Author
|
Topic: Trolling for Donations for Definitions (Read 2321 times) |
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.78
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
 
|
 |
Trolling for Donations for Definitions
« on: 2003-09-23 18:00:58 » |
 |
The CoV is continuously getting into situations where access to an authoritive sources would be useful. To begin with, I would suggest at least Encyclopedia Brittanica and the Oxford Dictionary. Neither make it easy to cite from local media (which I have, but as they are Windows only, I'm not running them), Both are bitches to scan from (flimsy, easily damaged pages and tiny text which gives OCR hiccoughs) and both impose drasic restrictions on their use.
However, both have online facilities, which while expensive for individuals, would be cheap if the cost were shared. At least, if an individual subscription were acquired. To avoid breaking the licencing terms, a "designated researcher" might be established by the group, and this person, probably bot assisted, would make material available to answer questions posed by a closed study group, where material from these sources could be shared and discussed.
If there is interest in such a facilty, I would be prepared to set something up. The cost would be dependent on the number of members of such a group. Would there be any interest in such a facility?
Britannica is $59.95 per year and the OED is $295 per year. So $ 360. The OED has to be paid as a single payment for a year.
How many CoV members would be interested in joining such a group? Naturally the cost per person will be dependent on the number of people joining the group.
If people reply to this thread showing the maximum contribution they would consider, it will give me an idea as to whether to go ahead with this. Please don't reflect an amount more than you would pay if there is sufficient interest. Once we reach $360 or more in potential subscriptions, I will go ahead.
Anyone with access to other research material and able and willing to cite it to a closed group might like to mention it on this thread as well.
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.33
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Trolling for Donations for Definitions
« Reply #1 on: 2003-09-23 21:02:09 » |
|
if CoV were registered as a non-profit organisation, would it be easier(and legal) to purchase, use and share subscriptions(not just britannica and oed...but even other kinds of subscriptions)...members who contribute(maybe a fixed sum/year) can have access(in a member only section) to these subscribed materials...
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.78
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Trolling for Donations for Definitions
« Reply #2 on: 2003-09-23 21:50:09 » |
|
[Mermaid] if CoV were registered as a non-profit organisation, would it be easier(and legal) to purchase, use and share subscriptions(not just britannica and oed...but even other kinds of subscriptions)...
[Hermit] Not usually. I have a number of non-profit organizations, and the primary benefits are cheeaper registration, tax breaks and the ability to attract funding from others, especially the ability to qualify for funding from other non-profits (who can't fund for profits).
A few suppliers have deals for non-profits. However, my experience is that those that do typically offer better distributor/dealer prices. In the case of Brittanica and the OED, their prices are higher to any organization - including non-profit organizations - for group access than to individuals, as the cost is based "per seat". However, where a single "researcher" can quote appropriate material from a number of sources - including these subscription sites, to a closed group, such that the cited material is a small part of the response returned (and of course is a tiny part of the source work), this places it squarely in the category of "fair use", and seems to me to offer a "bypass" for the need for licenses for multiple users.
The way I see it working is:
[Userx] "Topic" -> "Researcher"
[Researcher] Performs lookup on OED/Brittanica/Google/Yahoo/etc
[Researcher] Post responses, including appropriate credits, to closed group.
[Researcher] Notify all group members of new post
[Userx] Read or quote posts made by Researcher.
I see the Researcher as a bot. If the TOS for the site precludes using an autoresponding bot, then the appropriately licenced human researcher would have to click "yes" to make the post, i.e. would act like a moderator, and as such the post would not have been made "automatically".
Notice that this mechanism would allow citation on IRC/email etc. by users, who could then quite legally cut & paste from the closed group, although quoting a full article would be dubious practice and open to challenge.
[Mermaid] members who contribute(maybe a fixed sum/year) can have access(in a member only section) to these subscribed materials...
[Hermit] This is exactly how I see this facility working... only by interposing a "researcher" we would dramaticaly reduce the costs while remaining completely legal under US copyright law.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
kirksteele
Acolyte
Posts: 74
Reputation: 4.30
Rate kirksteele
I have never logged in.
|
|
Re: virus: Trolling for Donations for Definitions
« Reply #3 on: 2003-09-24 14:06:36 » |
|
WRT resources...
EBSCO is free for me, along with a couple of dozen other research resources.
Hopefully I will be able to afford an APA membership this year when I enroll at LSU. Since that is my career path, I can consider resourcing PSYinfo.
In accordance with the ethics of academia, however, and with regard to title 17 U.S.C. 116 regarding copyright, the only legitimate manner one can resource materials in this regard is to do so openly as a teaching resource. To do that, yada yada yada, a curriclum, etc., needs be established. Since this would be a non traditional forum, certain caveats and protocols would needs be observed.
Registration, disseminated sources, reviewed resource researching, planned and moderated discussions. The whole nine yards.....
In short, I'd like to see copy left versus copy wrong, but short of that, then I would forward an above board approach to public secondary education methodologies at CoV. e.i. the above or its ethical counterparts.
That sed, I think we need to engage our shared cognition in a way that promotes an alternative social ESS. Western Civ has too long been under the thumbscrews of Xtianity.
KAFGDS W
Hermit <virus@hermit.net> wrote:
The CoV is continuously getting into situations where access to an authoritive sources would be useful. To begin with, I would suggest at least Encyclopedia Brittanica and the Oxford Dictionary. Neither make it easy to cite from local media (which I have, but as they are Windows only, I'm not running them), Both are bitches to scan from (flimsy, easily damaged pages and tiny text which gives OCR hiccoughs) and both impose drasic restrictions on their use.
However, both have online facilities, which while expensive for individuals, would be cheap if the cost were shared. At least, if an individual subscription were acquired. To avoid breaking the licencing terms, a "designated researcher" might be established by the group, and this person, probably bot assisted, would make material available to answer questions posed by a closed study group, where material from these sources could be shared and discussed.
If there is interest in such a facilty, I would be prepared to set something up. The cost would be dependent on the number of members of such a group. Would there be any interest in such a facility?
Britannica is $59.95 per year and the OED is $295 per year. So $ 360. The OED has to be paid as a single payment for a year.
How many CoV members would be interested in joining such a group? Naturally the cost per person will be dependent on the number of people joining the group.
If people reply to this thread showing the maximum contribution they would consider, it will give me an idea as to whether to go ahead with this. Please don't reflect an amount more than you would pay if there is sufficient interest. Once we reach $360 or more in potential subscriptions, I will go ahead.
Anyone with access to other research material and able and willing to cite it to a closed group might like to mention it on this thread as well.
Hermit
----
This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
attached: index.html
|
"Howdy pawdna. Yeee-freakin-haw!! We got us another good ole boy in da White Wash"
-just shoot me
|
|
|
kirksteele
Acolyte
Posts: 74
Reputation: 4.30
Rate kirksteele
I have never logged in.
|
|
Re: virus: Re:Trolling for Donations for Definitions
« Reply #4 on: 2003-09-24 14:33:53 » |
|
The way I see it working is:
[Userx] "Topic" -> "Researcher"
[Researcher] Performs lookup on OED/Brittanica/Google/Yahoo/etc
[Researcher] Post responses, including appropriate credits, to closed group.
[Researcher] Notify all group members of new post
[Userx] Reads or quotes posts made by Researcher.
[Kirk] All good and well, if the convention of the "group" is abided by all.
[Hermit] I see the Researcher as a bot.
[Kirk] Current precidents and definitions with in 17 U.S.C. do not agree with this interpretation. I don't think David M would like to foot the bill for legal defense.
[Hermit] If the TOS for the site precludes using an autoresponding bot, then the appropriately licenced human researcher would have to click "yes" to make the post, i.e. would act like a moderator, and as such the post would not have been made "automatically".
[Kirk] I don't think that this method of 'intervention', which is forwarded ostensibly to preclude "bot abuse" of a resource, would be acceptable. The intent of the liscense structure is to ensure fair remuneration for fair use. Granted, the term "fair" is subjective, as well as the assignment of precedent for establishing a bench mark of what fair use can be defined as. But the intent is to reward the creators of a resource for their work.
[Kirk]Rewarding the creators of a work is one thing, the assignment of fair value is another. The competing paradigms of "market driven research resourcing" and the "collective conscious seeking knowledge without the fetters of pecuniary impeadance" are what we are talking about here. How do we "legitamately" seek to resolve this connundrum?
[Hermit] Notice that this mechanism would allow citation on IRC/email etc. by users, who could then quite legally cut & paste from the closed group, although quoting a full article would be dubious practice and open to challenge.
[Mermaid] members who contribute(maybe a fixed sum/year) can have access(in a member only section) to these subscribed materials...
[Hermit] This is exactly how I see this facility working... only by interposing a "researcher" we would dramaticaly reduce the costs while remaining completely legal under US copyright law.
[Kirk] Once again, unless some recent decision has set a precedent that I missed in Methods of Research 101, etc. I don't think a judge will abide that interpretation.
Kirkasaurus Wrecks
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
attached: index.html
|
"Howdy pawdna. Yeee-freakin-haw!! We got us another good ole boy in da White Wash"
-just shoot me
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.78
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Trolling for Donations for Definitions
« Reply #5 on: 2003-09-24 14:59:17 » |
|
Kirk,
[Hermit 6] For the material already discussed, i.e. EB and the OED, if I read it right, the relevant clause is: USC Tit. 17 Ch 1. 107. "Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use". (Reflected as [USC]).
[USC] Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A [Hermit: reserving rights] , the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
[USC] (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
[Hermit 6.1] Our use would be for a nonprofit (We are automatically eligable for non-profit status IFF we self assert as a religious body (i.e. a church) AND we behave like a non-profit (i.e. clear governance through a responsible body, regulations of membership, conduct, disposition of assets, no individual benefits, etc.) as previously documented by myself on the BBS) educational (not defined in this section, but "educational" has been held to include self-study in previous copyright cases brought against libraries providing copying facilities) purpose.
[USC] (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
[Hermit 6.2] The material is reference material required for criticism, comment, teaching, scholarship and research.
[USC] (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
[Hermit 6.3] A tiny percentage, these are huge works.
[USC] (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
[Hermit 6.4] As the research material would be disseminated to a closed group (meaning that this would not be a publication by the definition of the USC), the market and value of the material would be unchanged by this dissemination. When quoting from this to the CoV at large, only a small amount of the research material would be made available. This would reinforce the point of both [USC 3] supra and [Hermit 6.5] infra.
[USC]The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
[Hermit 6.5]Given that the only unpublished work here would be the "research finding", the permitted quotation of exerpts from the "research finding" to the public site, would be doubly blessed.
[Hermit 6.6] For the above - and for other material, sourced e.g. under the aegis of academic licences, potential difficulties are far more likely to derive from Terms of Use than from public copyright law, as suppliers and academic libraries usually have more stringent controls than "fair use" requires.
Kind Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.78
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Trolling for Donations for Definitions
« Reply #6 on: 2003-09-24 16:52:11 » |
|
[Hermit 3] <Methodology snipped>.
[Kirk 5] All good and well, if the convention of the "group" is abided by all.
[Hermit 7] Oh, it is sufficiently enforceable to make it work. Member of the church and member of the study group, accepting the ground rules of the study group as part of their membership - including respecting all copyright issues. These are technicalities which can be resolved - and will be if there is sufficient interest. But I'm not going to put a lot of work into it if the interest is not there.
[Hermit 3] I see the Researcher as a bot.
[Kirk 5] Current precidents and definitions with in 17 U.S.C. do not agree with this interpretation. I don't think David M would like to foot the bill for legal defense.
[Hermit 7] I don't see this as an issue for a number of reasons:
[Hermit 7.1] Lucifer Media is a service provider within the meaning of the necessary acts, and thus a "common carrier" rather than a "publisher".
[Hermit 7.2] As I said initially,
Quote:
[Hermit 1] If there is interest in such a facilty, I would be prepared to set something up |
. I would do this via a non-profit reseach company as a formal research project and would host it on a paid virtual host service - to all intents eliminating any possible legal repercussions. If anyone objected, they would need to issue a cease and desist order, rather than being in a position to assert a tort.
[Hermit 7.3] The bot would be acting as the agent of the researcher. As a researcher is entitled to quote relevent material on request, I don't see that interposing such a bot (unless a contractual issue aside from copyright - in which case, at worst, the sevice provider could terminate the service IFF the contractual issue overrode "fair use", which I'm not sure could be the case but see [Hermit 7.4] infra) could change this.
[Hermit 7.4] The material would be being presented to a closed-group, formed for purposes that specifically trigger "fair use" provisions. These issues together should ensure that there is neither practical likelihood of any action being taken for such usage, nor any legal grounds for doing so.
[Hermit 3] If the TOS for the site precludes using an autoresponding bot, then the appropriately licenced human researcher would have to click "yes" to make the post, i.e. would act like a moderator, and as such the post would not have been made "automatically".
[Kirk 5] I don't think that this method of 'intervention', which is forwarded ostensibly to preclude "bot abuse" of a resource, would be acceptable. The intent of the liscense structure is to ensure fair remuneration for fair use. Granted, the term "fair" is subjective, as well as the assignment of precedent for establishing a bench mark of what fair use can be defined as. But the intent is to reward the creators of a resource for their work.
[Hermit 7.4] This is an advance notice of a possible concern, and means of obviating it if the publishers have included such a condition. Not a serious obstacle, as the terms of use must permit quotation of the resources, or the "fair use" provisions of the USC title would come into play rendering the issue moot. That being so, a human researcher could certainly make such use of the material as I am suggesting, and the copyright holder would have been remunerated for this via the licence fee paid by the researcher. As far as I can tell, legally, a bot would have to be regarded either as a tool, or as an agent (servant) of the person deploying it, and as such a bot would legally be equivalent to the research agent, who would licensed user. If such a bypass as hypothesized here were needed (which we will only know after studying the TOS), I'm not sure how this could be prevented, and in fact, suspect that it cannot be.
[Kirk 5] Rewarding the creators of a work is one thing, the assignment of fair value is another. The competing paradigms of "market driven research resourcing" and the "collective conscious seeking knowledge without the fetters of pecuniary impeadance" are what we are talking about here. How do we "legitamately" seek to resolve this connundrum?
[Hermit 7.5] This is a much bigger issue which I have been dealing with inter alia, in #rats as part of the "Rational Party" exercise. My take is that the entire concept of ownership of intangible properties is screwed beyond belief coutesy of the coninuous piling of legal fiction one on another to a point where the law now bears no relationship to reality which suggests that not only the implementations, but the concepts need to be reevaluated and the laws (if needed) changed to reflect the reality of the modern situation and likely future. Even if only in order to accomplish the intent of the original legal basis for copyright - which, it seems, the current law has all but forgotten in its determination to make profits for distributors...
[Hermit 7.6] What appears to be the "obvious" channel, is to make available a mechanism whereby a public levy is collected to pay for availability, and original producers remunerated for making their works available by such channels. This would introduce a desperately needed separation between the concept of a "creative work" and the physical manifestation of it.
[Hermit 7.7] Fortunately, if anyone is interested, the suggested mechanism here doesn't need this - or indeed any - general solution. I'm sufficiently confident that it can be accomplished with no more difficulty than any "ordinary" church would have copying parts of a copyright work for the purposes of a "babble study class". Which is, I'd suggest (and argue), the appropriate analogy to be using.
Kind Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.33
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Trolling for Donations for Definitions
« Reply #7 on: 2003-09-24 17:22:44 » |
|
[Hermit]I'm sufficiently confident that it can be accomplished with no more difficulty than any "ordinary" church would have copying parts of a copyright work for the purposes of a "babble study class". Which is, I'd suggest (and argue), the appropriate analogy to be using.
[Mermaid] TIME OUT. We are *not* YET a church. It's one to think refer to ourselves as 'congregation' and totally another to defend oneself in court over copyright issues, right? And so..we have to revisit the issue of giving ourselves legal status...
[Mermaid]May I suggest that we register ourselves as a non profit organisation instead of doing the church thingy? Obviously, that aint going to happen anytime before I hit menopause. Our stated goal will be spreading knowledge and rational thought. A non profit organisation(or even a corporation?) that consults parents on how to educate their public school going children beyond what is being thrown at them. Book recommendations and weekly chats. My vision is to make it possible for every child in this world to get a chance at a decent, rational, *practical* education. In the future, I see it beyond a consulting firm. I see published books. I see physical schools. AND...if that doesnt motivate you....I see television interviews..how is that for a carrot?... ;-) Given that Darwin is quite a popular chap and Hypatia is a virtual stranger to most of the world, we can name it Hypatia Foundation or maybe Hypatia's Children(i thought of it when i came across a book called Hypatia's Daughters at the library) ..if we dont care to give it a dead chick's name..we always have Radiance...we can be affiliated to the brights(we'll donate a site makeover to them) etc...i am sure dawkins and dennett will have a good word for Hypatia if they can write several hundreds words to push the brights concept...we'll get everyone who is anyone to give us some support and a little shoulder....i will personally *call* everyone to make sure this gets exposure..seriously...do NOT doubt my powers of nagging...
I think its time we STOP talking and START acting ...wag..wag...blah..blah...doesnt get anyone anywhere...thats all i am saying...
please..can someone find out how much it will cost? really..folks...lets dust our collective butts and do something worthwhile..i'd rather chip in cash for a productive venture rather than for a group subscription costing $360 to settle disputes over the word 'create'.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.78
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Trolling for Donations for Definitions
« Reply #8 on: 2003-09-24 18:22:30 » |
|
CoV
A church is a church when it says it is and behaves like one. We do say the first, and are working on the second. "Official registration" is not necessary for a Church to act and be a church (and a legitimate non-profit). As previously observed, there are many advantages to leaving it informal.
The Proposed Study Group
The idea goes a long way beyond "proving" things in discussions (although being able to cite appropriate authortities easily is always useful). I saw it as being more in line with establishing a CoV program authoring high-quality material to publish here and elsewhere under the CoV banner, and to provide authoritive answers to the questions that often crop up in our circles.
If there is sufficient interest (no sign of that yet), I'm quite happy to carry the "risk" as, so far as I can see (before studying the TOS) there is no real risk involved. In other words, this "study group" can be completely separate to the CoV if this concerns anyone.
Foundation for Rational Education
This idea, no matter what it is called, is a very appropriate one - and could work very effectively. "Hypatia's Children" is a brilliantly shiny name. I'd suggest that it should be separate to the CoV, although it might profitably affiliate itself to it and other "atheist churches". I can set up internal regulations and get the paperwork in order to register it. I'd suggest that the first order of the day is to create a set of goals for it, determine the name (remember to make it short, memorable and available as one of the common TLDs) and see if we can raise sufficient funds to register it, and establish a website. An budget of around $200 would cover all of the initial expenses.
A thread on the CoV BBS for ideas relating to it would, I suggest, be a first order of the day.
For my initial contribution, I think it should be the Hypatia Foundation, and as and when we have a website up, that we could obtain the hypatia.org domain name.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.33
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Trolling for Donations for Definitions
« Reply #9 on: 2003-09-24 18:52:38 » |
|
[Hermit]A thread on the CoV BBS for ideas relating to it would, I suggest, be a first order of the day.
[Mermaid]Agree.
|
|
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.33
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Trolling for Donations for Definitions
« Reply #10 on: 2003-09-24 19:25:42 » |
|
a suggestion: please dont start writing the internal regulations piece before we have a chance to talk about it..maybe a scheduled chat session
|
|
|
|
|
kirksteele
Acolyte
Posts: 74
Reputation: 4.30
Rate kirksteele
I have never logged in.
|
|
Re: virus: Re:Trolling for Donations for Definitions
« Reply #11 on: 2003-09-25 09:11:45 » |
|
For those not in the know, the best sight (sic) for quoting the USC, is Cornell. Here is there link for what Hermit is quoting:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
Hermit <virus@hermit.net> wrote:
Kirk,
For the material already discussed, i.e. EB and the OED, if I read it right, the relevant clause is: USC Tit. 17 Ch 1. 107. "Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use". (Reflected as [USC]).
[USC] Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A [Hermit: reserving rights] , the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
[USC] (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
[Hermit] Our use would be for a nonprofit (We are automatically eligable for non-profit status IFF we self assert as a religious body (i.e. a church) AND we behave like a non-profit (i.e. clear governance through a responsible body, regulations of membership, conduct, disposition of assets, no individual benefits, etc.) as previously documented by myself on the BBS) educational (not defined in this section, but "educational" has been held to include self-study in precious copyright cases brought against libraries providing copying facilities) purpose.
[USC] (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
[Hermit] The material is reference material required for criticism, comment, teaching, scholarship and research.
[USC] (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
[Hermit] A tiny percentage.
[USC] (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
[Hermit] As the research material would be disseminated to a closed group, the market and value of the material would be unchanged by this dissemination. When quoting from this to the CoV at large, only a small amount of the research material would be made available. This would reinforce both [USC 3] supra and [Hermit 1.1] infra.
[USC]The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
[Hermit]Given that the unpublished work would be the "research finding", the permitted quotation of exerpts from the "research finding" to the public site, would be doubly blessed.
For the above - and for other material, sourced e.g. under the aegis of academic licences, potential difficulties are far more likely to derive from Terms of Use than from public copyright law, as suppliers and academic libraries usually have more stringent controls than "fair use" requires.
Kind Regards
Hermit
----
This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
attached: index.html
|
"Howdy pawdna. Yeee-freakin-haw!! We got us another good ole boy in da White Wash"
-just shoot me
|
|
|
kirksteele
Acolyte
Posts: 74
Reputation: 4.30
Rate kirksteele
I have never logged in.
|
|
Re: virus: Re:Trolling for Donations for Definitions
« Reply #12 on: 2003-09-25 09:28:42 » |
|
Hermit <virus@hermit.net> wrote:
Kirk,
For the material already discussed, i.e. EB and the OED, if I read it right, the relevant clause is: USC Tit. 17 Ch 1. 107. "Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use". (Reflected as [USC]).
[USC] Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A [Hermit: reserving rights] , the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
[USC] (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
[Hermit] Our use would be for a nonprofit (We are automatically eligable for non-profit status IFF we self assert as a religious body (i.e. a church) AND we behave like a non-profit (i.e. clear governance through a responsible body, regulations of membership, conduct, disposition of assets, no individual benefits, etc.) as previously documented by myself on the BBS) educational (not defined in this section, but "educational" has been held to include self-study in precious copyright cases brought against libraries providing copying facilities) purpose.
**************************************
[Kirk]Establishing religious institutional tax exempt status is a stretch. Tax code interpretation is not my forte' but I would hazard that such an assertion on our part would be met with strenuous challenge, not only by the "authors" of those materials we would attempt to 'copyleft' but by the esteemable Internal Revenue Service.
[Kirk] The ENTIRE proposal hinges on the ability of the group (CoV) to establish credibility as a NFP (Not For Profit) org. This would require David M. to literally divorce CoV from Lucifer.Com and set up other firewalls of propriety.
[USC] (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
[Hermit] The material is reference material required for criticism, comment, teaching, scholarship and research.
[USC] (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
[Hermit] A tiny percentage.
[USC] (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
[Hermit] As the research material would be disseminated to a closed group, the market and value of the material would be unchanged by this dissemination. When quoting from this to the CoV at large, only a small amount of the research material would be made available. This would reinforce both [USC 3] supra and [Hermit 1.1] infra.
**************************************
[Kirk] Once again, intent notwithstanding, the proof is in the pudding. Establishing the credibility of the organization as a NFP is the BURDEN we bear. Asserting said status and expecting the rewards is not a tactic I reccomend. "Ruling by fiat" is a tactic that the Bush regime has burned itself with on numerous occasions. We bear the burden of proof a priori to receiving the benifits vis-a-vis USC Title 17 Sec. 107 assertion of religious or educational status.
[USC]The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
[Hermit]Given that the unpublished work would be the "research finding", the permitted quotation of exerpts from the "research finding" to the public site, would be doubly blessed.
**************************************
[Kirk] Research is 'usually' done under grantor of an educational or research institution. John Q. P. does not an educational institution make. Once again the onus is the establishment of credible institutional regard. This would normally come from a peer review process by previously established institutions. Precedent setting is a dangerous game in the world of copyrights. Ask Napster.
For the above - and for other material, sourced e.g. under the aegis of academic licences, potential difficulties are far more likely to derive from Terms of Use than from public copyright law, as suppliers and academic libraries usually have more stringent controls than "fair use" requires.
Kind Regards
Hermit
[Kirk] ;}
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
attached: index.html
|
"Howdy pawdna. Yeee-freakin-haw!! We got us another good ole boy in da White Wash"
-just shoot me
|
|
|
kirksteele
Acolyte
Posts: 74
Reputation: 4.30
Rate kirksteele
I have never logged in.
|
|
Re: virus: Re:Trolling for Donations for Definitions
« Reply #13 on: 2003-09-25 09:49:49 » |
|
Hermit <virus@hermit.net> wrote:
[Hermit 3] .
[Kirk 5] All good and well, if the convention of the "group" is abided by all.
[Hermit 7] Oh, it is sufficiently enforceable to make it work. Member of the church and member of the study group, accepting the ground rules of the study group as part of their membership - including respecting all copyright issues. These are technicalities which can be resolved - and will be if there is sufficient interest. But I'm not going to put a lot of work into it if the interest is not there.
[Hermit 3] I see the Researcher as a bot.
[Kirk8] Once again self declaration does not the exception allow. Assertion by Fiat/Rule by Fiat (RBF) is not how precedents are successfully set. RBF only works in relationships and with children. The legal community will shoot such a proposal down. The precedent of a Virtual Institution is not well entrenched outside of Wallstreet. The virtual colleges have a physical campus foundation upon which to build their argumentative stance. I understand that you are willing to set up the physical resources, but the courts would be hard pressed to see that as a NFP venture without other mechanisms in place, for example:
1) Charter
2) Membership
3) Bylaws
4) Protocols
5) Mission Statement
6) Research goals
All that good stuff that goes into a business plan, plus a little bit more.
[Kirk 5] Current precidents and definitions with in 17 U.S.C. do not agree with this interpretation. I don't think David M would like to foot the bill for legal defense.
[Hermit 7] I don't see this as an issue for a number of reasons:
[Hermit 7.1] Lucifer Media is a service provider within the meaning of the necessary acts, and thus a "common carrier" rather than a "publisher".
[Hermit 7.2] As I said initially,
[Hermit 1] If there is interest in such a facilty, I would be prepared to set something up. I would do this via a non-profit reseach company as a formal research project and would host it on a paid virtual host service - to all intents eliminating any possible legal repercussions. If anyone objected, they would need to issue a cease and desist order, rather than being in a position to assert a tort.
[Kirk8.1] Lucifer Media and CoV are somewhat synonymous. Asserting the seperation is what I said in my previous post as "divorcing" one from the other.
[Kirk8.2] Insofar as the C&D order, you know as well as I that any "author/publisher" is going to wait till signifigant 'damage' has been incurred prior to issuing said C&D, then jump straight into the damages tort. That IS how the American Bar has trained its customer base.
[Hermit 7.3] The bot would be acting as the agent of the researcher. As a researcher is entitled to quote relevent material on request, I don't see that interposing such a bot (unless a contractual issue aside from copyright - in which case, at worst, the sevice provider could terminate the service IFF the contractual issue overrode "fair use", which I'm not sure could be the case but see [Hermit 7.4] infra) could change this.
[Hermit 7.4] The material would be being presented to a closed-group, formed for purposes that specifically trigger "fair use" provisions. These issues together should ensure that there is neither practical likelihood of any action being taken for such usage, nor any legal grounds for doing so.
[Hermit 3] If the TOS for the site precludes using an autoresponding bot, then the appropriately licenced human researcher would have to click "yes" to make the post, i.e. would act like a moderator, and as such the post would not have been made "automatically".
[Kirk 5] I don't think that this method of 'intervention', which is forwarded ostensibly to preclude "bot abuse" of a resource, would be acceptable. The intent of the liscense structure is to ensure fair remuneration for fair use. Granted, the term "fair" is subjective, as well as the assignment of precedent for establishing a bench mark of what fair use can be defined as. But the intent is to reward the creators of a resource for their work.
[Hermit 7.4] This is an advance notice of a possible concern, and means of obviating it if the publishers have included such a condition. Not a serious obstacle, as the terms of use must permit quotation of the resources, or the "fair use" provisions of the USC title would come into play rendering the issue moot. That being so, a human researcher could certainly make such use of the material as I am suggesting, and the copyright holder would have been remunerated for this via the licence fee paid by the researcher. As far as I can tell, legally, a bot would have to be regarded either as a tool, or as an agent (servant) of the person deploying it, and as such a bot would legally be equivalent to the research agent, who would licensed user. If such a bypass as hypothesized here were needed (which we will only know after studying the TOS), I'm not sure how this could be prevented, and in fact, suspect that it cannot be.
[Kirk 5] Rewarding the creators of a work is one thing, the assignment of fair value is another. The competing paradigms of "market driven research resourcing" and the "collective conscious seeking knowledge without the fetters of pecuniary impeadance" are what we are talking about here. How do we "legitamately" seek to resolve this connundrum?
[Hermit 7.5] This is a much bigger issue which I have been dealing with inter alia, in #rats as part of the "Rational Party" exercise. My take is that the entire concept of ownership of intangible properties is screwed beyond belief coutesy of the coninuous piling of legal fiction one on another to a point where the law now bears no relationship to reality which suggests that not only the implementations, but the concepts need to be reevaluated and the laws (if needed) changed to reflect the reality of the modern situation and likely future. Even if only in order to accomplish the intent of the original legal basis for copyright - which, it seems, the current law has all but forgotten in its determination to make profits for distributors...
[Hermit 7.6] What appears to be the "obvious" channel, is to make available a mechanism whereby a public levy is collected to pay for availability, and original producers remunerated for making their works available by such channels. This would introduce a desperately needed separation between the concept of a "creative work" and the physical manifestation of it.
[Hermit 7.7] Fortunately, if anyone is interested, the suggested mechanism here doesn't need this - or indeed any - general solution. I'm sufficiently confident that it can be accomplished with no more difficulty than any "ordinary" church would have copying parts of a copyright work for the purposes of a "babble study class". Which is, I'd suggest (and argue), the appropriate analogy to be using.
[Kirk8.4] To summarize
NFP status - establish credible history prior to seeking resources
Bot as Agent - Hard Sell, that one hasn't even been talked about yet. We would be one of the first
Rational Party Paradigm - Good thing Joe McCarthy isn't around to hear that one, or we would get strung up by our testicles.
"Socialism buy any other name would smell justice unsweet." (With sincerist apologies to the Bard)
KAFGDS W
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
attached: index.html
|
"Howdy pawdna. Yeee-freakin-haw!! We got us another good ole boy in da White Wash"
-just shoot me
|
|
|
Kid-A
Adept
Gender: 
Posts: 133
Reputation: 7.81
Rate Kid-A
|
|
Re:Trolling for Donations for Definitions
« Reply #14 on: 2003-09-25 10:12:14 » |
|
Is the CoV a registered charity?
If so it might be a lot easier to get donations
|
You're probably wondering why i'm here, well so am I, so am I.
|
|
|
|
Logged
