Gingerbug, don't you get tired of being a whackjob? Everyone in America is laughing at you. Even Allen at Modwest.
I've moved on. I'm obsessed w/the Illuminati now.Can't you turn your attention to, say racer 'comma' mike?
On the other hand, these emails are fun to read.
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Gingerbug wrote:
Hi,
I disagree with your interpretation of the Fair Use. Based on the URL's sent to you, you can see that large sections, in fact, all of one entry, have been published without permission. The Fair Use part of the Copyright act allows for small sections to be published for criticism or review. This is definitely not the case here. I am quite happy for small sections of articles to be published for criticism or review, but not complete articlesor such large sections (as I said, in total, a whole article was published). The equivalent here would be the publishing of a whole newspaper article, which is definitely not allowed under 'Fair Use'.
Please can you take immediate action. This has been dragging on for a while now. The domain owner (your customer), is, unfortunately of no help. He has forwarded our entire email exchange to the board moderator, who, in turn has made it public in its entirety (http://loudwoman.diaryland.com/021027_55.html) He sent me the following email yesterday:
*****************
Original Message
From: Jason Chronicle
Subject: Re: Copyright violation
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 21:38:00 -0700 (MST)
Hi Gingerbug,
Sorry, didn't get this e-mail until tonight, after Allen from Modwest sent me a copy of your complaint to him.
Unfortunately, at this time I am unable to take action on this matter as I am thoroughly disinterested in your problems. However, I did forward Allen's e-mail to the Moderator of the forum so she is aware of your concerns. I am sure she will make every effort to take appropriate action.
Regards,
Jason Chronicle
******************
I trust you will deal with this matter fairly and promptly.
Regards,
Gingerbug
------------------------------
Hi,
17 U.S.C. section 107 sets out 4 factors to use when considering "fair use":
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
As to this element, alwaysneverquiteright.com is not selling or making a profit from the use or display of your work. The character of the use here is noncommercial and the purpose is for criticism. This criterion emphasizes a preference that fair use will be granted to those works that are created for noncommercial purposes, like these posts on this forum which you are complaining of. Because the purpose of the reprint is for criticism, which is one of the favored purposes enumerated in Section 107, we see it as a legal 'fair use'.
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
This factor recognizes that certain types of works are simply more deserving of copyright protection than other types of works and consequently establishes the scope of copyright protection that should be afforded the original copyrighted work. The scope of fair use is greater for a work like yours, which is purely informational, as opposed to a work of art, music or fantasy. Also, since your original work has already been published, posted for the world to see, free of charge or royalty, it has less protection than had it been unpublished.
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
Your assertion that this is not a Fair Use relies primarily on this element. However, the crucial determination is whether the quality and value of the material copied from the original copyrighted work is "reasonable" in relation to the purpose of copying. Here, although the criticism does use a substantial amount or all of a particular original entry, the work itself is actually the diary as a whole, not the individual entries therein. Moreover, extensive quotation of the short original entry was more to ensure accuracy and demonstrate the points which were being criticized. Â There is no absolute word limit on fair use, but a few successive paragraphs are allowed. There have been circumstances where a court has found that the use of an entire work was fair use. In addition, this factor not only evaluates the quantity that has been copied but also the quality and importance of the copied material.
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Since the work is freely distributed, the reprinting does not have any effect on the potential market value of the work. Â No potential or actual harm to the copyright value can be calculated from the use of the work in a post on this forum, other than that possibly resulting from criticism of the work, which is permitted. The site alwaysneverquiteright.com and its forum is not similar to your diary work and is not aimed at the same market as your diary. Â In essence, alwaysneverquiteright.com's use is not an attempot to steal your users or readers from your site. The reprint does not become a substitute for, or make the purchase of your original unnecessary (the original is even distributed freely), nor does it fulfill any demand for the original. On the contrary, the nature of these posts is likely to drive traffic, readers and demand to your online diary, in search of more of your original work.
Having explored all the factors above and weighing their results together, the use of the material still falls under the Fair Use exception of the Copyright Act and therefore we cannot take any action to disable or erase it.
Allen L.
Modwest Support
