Ten Years Gone: Reid Goldsborough's May 25 , 1994 Troll

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...n%40netaxs.com

Bill Fordler wrote:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...n%40netaxs.com

Bill.....
Are you talking about this? If you are, I can not answer his
question but maybe someone on this newsgroup can?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: (Reid Goldsborough)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Usenet and fair use
Date: 25 May 1994 16:19:42 GMT
Organization: Netaxs BBS and shell accounts!
Lines: 14
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.netaxs.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]



I've read with interest recent Usenet articles about the copyright
status
of Usenet postings. Here's a related issue: How does the fair use
doctrine
of copyright law apply to net postings? Fair use stipulates that you
can
freely use portions of copyrighted works under various conditions,
the
most important of which are that the copying not be too extensive
and that
the use of the work not diminish its market value.

So, in the view of anyone reading this, would using a Usenet
article, say,
in a newspaper article as an illustration of the kind of information
exchanged on the Internet be covered under fair use? The fair use
doctrine
doesn't require you to be given permission to use portions of
copyrighted
works, so it would seem that you wouldn't need permission to use net
postings
for illustrative purposes. But should you use the author's/poster's
name?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 21 May 2004 01:51:38 -0700, (Bill Fordler)
wrote:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...n%40netaxs.com

I'll repeat. "Bill Fordler" is an idiot who's afraid to post under his
real name. His only purpose here is to cause trouble. But he isn't
even good at this, despite his trying time after time after time. He
just pointed to a *ten-year-old* post of mine asking other people in
the misc.writing newsgroup about their views regarding how the Fair
Use doctrine of the U.S. copyright law affects Usenet postings. I
posted this because I had seen, frequently, part of Usenet posts
quoted, without attribution, in newspaper and magazine articles. The
Fair Use doctrine allows the republication of others' intellectual
property in certain limited circumstances.

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On 21 May 2004 01:51:38 -0700, (Bill Fordler)
wrote:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...n%40netaxs.com

I'll repeat. "Bill Fordler" is an idiot who's afraid to post under his
real name. His only purpose here is to cause trouble. But he isn't
even good at this, despite his trying time after time after time. He
just pointed to a *ten-year-old* post of mine asking other people in
the misc.writing newsgroup about their views regarding how the Fair
Use doctrine of the U.S. copyright law affects Usenet postings. I
posted this because I had seen, frequently, part of Usenet posts
quoted, without attribution, in newspaper and magazine articles. The
Fair Use doctrine allows the republication of others' intellectual
property in certain limited circumstances.

For example, in a book review. It'd be devilishly difficult to do a book
review without quoting parts of the text, naming characters, exposing
settings and plot devices, etc. That is Fair Use.

Taking another's person's remarks and printing them with attribution in an
article sold for profit, leaving the impression that the words originated
with the author listed on the byline is not Fair Use. It's plagarism.

Alan
'was not in Berne for the Convention'

On Fri, 21 May 2004 16:23:31 GMT, "Alan Williams"
wrote:

For example, in a book review. It'd be devilishly difficult to do a book
review without quoting parts of the text, naming characters, exposing
settings and plot devices, etc. That is Fair Use.

Taking another's person's remarks and printing them with attribution in an
article sold for profit, leaving the impression that the words originated
with the author listed on the byline is not Fair Use. It's plagarism.

This is exactly right, both examples.

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 May 2004 16:23:31 GMT, "Alan Williams"
wrote:

For example, in a book review. It'd be devilishly difficult to do a book
review without quoting parts of the text, naming characters, exposing
settings and plot devices, etc. That is Fair Use.

Taking another's person's remarks and printing them with attribution in an
article sold for profit, leaving the impression that the words originated
with the author listed on the byline is not Fair Use. It's plagarism.

This is exactly right, both examples.

Wow. Are we going to see you two running toward each other, arms held wide, in slow motion
through a field of daisies soon? D

Sorry, I REALLY couldn't resist.

--
John

Visit the RCCers favorite coins web page
http://mysite.verizon.net/jcarney44/coins/rccers.html

I won't be able to sleep until you refresh my memory as to what movie
contains that scene.

"John Carney" wrote in message
...
"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 May 2004 16:23:31 GMT, "Alan Williams"
wrote:

For example, in a book review. It'd be devilishly difficult to do a
book
review without quoting parts of the text, naming characters, exposing
settings and plot devices, etc. That is Fair Use.

Taking another's person's remarks and printing them with attribution in
an
article sold for profit, leaving the impression that the words
originated
with the author listed on the byline is not Fair Use. It's plagarism.

This is exactly right, both examples.

Wow. Are we going to see you two running toward each other, arms held
wide, in slow motion
through a field of daisies soon? D

Sorry, I REALLY couldn't resist.

--
John

Visit the RCCers favorite coins web page
http://mysite.verizon.net/jcarney44/coins/rccers.html

On Fri, 21 May 2004 12:12:45 -0400, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:


I'll repeat. "Bill Fordler" is an idiot who's afraid to post under his
real name. His only purpose here is to cause trouble. But he isn't
even good at this, despite his trying time after time after time. He
just pointed to a *ten-year-old* post of mine asking other people in
the misc.writing newsgroup about their views regarding how the Fair
Use doctrine of the U.S. copyright law affects Usenet postings. I
posted this because I had seen, frequently, part of Usenet posts
quoted, without attribution, in newspaper and magazine articles. The
Fair Use doctrine allows the republication of others' intellectual
property in certain limited circumstances.


Yeah, whatever.

The three replies pretty much had you nailed. Too bad you didn't heed
them.

Reid "A Decade of Drivel" Goldsborough

BLReed

To email me click he http://tinyurl.com/nd66
For collector coins and supplies at fair prices: http://tinyurl.com/pt9r
Cool things: http://www.byronreed.com
Talk bust coins: http://www.byronreed.com/phpBB2/index.php

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On 21 May 2004 01:51:38 -0700, (Bill Fordler)
wrote:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...n%40netaxs.com

I'll repeat. "Bill Fordler" is an idiot who's afraid to post under his
real name. His only purpose here is to cause trouble. But he isn't
even good at this, despite his trying time after time after time. He
just pointed to a *ten-year-old* post of mine asking other people in
the misc.writing newsgroup about their views regarding how the Fair
Use doctrine of the U.S. copyright law affects Usenet postings. I
posted this because I had seen, frequently, part of Usenet posts
quoted, without attribution, in newspaper and magazine articles. The
Fair Use doctrine allows the republication of others' intellectual
property in certain limited circumstances.

splorf!

Point 1) Don't reply to Bill. He's an idiot.
Point 2) Reply to Bill.

ummmmm?

Anybody spot the inconsistency?

--
Jeff R.

On Fri, 21 May 2004 14:07:00 -0500, Byron L. Reed
wrote:

Yeah, whatever.

The three replies pretty much had you nailed. Too bad you didn't heed
them.

Reid "A Decade of Drivel" Goldsborough

BLReed

What an outstanding guy! Great message.