is it ok if I quote?
quasi
I have assembled some wisdom from c.l.l and put it up on my
website. It is about compiled lisp, the question I asked some time
back.
I have quoted from c.l.l and I hope the people do not mind.
The page is at
http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com/digital/compiled-lisp.html
any comments/improvements/corrections/additions are extremely welcome.
thank you,
quasi
--
"look mama - no semicolons !"
Erik Naggum
| I have quoted from c.l.l and I hope the people do not mind.
What part of the Internet failed when you tried to contact them and ask for
permission? Your "hope" indicates that you know you should have asked.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
quasi
>* quasi
>| I have quoted from c.l.l and I hope the people do not mind.
>
> What part of the Internet failed when you tried to contact them and ask for
> permission? Your "hope" indicates that you know you should have asked.
My "hope" indicates that as what they have said already can be found
at http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&group=comp.lang.lisp and
for that reason they would not mind if I put it on my page too.
Please note the "quote" part too. Only today I uploaded the page and
wanted the same fellers who provided me with information to see it and
tell me if they wanted nothing to do with it. If I did not upload
they would not have any idea as to what/how I would use their words.
That is why I first uploaded and then asked for permission.
This is really poor. First I spent the morning in putting up the page
which is BTW not for *my* personal use and then you come and bite my
head off. The only reason I put it up was that somebody may find it
useful. Not everyone has the luck to be born with enormous brains and
to be part of large international committees and contribute
significantly. However small my contribution, and it is my first, it
is still a contribution.
Had you censured me for something which I have done *wrong*, I would
have been happy to correct it and say thank you - because you are an
expert and have my respect. I don't even think you saw my page. It
is of course irrelevant & insignificant.
Thank you Sir.
--
(be-good-p)
NIL
Russell Wallace
>* quasi
>| I have quoted from c.l.l and I hope the people do not mind.
>
> What part of the Internet failed when you tried to contact them and ask for
> permission? Your "hope" indicates that you know you should have asked.
Well, he is asking for permission, via the forum the quotes were
originally posted on :) I'm sure if one of the authors in question
says "No, I deny you permission" he'll delete that author's words from
the site.
--
"Mercy to the guilty is treachery to the innocent."
Remove killer rodent from address to reply.
http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace
Joe Marshall
A deep question: can Quasi quote?
Thien-Thi Nguyen
> A deep question: can Quasi quote?
(: nestedly apparently. but is it innermost or outermost? :)
one thing about "hope" is that it is belonging to each person (or sentient
being, why not). expressing hope takes courage because it may be the case
that not everyone shares that viewpoint. the thick skinned have it easy
because they can express hope and not feel diminished by indifference or even
malice. but that takes practice.
when i express hope i play a game w/ myself: in my mind i express the exact
opposite (by using the "not" operator strategically) to see how that sounds.
i also try inexact opposites by moving the "not" around. i imagine the world
to hold these alternate views and let the waves of depression sweep over me.
after some time, i do other things.
collecting knowledge is cool, applying wisdom is better, posting code is best.
thi
Duane Rettig
> On 20 Sep 2002 09:38:23 +0000, Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no> wrote:
>
> >* quasi
> >| I have quoted from c.l.l and I hope the people do not mind.
> >
> > What part of the Internet failed when you tried to contact them and ask for
> > permission? Your "hope" indicates that you know you should have asked.
>
> Well, he is asking for permission, via the forum the quotes were
> originally posted on :) I'm sure if one of the authors in question
> says "No, I deny you permission" he'll delete that author's words from
> the site.
Proper attribution was given to each author, so I have no problem with
it. Whatever I say on this newsgroup is opensource, so to speak. As
long as the text is reproduced in context and with attribution, it is
the public's to do with as they wish.
--
Duane Rettig du...@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
Marco Antoniotti
Joe Marshall <j...@ccs.neu.edu> writes:
> A deep question: can Quasi quote?
Only if he does not nests the quotes. Reading an intermediate quasi
quote is implementation dependent according to CLtLII and may result
in a post by `ilias' being inserted. :)
Cheers
--
Marco Antoniotti ========================================================
NYU Courant Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488
715 Broadway 10th Floor fax +1 - 212 - 995 4122
New York, NY 10003, USA http://bioinformatics.cat.nyu.edu
"Hello New York! We'll do what we can!"
Bill Murray in `Ghostbusters'.
Erik Naggum
| My "hope" indicates that as what they have said already can be found at
| http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&group=comp.lang.lisp and for that
| reason they would not mind if I put it on my page too. Please note the
| "quote" part too. Only today I uploaded the page and wanted the same
| fellers who provided me with information to see it and tell me if they
| wanted nothing to do with it. If I did not upload they would not have any
| idea as to what/how I would use their words. That is why I first uploaded
| and then asked for permission.
You have not actually asked for permission. You should have /mailed/ them.
Permission is what you get before you do something. Forgiveness is what you
get afterwards. You cannot get permission after the fact.
| This is really poor. First I spent the morning in putting up the page which
| is BTW not for *my* personal use and then you come and bite my head off.
| The only reason I put it up was that somebody may find it useful. Not
| everyone has the luck to be born with enormous brains and to be part of
| large international committees and contribute significantly. However small
| my contribution, and it is my first, it is still a contribution.
All this emotional crap because you have to defend yourself when you should
simply have realized that you should ask for permission by mail. Sheesh.
| Had you censured me for something which I have done *wrong*, I would have
| been happy to correct it and say thank you - because you are an expert and
| have my respect. I don't even think you saw my page. It is of course
| irrelevant & insignificant.
You /have/ done something wrong, you whining dimwit. Using other people's
contributions in a different way than they intended requires permission from
each and every one of them, and that is permission /before/ you use it.
Grow the hell up. When you grow up, you realize that you cannot just take
things you want to use them however you like. To be able to take other
people's contributions and use them however you like, you need to adjust
what you like to what is permissible under the Fair Use Doctrine. If you
have no idea what that is, ask permission always and every time.
I just asked permission to use a licensed system today that most people
think is free for the taking, and I got an amazing amount of support and
help from the developers and maintainers of that system, who also promptly
waived the licensing fee. When people see that their rights and property
arae respected, they tend to welcome you and help you. When they see that
other people take them for granted, they tend to get disappointed and feel
bad about having to make the choice between protecting their property or
letting you get away with it, neither of which are positive.
The old adage that it is easier to get forgiveness than to get permission is
not true in the intellectual property arena. Some believe it is easier to
get sued than to get permission, but it is actually the other way around: If
you ask and you show repsect for the author of something you want to use and
properly credit, chances are everybody will be happy about it.
Try to learn something from this instead of defending yourself.
Erik Naggum
| Proper attribution was given to each author, so I have no problem with it.
| Whatever I say on this newsgroup is opensource, so to speak. As long as the
| text is reproduced in context and with attribution, it is the public's to do
| with as they wish.
This is your personal view about your personal contributions, to which you
are fully entitled, but the last sentence is not in any way legally binding
for anyone else. People should not assume that re-use of material made
freely available in one forum or medium is permitted in another, either.
Christopher C. Stacy
is the accurate preservation of context.
Duane Rettig
> * Duane Rettig
> | Proper attribution was given to each author, so I have no problem with it.
> | Whatever I say on this newsgroup is opensource, so to speak. As long as the
> | text is reproduced in context and with attribution, it is the public's to do
> | with as they wish.
>
> This is your personal view about your personal contributions, to which you
> are fully entitled, but the last sentence is not in any way legally binding
> for anyone else. People should not assume that re-use of material made
> freely available in one forum or medium is permitted in another, either.
Yes, of course, you are correct, and I should be careful not to give
carte blanche with my words. It's always hard, at a local and focussed
level, to imagine how anyone can use my words against me (undeservedly),
but hey, this is the internet; anything is possible :-)
I hereby refocus my permission (which should always have only been
taken as mine, and not speaking for anyone else) to solely pertain to
the article in question.
quasi
> You have not actually asked for permission.
Well I thought, faultily in hindsight is seems, that a subject line
"is it ok if I quote?" was asking for permission.
> You should have /mailed/ them.
yes, next time I will mail whoever is concerned and get their explicit
permissions as I should have this time too.
Thank you,
quasi
--
(whining-dimwit-p)
T
Pascal Costanza
> * Duane Rettig
> | Proper attribution was given to each author, so I have no problem with it.
> | Whatever I say on this newsgroup is opensource, so to speak. As long as the
> | text is reproduced in context and with attribution, it is the public's to do
> | with as they wish.
>
> This is your personal view about your personal contributions, to which you
> are fully entitled, but the last sentence is not in any way legally binding
> for anyone else. People should not assume that re-use of material made
> freely available in one forum or medium is permitted in another, either.
Sorry, but that's not correct. There's the concept of fair use that
allows you to cite anything you want unless it becomes indistinguishable
from the original "work" and/or you claim authorship. As far as I know,
this is legal at least in the US and in most, if not all European
countries. I don't know about the rest of the world.
You don't need to ask for permission to cite a text. If you want people
to refrain from citing your work you have to explicitly state this, for
example in a copyright statement. But even if you do that there's a
limited amount of fair use that is still allowed.
Pascal
Joe Schaefer
> Erik Naggum wrote:
[...]
> > People should not assume that re-use of material made freely
> > available in one forum or medium is permitted in another, either.
>
> Sorry, but that's not correct. There's the concept of fair use that
> allows you to cite anything you want unless it becomes indistinguishable
> from the original "work" and/or you claim authorship.
You seem to be mixing plagiarism with copyright here. There are a few
copyright FAQs floating around that discuss the implications of the
Berne convention for copyrights, and AFAICT they confirm Erik's point.
Take a look at
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
Unfortunately the Stanford site contains many stale links.
--
Joe Schaefer
Pascal Costanza
> Pascal Costanza <cost...@web.de> writes:
>
>
>>Erik Naggum wrote:
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>>> People should not assume that re-use of material made freely
>>> available in one forum or medium is permitted in another, either.
>>
>>Sorry, but that's not correct. There's the concept of fair use that
>>allows you to cite anything you want unless it becomes indistinguishable
>>from the original "work" and/or you claim authorship.
>
> You seem to be mixing plagiarism with copyright here. There are a few
> copyright FAQs floating around that discuss the implications of the
> Berne convention for copyrights, and AFAICT they confirm Erik's point.
I don't think so...
Pascal
Erik Naggum
|There's the concept of fair use
I have already covered the Fair Use Doctrine. Do I have to repeat
everything I say with every post?
| You don't need to ask for permission to cite a text.
If you truly believe this, you have copyright infringement lawsuits coming
your way. Let me know how you feel about it after your first meeting with
the lawyers for the intellectual property owner.
| If you want people to refrain from citing your work you have to explicitly
| state this, for example in a copyright statement. But even if you do that
| there's a limited amount of fair use that is still allowed.
The Fair Use Doctrine applies /because/ every published text is already
protected by copyright. There are lots of things copyright do not protect,
but you have to understand these issues before you burn yourself.
In particular, quoting people's articles on Usenet is a very good example of
the Fair Use Doctrine at work -- but moving some material to a different
medium that the one in which it was previously published is restricted.
That is the gist of my argument. Get a book on copyright law and study it.
I suggest «The Illustrated Story of Copyright» by Edward Samuels as a good
starting point. Making mistakes in this area is extremely painful. Err on
the side of caution, but know what your rights, meaning specifically, what
no one can legally stop you from doing.
Pascal Costanza
> * Pascal Costanza <cost...@web.de>
> |There's the concept of fair use
>
> I have already covered the Fair Use Doctrine. Do I have to repeat
> everything I say with every post?
No, of course not. Probably I have missed your coverage of fair use, or
haven't been around here when you posted it.
Probably I was too quick in posting my message - sorry for that.
> | You don't need to ask for permission to cite a text.
>
> If you truly believe this, you have copyright infringement lawsuits coming
> your way. Let me know how you feel about it after your first meeting with
> the lawyers for the intellectual property owner.
Hm, perhaps I am just lucky as a researcher, because we generally seem
to have more rights in this regard than others. From what I have seen
from quasi's page I think that this would be ok in a research/university
context.
But probably you are right - it's better to be safe than sorry.
Pascal
David J Cooper Jr
>
> http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com/digital/compiled-lisp.html
>
As a followup to the example on Quasi's page, I have an application
with a few low-level functions which are to a certain extent
bottlenecks on both speed and memory usage. Below is an example
with the disassembly appended at the end.
Perhaps there are ways to streamline something like this further?
I expect that for something like this there is a point where
there's no shortcutting the actual math that has to be done,
and a C function probably could not do much better...then one
has to find higher-level optimizations in the app itself which
reduce the number of overall calls to the function rather than
trying to squeeze more speed out of the function itself.
Thanks,
-dave
(defun point-to-point-distance (point-1 point-2)
"Return a number which is the three-dimensional distance from
point-1 to point-2"
(declare (type (vector double-float) point-1)
(type (vector double-float) point-2)
(optimize (speed 3) (compilation-speed 0)
(safety 0) (debug 0)))
(let ((dx (- (svref point-1 0) (svref point-2 0)))
(dy (- (svref point-1 1) (svref point-2 1)))
(dz (- (svref point-1 2) (svref point-2 2))))
(declare (type double-float dx dy dz)) ;;declaration needed?
(sqrt (+ (* dx dx) (* dy dy) (* dz dz)))))
In AllegroCL 6.2 on 700MHz Linux machine:
TRY(5): (setq p1 (make-point 0 0 0))
#(0.0d0 0.0d0 0.0d0)
TRY(6): (setq p2 (make-point 1 1 1))
#(1.0d0 1.0d0 1.0d0)
TRY(7): (time (dotimes (n 50000)
(point-to-point-distance p1 p2)))
; cpu time (non-gc) 620 msec user, 40 msec system
; cpu time (gc) 0 msec user, 0 msec system
; cpu time (total) 620 msec user, 40 msec system
; real time 678 msec
; space allocation:
; 450,014 cons cells, 4,801,072 other bytes, 0 static bytes
NIL
TRY(8): (disassemble 'point-to-point-distance)
;; disassembly of #<Function POINT-TO-POINT-DISTANCE>
;; formals: POINT-1 POINT-2
;; constant vector:
0: SQRT
;; code start: #x7219bbf4:
0: 55 pushl ebp
1: 8b ec movl ebp,esp
3: 56 pushl esi
4: 83 ec 24 subl esp,$36
7: 8b 58 f2 movl ebx,[eax-14]
10: dd 43 f6 fldq [ebx-10]
13: dd da fstp st(2)
15: 8b 5a f2 movl ebx,[edx-14]
18: dd 43 f6 fldq [ebx-10]
21: dd db fstp st(3)
23: d9 af 07 fd fldcwf [edi-761] ; SYS::DOUBLE_CONVERTER
ff ff
29: d9 c1 fld st,st(1)
31: d8 e3 fsub st,st(3)
33: dd da fstp st(2)
35: 8b 58 f6 movl ebx,[eax-10]
38: dd 43 f6 fldq [ebx-10]
41: dd db fstp st(3)
43: 8b 5a f6 movl ebx,[edx-10]
46: dd 43 f6 fldq [ebx-10]
49: dd dc fstp st(4)
51: d9 c2 fld st,st(2)
53: d8 e4 fsub st,st(4)
55: dd db fstp st(3)
57: 8b 40 fa movl eax,[eax-6]
60: dd 40 f6 fldq [eax-10]
63: dd dc fstp st(4)
65: 8b 52 fa movl edx,[edx-6]
68: dd 42 f6 fldq [edx-10]
71: dd dd fstp st(5)
73: d9 c3 fld st,st(3)
75: d8 e5 fsub st,st(5)
77: dd dc fstp st(4)
79: d9 c1 fld st,st(1)
81: d8 ca fmul st,st(2)
83: dd da fstp st(2)
85: d9 c2 fld st,st(2)
87: d8 cb fmul st,st(3)
89: dd db fstp st(3)
91: d9 c1 fld st,st(1)
93: d8 c3 fadd st,st(3)
95: dd da fstp st(2)
97: d9 c3 fld st,st(3)
99: d8 cc fmul st,st(4)
101: dd dc fstp st(4)
103: d9 c1 fld st,st(1)
105: d8 c4 fadd st,st(4)
107: dd da fstp st(2)
109: d9 c1 fld st,st(1)
111: dd d9 fstp st(1)
113: 33 c9 xorl ecx,ecx
115: ff 97 13 02 call *[edi+531] ; SYS::NEW-DOUBLE-FLOAT
00 00
121: c9 leave
122: 8b 5e 12 movl ebx,[esi+18] ; SQRT
125: b1 01 movb cl,$1
127: ff e7 jmp *edi
129: 90 nop
TRY(9):
Erik Naggum
| No, of course not. Probably I have missed your coverage of fair use, or
| haven't been around here when you posted it.
<32415361...@naggum.no> is in this very thread. Free clues available.
| But probably you are right - it's better to be safe than sorry.
The /point/ is that it is better to respect people than to take them for
granted. Recognizing the value that lies in somebody else's work (which is
why you want quote from it) /should/ cause you to recognize the value of
treating them with respect, too. If you value their work, but not them, you
show a kind of disrespect that effectively reduces people's desire to publish
their works. The purpose of copyright /and/ of the Fair Use Doctrine, is to
encourage people to publish their works, so as to benefit all people. Most
of the squabbles over copyright law is over striking a balance between the
payment of works (such as the First Sale Doctrine) and its availability to
those who seek its value (such as libraries, researchers, journalists). It
may take an unusual amount of empathy from some people to realize that just
because other people have published something you want to use in your own
production, does not mean they lose their rights, but many people seem to
acquire this empathy only when they need to seek redress against those who
have taken /their/ works. Less short-sighted egoism would therefore be nice.
David J Cooper Jr
Oops, here's that function again, untabified:
Thomas F. Burdick
You still need to this time. Just because you've made some noise here
doesn't mena you have their permission, even implicitly. No one has a
responsibility to look at your site. This is the same thinking that
gives us spam, pseudo-science, and plagarism. Go ask for permission,
from all the authors you quoted, directly, via e-mail, and take down
any quotes you do not get explicit permission for.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
ozan s yigit
> ... it's better to be safe than sorry.
pascal, there are four criteria (ad hoc) used to judge fair use.
in simplified form:
* purpose of use, eg. whether the use is for commercial
or nonprofit educational purposes
* nature of the copyrighted work
* the amount used in relation to the copyrighted work
* the effect of the use on the value of the work
even when one is sure of fair use, asking for permission seems to be
a custom in the publishing industry. when in doubt, it is best to get
either permission or real legal advice for the specific use, however
informative web and usenet may be on general points.
btw, as an excellent general reference, i would highly recommend
William Strong's "The Copyright Book: A Practical Guide" (5th ed)
MIT Press, July 1999. isbn 0262194198.
oz
--
a nought, an ought, a knot, a not easily perceived distinction. -- t. duff
quasi
F. Burdick) wrote:
>You still need to this time. Just because you've made some noise here
>doesn't mena you have their permission, even implicitly. No one has a
>responsibility to look at your site. This is the same thinking that
>gives us spam, pseudo-science, and plagarism. Go ask for permission,
>from all the authors you quoted, directly, via e-mail, and take down
>any quotes you do not get explicit permission for.
For God's sake it was a page for the public. I am *not*
putting some one's code in my software or someone's research in my
thesis for all the noise *you* are making. Above that as they may not
like being personally contacted I asked for permission via c.l.l.
Please note that I *was* asking permission. Yes, no one has the
responsibility to look at it(my page), and if the people who
contributed to the original thread did not want to look at it nor
wanted to be quoted they could have easily said so.
Next, you will be asking people not to speak_of/refer_to
anything anyone says even in meetings let alone online forums.
If I wanted to plagrise, I could have very easily removed
their names and put the code snippets. I had *no* such intention. My
father is a researcher at the University and I know the value of
intellectual contributions. I am very happy I do not live in the
petty world you live. You with your lawyers and your copyright
notices. Please dont teach me about science and the spirit of
academics. I have lived all my life amongst academicians and believe
me, they dont crib like you do. They are not bogged down by your
bureaucratic need to get explicit permission for every piece they
quote. If someone misquotes/plagarises *he* looses face, not the one
misquoted. I am all wonder how you come to be in a edu. Science in
the US must sure be loosing its Utopian spirit. Instead of
encouraging someone's efforts at community service (however
insignificant) you have to go the opposite way.
I very sincerely thank my lucky stars that I did not have
quote you.
No wonder CL, in spite of being so wonderful, has such a poor
presence. It is because of people like you. You seem to have this
underlying insecurity that someone may take up your job or something
if you allow more people in. The best way is to drive them away. Be
rude to them. Call them names.
Mr. Naggum, inspire of being very harsh, had a point. So I
accepted it and *thanked* him. But you have no point. You just want
to be rude.
Anyone can be rude and call other people names. It dosent
take much for it. I just hope you take 10 minutes out and find your
peace.
Thank God there are others, there is Cliki, there is the
cookbook, there is Mr Graham (thank you for On Lisp).. there seems to
be a better future.
quasi
--
(whining-dimwit-p)
T
Thomas F. Burdick
> On 21 Sep 2002 11:07:27 -0700, t...@hurricane.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas
> F. Burdick) wrote:
>
> >You still need to this time. Just because you've made some noise here
> >doesn't mena you have their permission, even implicitly. No one has a
> >responsibility to look at your site. This is the same thinking that
> >gives us spam, pseudo-science, and plagarism. Go ask for permission,
> >from all the authors you quoted, directly, via e-mail, and take down
> >any quotes you do not get explicit permission for.
>
> For God's sake it was a page for the public.
For the life of me I don't understand why you think that matters.
Yes, that means that most people will probably give their permissions,
but you still need to ask! It's not about lawers, it's about common
decency. Posting public notice is not the same thing as asking. This
is not an academic document, and you are using opt-out thinking.
Before you accuse me of calling you names, you'd be best to explain
exactly *how* this is anything other than the opt-out thinking that
gives us spam, pseudo-science, and plagarism.
--
Stefan Schmiedl
Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no> wrote:
>
> In particular, quoting people's articles on Usenet is a very good example of
> the Fair Use Doctrine at work -- but moving some material to a different
> medium that the one in which it was previously published is restricted.
Are usenet and web pages different media?
Especially when you can find the message on a web page,
even if it is generated on request?
If they are, would this imply that Google is infringing
on the Fair Use Doctrine?
I see a distinction between private email messages
and public means of communication, but web-mirrored
usenet and web pages?
Wondering,
s.
Erik Naggum
| even when one is sure of fair use, asking for permission seems to be a custom
| in the publishing industry. when in doubt, it is best to get either
| permission or real legal advice for the specific use, however informative web
| and usenet may be on general points.
The reason we have the Fair Use Doctrine in the first place that some people
do not want to see critical commentary on their works. Since society has a
real strong benefit from rooting out dis- and misinformation, the only way to
ensure that falsehoods are exposed is to let others comment on them. If you
could be sued for quoting something from somebody and calling it crap, this
would only benefit the bad guys, not society. Therefore, you need the Fair
Use Doctrine when you are about to slaughter somebody's work. When you want
to appraise them, you /will/ get permission from reasonable people, and those
unreasonable ones who reject are the ones to lose by not getting appraisal,
but even so, it is their call.
Erik Naggum
| Are usenet and web pages different media?
Yes.
| Especially when you can find the message on a web page, even if it is
| generated on request?
Yes.
| If they are, would this imply that Google is infringing on the Fair Use
| Doctrine?
Google would lose a class action suit against them for infringing on the
rights of the authors of messages it has stored and made available, if such
a class action suit was ever filed. That it is not, is mostly due to the
fact that people have not registered their copyrighted material and
therefore would not get any "statutory damages" or attorney's fees covered
even if the infringement suit was ruled in their favor. Since there is no
demonstrable commercial benefit from this material in its original form, and
hence no demonstrable loss in the Google form, which makes money off it in a
sort of round-about way, the damages would have to be assessed on moral
grounds instead of financial grounds. The likelihood that no more money
would be awarded than the cost of going to trial is overwhelming, so no
intellectual property lawyer would want to take the case, either. Google is
therefore a case of getting away with it rather than a clear-cut case of
doing something legal. However, Google does not edit the articles and does
not engage in any other intellectual work on the contents, so if Google is
off the hook for practical or theoretical reasons that still has no bearing
on whether those who do make additional intellectual value out of published
material, such as by selective compilation, would be similarly off the hook.
If somebody stored the messages in extenso and linked to them from another
page, that would be far less infringing than using only pieces of them.
This actually has rather serious ramifications for the ability to make the
browser extract portions of an abstractly referenced object, which is all
the rage in the stuff underlying the Semantic Web and related efforts. If
you can reference-by-inclusion segments of another web object, you can
effectively make up an entirely new setting for the referenced object, over
which the original author has no control. Insofar as a complete object is
referenced-by-separate-instance, it is fairly obvious that the original
author remains in control. This, for instance, has already been played out
in court when it comes to pointing browsers at newspaper articles in a way
that replaced them with no or different advertising. Although such a
service is certainly welcome at the personal level, if you tried to make a
buck from removing advertising from websites, you would be in deep shit, to
use a very technical legal term.
If, for instance, the search engines were to charge their users money for
the service of locating web pages, it is not clear-cut which way payment
should go between search engine and author of web pages. One could imagine
paying for the referral service to begin with and then getting paid for each
referral. If, for instance, a search engine that employed classification
would require payment for the classification service, it could well charge
the users for using such a classified Web as well, and then the publishers
of the classification scheme want to be paid. The overarching principle is
that creativity wants to be rewarded, and the infrastructure necessary to
reward creativity without punishing use of it takes a lot of work and time
to be ironed out. With ever declining profitability of web sites and much
less money to be made by Internet advertising, we will see people try harder
and harder to make money before they try something more profitable. This
will be a period of much irrationality (and the increasing amount of spam is
a clear sign of irrational behavior with diminishing returns) before we find
ourself on the other side of decisions that have been made by the really big
players lobbying Congress and WIPO with little or no "user" influence.
quasi
F. Burdick) wrote:
>quasi <quas...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> For God's sake it was a page for the public.
>
>For the life of me I don't understand why you think that matters.
It does matter as it shows the intent.
>Yes, that means that most people will probably give their permissions,
>but you still need to ask! It's not about lawers, it's about common
>decency.
I know you need to ask!!! Havent I said that I *was* asking
permission? I also accepted (refer:reply to Erik's mail) that my
method was *wrong* and I will change it according to the norms which
were pointed out to me. Your rather caustic reply was to *that* - the
need for which is what I fail to see. Being on the usenet seems to
have made you think that maybe I am just an email id. But I am not a
that, or a bot. I can not, will not, take uncalled for and irrelevant
rudeness. Criticism yes, rudeness no. Sorry, that is the way I am
made.
>This is not an academic document, and you are using opt-out thinking.
>Before you accuse me of calling you names, you'd be best to explain
>exactly *how* this is anything other than the opt-out thinking that
>gives us spam, pseudo-science, and plagarism.
You do not want to *see* my explanations. It was just a plain
oversight on my part, my method being wrong but my intentions not.
And I accepted it and thanked the one who pointed it out to me and
promised to adhere to the norm in the future (all which I have hardly
seen being done here). Others saw it. You don't want to.
I have not much idea about opt-out thinking, other than the obvious
meaning. And I definitely think it has nothing to do with what I did.
There maybe other reasons why I did what I did - but the fact is I
said sorry and promised not to do it again. That completely atones
for my earlier non-conformatory behavior which was at worst a error in
judgment.
You have no reason to come *after* that and relate me to spam and
accuse me of plagrism. My dictionary says "plagrise : Take without
referencing from someone else's writing or speech; of intellectual
property" And I quoted (dictionary - quote : A punctuation mark used
to attribute the enclosed text to someone else).
Your opt-out theory may be good, but please note that it may not apply
to everything. I sincerely don't know what you are talking about when
you say "psudo-science". In my world all intellectuals are in the
persuit of knowledge above all. These little matters matter not to
them. They are my idols. I strive to be like them. And I hope I
don't get red-tapish & materialistic.
The Utopian Public Domain License is what I believe in.
Let me see, if you have a heart big enough to accept *your*
oversight/agressivness regarding this whole matter.
quasi
--
(quit)
NO-WAY
T
Nils Goesche
> Oops, here's that function again, untabified:
>
> (defun point-to-point-distance (point-1 point-2)
> "Return a number which is the three-dimensional distance from
> point-1 to point-2"
> (declare (type (vector double-float) point-1)
> (type (vector double-float) point-2)
> (optimize (speed 3) (compilation-speed 0)
> (safety 0) (debug 0)))
> (let ((dx (- (svref point-1 0) (svref point-2 0)))
I think you are not allowed to use SVREF here, as SVREF is only for
simple-vectors, which can hold elements of any type.
> (dy (- (svref point-1 1) (svref point-2 1)))
> (dz (- (svref point-1 2) (svref point-2 2))))
> (declare (type double-float dx dy dz)) ;;declaration needed?
> (sqrt (+ (* dx dx) (* dy dy) (* dz dz)))))
One thing you could do is to declare the arguments to be simple
arrays -- a VECTOR can still be displaced to another array, for
instance; you do /not/ use (declare (simple-vector ...)) for this, as
simple-vectors are not specialized vectors. That would lead to
(defun point-to-point-distance (point-1 point-2)
"Return a number which is the three-dimensional distance from
point-1 to point-2"
(declare (type (simple-array double-float (3)) point-1 point-2)
(optimize (speed 3) (compilation-speed 0)
(safety 0) (debug 0) (space 0)))
(let ((dx (- (aref point-1 0) (aref point-2 0)))
(dy (- (aref point-1 1) (aref point-2 1)))
(dz (- (aref point-1 2) (aref point-2 2))))
(declare (type double-float dx dy dz)) ;;declaration needed?
(sqrt (+ (* dx dx) (* dy dy) (* dz dz)))))
In Lispworks, this produces
0: 55 push ebp
1: 89E5 move ebp, esp
3: 83EC24 sub esp, 24
6: C7042445240000 move [esp], 2445
13: 8B7D08 move edi, [ebp+8]
16: DD4714 fldl [edi+14]
19: DD4014 fldl [eax+14]
22: DEE9 fsubp st(1), st
24: DD5DF0 fstpl [ebp-10]
27: DD471C fldl [edi+1C]
30: DD401C fldl [eax+1C]
33: DEE9 fsubp st(1), st
35: DD5DE8 fstpl [ebp-18]
38: DD4724 fldl [edi+24]
41: DD4024 fldl [eax+24]
44: DEE9 fsubp st(1), st
46: DD5DF8 fstpl [ebp-8]
49: DD45F0 fldl [ebp-10]
52: DC4DF0 fmull [ebp-10]
55: DD5DF0 fstpl [ebp-10]
58: DD45E8 fldl [ebp-18]
61: DC4DE8 fmull [ebp-18]
64: DD5DE8 fstpl [ebp-18]
67: DD45F8 fldl [ebp-8]
70: DC4DF8 fmull [ebp-8]
73: DC45E8 faddl [ebp-18]
76: DC45F0 faddl [ebp-10]
79: DD5DF8 fstpl [ebp-8]
82: B500 moveb ch, 0
84: FF1508E50E20 call [200EE508] ; SYSTEM::BOX-DOUBLE-AUX
90: DD45F8 fldl [ebp-8]
93: DD5804 fstpl [eax+4]
96: B501 moveb ch, 1
98: C9 leave
99: 8F0424 pop [esp]
102: FF2560D30020 jmp [2000D360] ; SQRT
108: 90 nop
109: 90 nop
There is still the boxed call to SQRT; I have no idea how to get rid
of that, but the code should already be pretty fast, I guess.
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
Thomas F. Burdick
> On 21 Sep 2002 16:21:24 -0700, t...@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas
> F. Burdick) wrote:
>
> >quasi <quas...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >> For God's sake it was a page for the public.
> >
> >For the life of me I don't understand why you think that matters.
>
> It does matter as it shows the intent.
So what? Good intent isn't permission. Someone could deny you
permission for entirely mean-hearted reasons, but that doesn't give
you the right to use their writing anyhow. In my days, I've
maintained several FAQs, which most people would agree are a public
good, but I still asked directly for permission. In fact, you
yourself said that you were wrong not to ask directly for permission,
so I really don't understand why you throw in this canard.
> >Yes, that means that most people will probably give their permissions,
> >but you still need to ask! It's not about lawers, it's about common
> >decency.
>
> I know you need to ask!!! Havent I said that I *was* asking
> permission? I also accepted (refer:reply to Erik's mail) that my
> method was *wrong* and I will change it according to the norms which
> were pointed out to me.
Yes, you said you would in the future. And *that* is what I objected
to. Doing the right thing in the future doesn't absolve you of the
need to do it in the present.
> Your rather caustic reply was to *that* - the need for which is what
> I fail to see. Being on the usenet seems to have made you think
> that maybe I am just an email id. But I am not a that, or a bot. I
> can not, will not, take uncalled for and irrelevant rudeness.
> Criticism yes, rudeness no. Sorry, that is the way I am made.
I'll admit that my reply wasn't friendly, it was annoyed and hurried,
but it wasn't particularly caustic. On the other hand, you responded
with pages of angry ranting. Who's uncalled-for?
And, by the way, what's with the amateurish ad hominem attack,
claiming I don't know you're a human? Nothing I've done or said
implied that.
> >This is not an academic document, and you are using opt-out thinking.
> >Before you accuse me of calling you names, you'd be best to explain
> >exactly *how* this is anything other than the opt-out thinking that
> >gives us spam, pseudo-science, and plagarism.
>
> You do not want to *see* my explanations. It was just a plain
> oversight on my part, my method being wrong but my intentions not.
> And I accepted it and thanked the one who pointed it out to me and
> promised to adhere to the norm in the future (all which I have hardly
> seen being done here). Others saw it. You don't want to.
*What* explanations? You explained how you didn't think you should
have to ask, and then you changed your mind. Nonetheless, you still
asked (and for this iteration are still asking) people to opt-out.
You're taking silence as implicit permission, and that's bullshit.
> I have not much idea about opt-out thinking, other than the obvious
> meaning. And I definitely think it has nothing to do with what I did.
> There maybe other reasons why I did what I did - but the fact is I
> said sorry and promised not to do it again. That completely atones
> for my earlier non-conformatory behavior which was at worst a error in
> judgment.
>
> You have no reason to come *after* that and relate me to spam and
> accuse me of plagrism. My dictionary says "plagrise : Take without
> referencing from someone else's writing or speech; of intellectual
> property" And I quoted (dictionary - quote : A punctuation mark used
> to attribute the enclosed text to someone else).
I said it's the same thinking that leads to these things.
> Your opt-out theory may be good, but please note that it may not
> apply to everything.
And now you're claiming that I have some world-encompasing theory that
I'm trying to apply to everything. A little intellectually dishonest,
don't you think?
> I sincerely don't know what you are talking about when you say
> "psudo-science".
I was trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to point out the common
thread between much pseudo-science, spam, and plagarism. That is, the
idea of implicit agreement in the absence of explicit disagreement.
In the case of pseudo-science, this tends to be wingnuts who claim
that they have "scientific consensus" because no one objected directly
to them, or because they "addressed" all objections.
> In my world all intellectuals are in the persuit of knowledge above
> all. These little matters matter not to them. They are my idols.
> I strive to be like them. And I hope I don't get red-tapish &
> materialistic.
>
> The Utopian Public Domain License is what I believe in.
Utopian, and using "materialistic" as a bad word. Hmm, maybe you're
unable/unwilling to understand me because you're a utopian idealist,
and not a materialist?
> Let me see, if you have a heart big enough to accept *your*
> oversight/agressivness regarding this whole matter.
It's your personal problems that are responsible for you thinking that
annoyed curtness is the same as aggressiveness. For someone who
idolizes intellectuals, you have pretty thin skin. Most intellectuals
I know don't always waste time making sure people don't take things
personally -- they assume that most people assume they're being
addressed at an intellectual level, not attacked personally. Maybe
you should try this.
Nils Goesche
Sorry, I made a copy-paste error.
> (defun point-to-point-distance (point-1 point-2)
> "Return a number which is the three-dimensional distance from
> point-1 to point-2"
> (declare (type (simple-array double-float (3)) point-1 point-2)
> (optimize (speed 3) (compilation-speed 0)
> (safety 0) (debug 0) (space 0)))
Add a #+lispworks (float 0) optimization setting to get the Assembly
code I posted.
Sorry,
Bulent Murtezaoglu
[...]
NG> There is still the boxed call to SQRT; I have no idea how to
NG> get rid of that, but the code should already be pretty fast, I
NG> guess.
CMUCL inlines the call to sqrt when the code you posted is compiled.
And I think the code gnereted is short enough that further inlining it
at the place where it is called might be worthwhile. In that case the
compiler will be able to better arrange arg passing/return so both the
boxing and the error detection code in the assembly output (enclosed
below) will disappear.
For fast distance calculations between longer Vectors of floats there might
be a point in looking into MMX/SIMD facilities of the recent Intel/AMD
processors. I don't know which CL implementations allow inline assembly
of this sort as a feature that the user can use but for truly speed
critical code it might be worthwhile to investigate.
CMU Common Lisp release x86-linux 3.1.1 18d+ 19 July 2002 build 4007, running on defter
* (disassemble 'point-to-point-distance)
481FBA89: ADD [EAX], AL
A8B: ADD [EAX], AL
A8D: ADD [EAX], AL
A8F: ADD [ESI+30], BH
A92: ADD [EAX], AL
A94: TEST AL, 186
A96: BYTE #x1F
A97: DEC EAX
A98: OR EAX, [EAX]
A9A: ADD [EAX], CH
A9C: AAA
A9D: BYTE #xC7
A9E: BYTE #x1E
A9F: DEC EAX
AA0: OR EAX, [EAX]
AA2: ADD [EAX], CH
AA4: NOT ECX
AA6: ADD [EAX], CH
AA8: POP DWORD PTR [EBP-8]
AAB: LEA ESP, [EBP-32]
AAE: FSTPD FR0 ; No-arg-parsing entry point
AB0: FLDD [EDX+1]
AB3: FSTPD FR1
AB5: FLDD [EDI+1]
AB8: FXCH FR1
ABA: FSUBD FR1
ABC: FSTD FR2
ABE: FSTPD FR0
AC0: FLDD [EDX+9]
AC3: FSTPD FR1
AC5: FLDD [EDI+9]
AC8: FXCH FR1
ACA: FSUBD FR1
ACC: FSTD FR3
ACE: FSTPD FR0
AD0: FLDD [EDX+17]
AD3: FSTPD FR1
AD5: FLDD [EDI+17]
AD8: FXCH FR1
ADA: FSUBD FR1
ADC: FSTD FR4
ADE: FSTPD FR0
AE0: FLDD FR1
AE2: FMULD FR2
AE4: FSTD FR1
AE6: FSTPD FR0
AE8: FLDD FR2
AEA: FMULD FR3
AEC: FADD-STI FR1
AEE: FSTPD FR0
AF0: FLDD FR3
AF2: FMULD FR4
AF4: FADDD FR1
AF6: FSQRT
AF8: MOV BYTE PTR [#x280001D4], 0 ; COMMON-LISP::*PSEUDO-ATOMIC-INTERRUPTED*
AFF: MOV BYTE PTR [#x280001BC], 4 ; COMMON-LISP::*PSEUDO-ATOMIC-ATOMIC*
B06: MOV EDX, 16
B0B: ADD EDX, [#x806A404] ; current_region_free_pointer
B11: CMP EDX, [#x806A3D8] ; current_region_end_addr
B17: JBE L0
B19: CALL #x805335C ; alloc_overflow_edx
B1E: L0: XCHG EDX, [#x806A404] ; current_region_free_pointer
B24: MOV DWORD PTR [EDX], 790
B2A: LEA EDX, [EDX+7]
B2D: FSTD [EDX+1]
B30: MOV BYTE PTR [#x280001BC], 0 ; COMMON-LISP::*PSEUDO-ATOMIC-ATOMIC*
B37: CMP BYTE PTR [#x280001D4], 0 ; COMMON-LISP::*PSEUDO-ATOMIC-INTERRUPTED*
B3E: JEQ L1
B40: BREAK 9 ; Pending interrupt trap
B42: L1: MOV ECX, [EBP-8]
B45: MOV EAX, [EBP-4]
B48: ADD ECX, 2
B4B: MOV ESP, EBP
B4D: MOV EBP, EAX
B4F: JMP ECX
B51: NOP
B52: NOP
B53: NOP
B54: NOP
B55: NOP
B56: NOP
B57: NOP
B58: BREAK 10 ; Error trap
B5A: BYTE #x02
B5B: BYTE #x19 ; INVALID-ARGUMENT-COUNT-ERROR
B5C: BYTE #x4D ; ECX
*
cheers,
BM
Hannah Schroeter
Russell Wallace <r...@vorpalbunnyeircom.net> wrote:
>[...]
>Well, he is asking for permission, via the forum the quotes were
>originally posted on :) I'm sure if one of the authors in question
>says "No, I deny you permission" he'll delete that author's words from
>the site.
That thinking is just utterly wrong. Forcing someone to act just to
maintain her/his rights isn't right.
You don't have permission to use copyrighted work (except in the
narrow confines of fair use) until explicitly given.
NOT: You have permission until someone contradicts.
Kind regards,
Hannah.
PS: Just for the sake of this discussion: I hereby assert copyright
on all of my articles unless proven otherwise. And, while there's
implicit permission for news server owners to redistribute them
inside the Usenet news system, there's NO implicit permission to
re-publish my articles in other ways. I probably won't deny permission
to republish, if I'm properly asked, but until then, see above.
Stefan Schmiedl
On 22 Sep 2002 00:42:44 +0000,
Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no> wrote:
>
> However, Google does not edit the articles and does
> not engage in any other intellectual work on the contents, so if Google is
> off the hook for practical or theoretical reasons that still has no bearing
> on whether those who do make additional intellectual value out of published
> material, such as by selective compilation, would be similarly off the hook.
This line of reasoning makes more sense to me than the "different media"
aspect.
>
> If somebody stored the messages in extenso and linked to them from another
> page, that would be far less infringing than using only pieces of them.
> This actually has rather serious ramifications for the ability to make the
> browser extract portions of an abstractly referenced object, which is all
> the rage in the stuff underlying the Semantic Web and related efforts. If
> you can reference-by-inclusion segments of another web object, you can
> effectively make up an entirely new setting for the referenced object, over
> which the original author has no control. Insofar as a complete object is
> referenced-by-separate-instance, it is fairly obvious that the original
> author remains in control.
This makes me think of MSIE's "smart tags" or whatever it was called,
where the *browser* would automatically insert hyperlinks on certain words.
What has happened to this technology?
>
> If, for instance, the search engines were to charge their users money for
> the service of locating web pages, it is not clear-cut which way payment
> should go between search engine and author of web pages. One could imagine
> paying for the referral service to begin with and then getting paid for each
> referral. If, for instance, a search engine that employed classification
> would require payment for the classification service, it could well charge
> the users for using such a classified Web as well, and then the publishers
> of the classification scheme want to be paid. The overarching principle is
> that creativity wants to be rewarded, and the infrastructure necessary to
> reward creativity without punishing use of it takes a lot of work and time
> to be ironed out.
So the current situation is a kind of non-optimized "win-win" situation,
because it "works" for all parts, but does not produce directly measurable
income.
Let's assume that Google would charge end users for the classification,
and be charged for the right to provide the information by the authors.
Do you think that it would still work, or would it lead to the end of
the service?
s.
quasi
F. Burdick) wrote:
>Yes, you said you would in the future. And *that* is what I objected
>to. Doing the right thing in the future doesn't absolve you of the
>need to do it in the present.
Yes is does not.
I have asked them all.
>I'll admit that my reply wasn't friendly, it was annoyed and hurried,
>but it wasn't particularly caustic. On the other hand, you responded
>with pages of angry ranting. Who's uncalled-for?
Yes.
Sorry.
>And, by the way, what's with the amateurish ad hominem attack,
>claiming I don't know you're a human? Nothing I've done or said
>implied that.
I was sleepy and hurried and angry. Sorry.
>*What* explanations? You explained how you didn't think you should
>have to ask, and then you changed your mind. Nonetheless, you still
>asked (and for this iteration are still asking) people to opt-out.
>You're taking silence as implicit permission, and that's bullshit.
According to my consience, I asked though not explicitly. I did not
think at that time it was such a /big/ deal. This I later corrected
after being pointed out by folks here that it was indeed a /big/ deal.
I did not try to run away from asking or anyting of that sort. You
and me is not same. I did what /I/ thought correct. On being later
pointed out that it was /not/ correct, I corrected it.
Forget it anyway.
This is free space. You do what you feel you must.
>I said it's the same thinking that leads to these things.
Fine. I will hence forth not quote anyone from this forum directly or
indirectly. I accepted and agreed to all you said. But I simply
cannot tolerate to be called a plagrist or to be even remotely aluded
as one after taking pains to give credit to those whose it was. So I
am a fool. OK.
>And now you're claiming that I have some world-encompasing theory that
>I'm trying to apply to everything. A little intellectually dishonest,
>don't you think?
sheez. sorry.
>I was trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to point out the common
>thread between much pseudo-science, spam, and plagarism. That is, the
>idea of implicit agreement in the absence of explicit disagreement.
>In the case of pseudo-science, this tends to be wingnuts who claim
>that they have "scientific consensus" because no one objected directly
>to them, or because they "addressed" all objections.
ummmm... OK. As I said, I did not know what you meant by
psudeo-science, nor did I see the "thread". OK. I got it now. But I
/had/ very meekly agreed to my mistake of not asking permission. I
protested to what happened later. Anyway forget it.
>Utopian, and using "materialistic" as a bad word. Hmm, maybe you're
>unable/unwilling to understand me because you're a utopian idealist,
>and not a materialist?
I sincerely hope that Gad gives me the strength to be as
un-materialistic as anyone humanly can be.
>It's your personal problems that are responsible for you thinking that
>annoyed curtness is the same as aggressiveness. For someone who
>idolizes intellectuals, you have pretty thin skin. Most intellectuals
>I know don't always waste time making sure people don't take things
>personally -- they assume that most people assume they're being
>addressed at an intellectual level, not attacked personally. Maybe
>you should try this.
yeah I will.
--
(quit)
NO-WAY
T
Erik Naggum
| So the current situation is a kind of non-optimized "win-win" situation,
Well, that would perhaps be your conclusion, but it does not follow from
anything I wrote.
| Let's assume that Google would charge end users for the classification, and
| be charged for the right to provide the information by the authors. Do you
| think that it would still work, or would it lead to the end of the service?
The Internet will not become a money machine until the banking industry
figures out how to transfer money for free so you can charge USD 0.005 (half
a cent) for some simple service like, say, reading a newspaper article you
have searched for. With today's payment system, the cost of the transfer of
the funds completely dwarf the cost of the service paid for. Various ways to
deal with "electronic cash" have failed (I attended the opening of the First
Virtual Internet Bank, but it folded after losing money mainly due to a
severe shortage of cooperation from the banking industry), and I think the
biggest hurdle is that the banking industry has a negative incentive in
letting transactions be cheap or free -- they are lending the money that
people have effectively lent them out again to other people and only make
money if they can have stable capitalization. If transfers were free, people
would move money around all day to get better interest rates from wherever,
and then the interest rates would drop and probably make borrowing much more
expensive. This situation, however, is what acutely prevents the Internet
from taking off as a network for paid services. (The other options are to
let micropayments accumulate at each site and only to charge or credit credit
cards when the amount surpassed certain thresholds on the one hand, which
exposes the receiver of the funds to high risk, and prepayment of some small
amount that is effectively always unavailable to the payer on the other hand,
which exposes the payer of the money to high risk.)
John Klein
>
> The Fair Use Doctrine applies /because/ every published text is already
> protected by copyright. There are lots of things copyright do not protect,
> but you have to understand these issues before you burn yourself.
>
> In particular, quoting people's articles on Usenet is a very good example of
> the Fair Use Doctrine at work -- but moving some material to a different
> medium that the one in which it was previously published is restricted.
> That is the gist of my argument. Get a book on copyright law and study it.
> I suggest «The Illustrated Story of Copyright» by Edward Samuels as a good
> starting point. Making mistakes in this area is extremely painful. Err on
> the side of caution, but know what your rights, meaning specifically, what
> no one can legally stop you from doing.
I respectfully disagree with this, at least with regards to US
fair use doctrine. Perhaps my reasoning does not apply outside the US.
US fair use law (http://liimirror.warwick.ac.uk/uscode/17/107.html)
lays down 4 conditions for fair use - direct quote follows.
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
is of a 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.
I maintain that quasi quoted the posts for non-commercial purposes
(satisifies 1), the work quoted was a non-profit widely distributed
usenet post (satisfies 2, as much as 2 can be pinned down), the quotes
were mostly partial quotes of usenet articles (satisfies 3, though I
don't know whether quasi's page has changed), and the quotes did not
affect the market value of the copyrighted usenet posts (satisfies 4),
as the authors had no reasonable expectation of remuneration.
Thus I would argue that quasi was very much on the safe side
of US fair use law.
No condition above supports the claim that "moving some material to a different
medium that the one in which it was previously published is
restricted." - the fair use conditions make no mention of a medium.
Erik Naggum
| (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
| the copyrighted work.
| No condition above supports the claim that "moving some material to a
| different medium that the one in which it was previously published is
| restricted." - the fair use conditions make no mention of a medium.
Several court decisions have affirmed that new media present different
potential markets and that the author shall have first right to introduce
the material to a new medium. I find this nearly self-evident.
ilias
> Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no> wrote in message news:<32416100...@naggum.no>...
>
>> The Fair Use Doctrine applies /because/ every published text is already
>> protected by copyright. There are lots of things copyright do not protect,
>> but you have to understand these issues before you burn yourself.
>>
>> In particular, quoting people's articles on Usenet is a very good example of
>> the Fair Use Doctrine at work -- but moving some material to a different
>> medium that the one in which it was previously published is restricted.
>> That is the gist of my argument. Get a book on copyright law and study it.
>> I suggest «The Illustrated Story of Copyright» by Edward Samuels as a good
>> starting point. Making mistakes in this area is extremely painful. Err on
>> the side of caution, but know what your rights, meaning specifically, what
>> no one can legally stop you from doing.
>
> I respectfully disagree with this, at least with regards to US
> fair use doctrine. Perhaps my reasoning does not apply outside the US.
>
> US fair use law (http://liimirror.warwick.ac.uk/uscode/17/107.html)
> lays down 4 conditions for fair use - direct quote follows.
>
> (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
> is of a 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
here: copying the *whole* work *is* the fair use.
(if we discuss a book: of course copying *all* the book is normally an
unfair use)
>
> (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
> the copyrighted work.
>
>
> I maintain that quasi quoted the posts for non-commercial purposes
> (satisifies 1), the work quoted was a non-profit widely distributed
> usenet post (satisfies 2, as much as 2 can be pinned down), the quotes
> were mostly partial quotes of usenet articles (satisfies 3, though I
> don't know whether quasi's page has changed), and the quotes did not
> affect the market value of the copyrighted usenet posts (satisfies 4),
> as the authors had no reasonable expectation of remuneration.
>
> Thus I would argue that quasi was very much on the safe side
> of US fair use law.
based on the information you quoted:
i think: *very* *very* much.
he *used* the work (the usenet articles) *fair* for educational purposes.
> No condition above supports the claim that "moving some material to a different
> medium that the one in which it was previously published is
> restricted." - the fair use conditions make no mention of a medium.
i think this is irrelevant for this case.
Robert Hanlin
> Fine. I will hence forth not quote anyone from this forum directly or
> indirectly. I accepted and agreed to all you said. But I simply
> cannot tolerate to be called a plagrist or to be even remotely aluded
> as one after taking pains to give credit to those whose it was. So I
> am a fool. OK.
Eh, don't worry. Naggum's rants are actually entertaining and
enlightening... since he does at times play the fool who refuses to
understand peoples' internal motivations, though I don't know where
the hell "Thomas F. Burdick" gets off with comparing an unfortunate,
honest mistake in the pursuit of pure education to willful deception.
You can't live life getting all the boring details right the first
time, or pleasing everyone. Otherwise you won't get laid, and you'll
start sounding like the aforementioned gentlemen.
Rob
John Klein
> Several court decisions have affirmed that new media present different
> potential markets and that the author shall have first right to introduce
> the material to a new medium. I find this nearly self-evident.
To me, it isn't quite self-evident, as far as fair use is concerned.
I have a passing familiarity with one case, `New York Times v Tasini',
in which the US Supreme Court held that freelance authors own rights
to their articles in electronic media archives, and that the original
purchasers of the right to distribute on paper do not have an
automatic right to redistribute electronically [1].
However, this appears to have more to do with the interpretation of
pre-existing commercial distribution contracts than with the question
of fair use quotation.
The use of the word `market' is crucial, I think, as is made clear in
Section 4 of the fair use law. In Tasini v New York Times, complete
articles were being sold electronically, there was an established
market, and authors were being deprived of profits.
One important fair use consideration, under test 4, is whether
there is a market for usenet articles in the new medium, and whether
quasi's publication of usenet excerpts damages this market. As far as
I can see, this is the only medium-dependent aspect of the four fair
use tests.
Do you know of a case in which a Tasini-like cross-media doctrine was
upheld pertaining to fair use, rather than pertaining to the
commercial redistribution of complete works or substantial parts
thereof?
A fair use case in which a 'market' was relevant was `The Los Angeles
Times v Free Republic', in which a site that reposted entire newspaper
articles was found in breach of copyright, because it adversely
affected the newspapers' ability to sell archived copies, and because
the articles were quoted at greater length than necessary for
editorial commentary. The court decided that fair use test 1
(commercial use - FR had not yet received nonprofit status, and had
ads and solicited donations - and the quotes were not 'transformative'
and were not used to create a new work), test 3 (posting entire
articles), and test 4 (loss of market, connected to the
non-transformative nature of 1) argued against the defendants, tipping
the balance 3 to 1 in favour of the papers. Interestingly, the
factual (rather than creative) nature of the articles worked in favour
of the defendants when test 2 was applied.
Several features were present in LAT v FR that are not present in the
case of reposting of usenet articles. LAT v FR was a battle between two
commercial entities, entire articles were posted, and there was a
resulting loss of sales.
----
[1] further note on Tasini -- it was decided on what appear to be very
narrow legal grounds. SCOTUS' decision was based on a copyright act
provision (S 201(c)) dealing with the publication of collective works
- the purchaser of a work for inclusion into a collective work
purchases only the right to publish in that collective work, unless
otherwise specified in the contract. An electronic database or
archive was held to reproduce the articles separately, and not as part
of the original collective.