We can quote, under a doctrine known as fair use. See my link above.

Uhhhm, no. Not Period

look it up

__________________
Peace Out, Philly!

Key words....."a portion". Copying an ENTIRE article and posting it here is NOT fair use....period. There is case law to support that.

Not to mention the fact that it uses up disc space and bandwidth for Phillyblog making it more expensive to maintain. What's so hard about posting a summary, or the title and first few sentences and a link?

Right....they REFER to the blog...they don't copy whole threads and re-print them.

That is BS. There is a four part test for fair use, and the portion of the work cited is but one of the four factors. You show us the case law that says copying a whole article is always not fair use. It is a balancing act between the four parts.

That's it. I'm SUING
I have used 'look it up' enough times that it's my phrase.
you owe me big time


and by "look it up (TM)"
I didn't mean the first couple of sentences.
If you are going to claim to know about it, then read the whole thing.

__________________
Peace Out, Philly!

By "look it up," I'm sure Tenzo means to check out the link I put in the third post on this thread.

I did...and it seems to me that copying an entire article and pasting it fails tests 1, 3 and 4.

1: At issue is whether the material has been used to help create something new, or merely copied verbatim into another work.

3: The less you take, the more likely that your copying will be excused as a fair use.

4: Another important fair use factor is whether your use deprives the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work.

And as far as Tenzo's look it up claim....that falls under de minimus.

And if you look here http://www.ladas.com/NII/CopyrightInfringement.html you'll see that this site could be found to be contributorially and vicariously liable for not preventing it.

Also look here http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html for this "Are you reproducing an article from the New York Times because you needed to in order to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want your readers to have to register at the New York Times web site? The first is probably fair use, the others probably aren't."

Also check out the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA), 17 U.S.C. Sec. 512. Online "service providers" will not be financially responsible for acts of copyright infringement committed by others ONLY if they take certain steps and adhere to specific rules to limit acts of infringment.

Hey, hey....

Let's give suggestions for better compliance instead of helping some ambulance chaser come up with a brief against PB.

What about articles quoted as part of an ongoing discussion of civic issues with commentary about those issues included in the post with the quoted article? I am going to continue to call that "fair use" till I specifically hear otherwise. I'm not intending to deprive the publisher of any income only trying to provide a starting point for discussion about issues implied by the article. Also frequently people simply don't believe that municpal corruption can be as rampant in this city as it actually is and quoting a newpaper article (with proper citation of the source) is a quick simple way to show you are not inventing how screwed up things really are for those who are in disbelief.

I believe politicla issue advocacy groups often quote articles entirely for exactly the same reasons under "fair usage" standards.

Sean,

The "discussion of civic issues with commentary about those issues" or the need to prove municipal corruption isn't an issue. If you're quoting a piece of an article, you're probably OK. If you're lifting an entire copyrighted article, you're probably not.

If you look at a lot of those ads used by political advocacy groups, you'll frequently see a "used by permission" citation.