Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg
I just quoted your post, in full. 100 percent. That's beyond fair use. If you are an American, the post I just reproduced is copyrighted material, as, since 1989, we do not require copyright registration.
How much should I pay you?
Or should Mobileread have to pay -- or close?
|
Stop being ludicrous, you aren't helping your position.
Public posting to forums implicitly gives authorizes people to quote you completely, and let us not forget that the Reply feature encourages people to fully quote you.
Let us go one step further and say mailing lists (notorious for highly extraneous multiply-nested responses by careless users) are guilty of the same copyright violations.
What about archive.org, which copies websites verbatim? Googlecache? And many others?
Compared to material that is not submitted publicly online, which is protected against duplication and mirroring and archiving.
Quote:
|
The Goebbels heirs are unusual in seeking royalties from a non-fiction author. The heirs of Konrad Adenauer, Willy Brandt, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan, for whatever reasons (I would suggest -- common decency), don't do it. Living leaders who also are authors, including Angela Merkel, GW Bush, and Barack Obama, don't do it. Should publishers, and self-published authors, who quote from their writings have to pay them off as well?
|
If the copyright holder desires thusly, why on earth not?
The existence of kind souls who relinquish their rights, does not speak to the non-existence of such rights.
Common decency is a pretty arbitrary term to go throwing around. Especially when you are replying to someone who merely claimed that as a purely legal concept, the rights-holders of copyrighted material can demand recompense for its use.
I am 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9% sure that bgalbrecht would agree a rights-holder can waive their claim if they so desire.
Maybe this is a very unusual situation. Maybe the rights-holders here are horrible people. Maybe they are ohmygosh a bunch of Nazis for not having the "common" decency to let people use their intellectual property free of charge in the noble cause of... something or other.
