in rec.scuba and LISTS,
without KNOWING the subject in which he lectures?

"Surprise, Surprise," sez Gomer Pyle.


As for Lee's cheap shot and SECOND ERROR about me not being a
professor anymore ...

The first ERROR, as I corrected Lee above, is that my comment
about professors was NOT LIMITED only to professors.

A Professor may be a "former professor" or a "Professor Emeritus"
(as I am), but is always a profesor, and can be addressed one one,
though in this instance of Lee's nitpicking cheap shots, in my
post in which the credential of a "professor", present or former,
is neither necessary nor sufficient.


As I said,

RF> >Grow up, Lee!
RF>
RF> And try to EDUCATE yourself a bit, excavate your head from the sand
RF> in your play pen, and elavate yourself from "Ignorance is Bliss".

-- Bob.

"Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8fb7380b.0403161808.4b055a0e@posting.google.c om...
> The full title should have been something like:
>
> Lecture to the IGNORAMOUS (Hugh Huntzinger and Lee Bell) on "copyright"

It's spelled ignoramus, or better yet...ignoramuses. Heck Bob, that's like
proclaiming yourself a JENIUS

Is Bob like this all the time?

chandler <joechandlernope@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com (Reef Fish) wrote:
>> Professors are LEGALLY allowed to copy ANY copyrighted material
>> (Xeroz from Libraries, e.g.) for personal use. Professors are
>> LEGALLY allowed to copy pages, or a chapter from a copyright book
>> for DIESTRIBUTION to students in an entire CLASS, without
>> requiring the students to purchase the copyrighted book, just for
>> the selected page(s) or a small portion of it, such as a single
>> chapter.
>
>Hate to get into an argument with you Reef but I think you are way
>oversimplifying here.

yes, Kinko's paid a rather substantial (9 figure, iirc) penalty for
this in the late 80s or early 90s, and readers became less cheap
afterwards.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

In article <07%5c.32$OT.24574@news.uswest.net>, Luca Cappelli
<nosp@mplease.com> wrote:

€ Is Bob like this all the time?

No. Most of the time he screams unintelligibly.

--
"We're going to rush the hijackers."
-Jeremy Glick, aboard United Airlines flight 93, September 11, 2001

"Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8fb7380b.0403161808.4b055a0e@posting.google.c om...

> What can you expect from a low-level Army employee (Hugh) and
> low-level US Goverment empolyees (Lee) who spend 24/7 on rec.scuba
> to know ANYTHING about copyright laws and how they apply?

Probably the same that you could expect from a low-level professor who
spends 24/7 on rec.scuba even when he's on a cruise.

> Professors are LEGALLY allowed to copy ANY copyrighted material
> (Xeroz from Libraries, e.g.) for personal use. Professors are
> LEGALLY allowed to copy pages, or a chapter from a copyright book
> for DIESTRIBUTION to students in an entire CLASS, without
> requiring the students to purchase the copyrighted book, just for
> the selected page(s) or a small portion of it, such as a single
> chapter.

Not exactly.

The U.S. Copyright Office publishes Circular 21, entitled "Reproduction of
Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians." I suggest you read it.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ21.pdf

In Circular 21, the USCO sets forth guidelines of the "safe harbor" in which
educators and librarians can take advantage of the fair use exception to the
copyright laws. Exceeding the guidelines isn't automatically violating the
copyright laws as it always depends on case-by-case analysis.

Educators are permitted to copy a chapter from a copyrighted book, but not
for "DIESTRIBUTION [sic] to students in an entire CLASS" as you so wrongly
suggest:

I. Single Copying for Teachers
A single copy may be made of any of the following by or for a teacher at his
or her individual request for his or her scholarly research or use in
teaching or preparation to teach a class:
A. A chapter from a book;
B. An article from a periodical or newspaper;
C. A short story, short essay or short poem, whether or not from a
collective work;
D. A chart, graph, diagram, drawing, cartoon or picture from a book,
periodical, or newspaper;

To reiterate, the copying of an entire chapter is only allowed "for his or
her scholarly research or use in teaching or preparation to teach a class."

As for distribution to an entire class:

II. Multiple Copies for Classroom Use
Multiple copies (not to exceed in any event more than one copy per pupil in
a course) may be made by or for the teacher giving the course for classroom
use
or discussion; provided that:
A. The copying meets the tests of brevity and spontaneity as defined below;
and,
B. Meets the cumulative effect test as defined below; and,
C. Each copy includes a notice of copyright

Definitions
Brevity
(ii) Prose:
(a) Either a complete article, story or essay of less than 2,500 words, or
(b) an excerpt from any prose work of not more than 1,000 words or 10% of
the work, whichever is less, but in any event a minimum of 500 words.

So unless your "entire chapter" constitutes less than 1,000 words, you
cannot distribute it to your class without running afoul of the guidelines.

Perhaps you should stick to lecturing on statistics.

> The notion of personal use (for REFERENCE) as citing items in
> dictionaries or me citing paragraphs from Bjorn's copyrighted
> article is PERFECTLY LEGAL for ANYONE and EVERYONE to do.

Well, again not exactly.

First of all, it's the notion of "fair use" not "personal use". Second,
it's not "for REFERENCE", it's for purposes of "criticism, comment, news
reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research." Finally, it's not
necessarily "PERFECTLY LEGAL for ANYONE and EVERYONE to do" since:

"The distinction between 'fair use' and infringement may be unclear and not
easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that
may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the
copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission."

"Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining
whether or not a particular use is fair:
1 the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of
commercial nature
or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2 the nature of the copyrighted work;
3 the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a
whole; and
4 the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work."

> That's the grossly simplified BOTTOM LINE: Hugh Huntzinger and Lee
> Bell are completely IGNORANT about copyright laws and their
> applications.

Perhaps, but obviously so is Bob Ling.

> Now consider these OBVIOUS wishful thinking that are FALSE:

> Class dismiss.

Did you mean crass dismissal or class dismissed?

Don't feel too bad Bob. If statistics professors could teach law there'd be
no need for (much higher paid) law professors.