SPR Library is now On-Line
- Thread starter SteveGrenard
- Start date
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
Corey -- talk about maroons. WHy dont you learn to read. Ditto for Larsen who I just had to see what silly thing he said. I said there was no censorship. I was chiding Luci for suggesting there was. Why dont you guys learn to read? And better yet ........comprehend what you read. I know you find it difficult
to accept the fact that I said this but then don't turn it around and misinterpret to suit your mind sets.
to accept the fact that I said this but then don't turn it around and misinterpret to suit your mind sets.
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
Official censorship. The tactics of yourself Hoyt, as well as Larsen have been well revealed and those who agree with them are part of your flock. Individuals attempt to cesnor by using devices such as redundant questioning, misattributing misquoting, reversing object and subject, and other time worn and patently obvious cons of their own to attempt to stifle debate and impose a form of censorship. So again, read my statement carefully unless of course you feel that you, Larsen, TLN etc "are the Board" in which case I wish you well.
Lucianarchy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,105
BillHoyt said:
Fair Use Provision of the Copyright Act - The Statutory Decree §107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair Use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, 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 -
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Factor 1 -
Purpose and Character of Use This first factor looks at the new work takes into account the following three sub-factors.
Commercial nature or non-profit educational purposes.
Preamble Purposes
Criticism
Comment
News reporting
Teaching
Scholarship
Research
Degree of Transformation
The first sub-factor (1) simply looks at the new work and determines whether it was created primarily as a for profit venture or was created for a non-profit educational purpose. While not at all determinative, this test indicates that preference will be granted to works that were created for non-profit educational purposes (like this Web page!).
The second sub-factor (2) looks to see if the new work is for one of the purposes that are mentioned in the preamble of the fair use provision. It should be noted that this list is not restrictive. However, the burden of showing fair use is somewhat easier if the work is for one of these purposes.
The third sub-factor (3) looks at the degree of transformation accomplished by the new work. In other words, this sub-factor seeks to determine whether the new work merely supplants the original, or whether it adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, thereby altering the first with new expression, meaning or message.
Factor 2 -
Nature of Copyrighted Work This second factor acknowledges that fact that some works are simply more deserving of copyright protection than others. Consequently, this portion of the test looks at the original work and attempts to determine where that work is in the spectrum of worthiness of copyright protection.
Factor 3 -
Relative Amount The third factor looks at the amount and substantiality of the copying in relation to the work as a whole. However, the critical determination is whether the quality and value of the materials used are reasonable in relation to the purpose of copying. This is not a pure ratio test in that using a whole work may be fair use in some circumstances, whereas using a tiny fraction of a work not qualify for fair use in other circumstances.
Therefore, the quantity, as well as the quality and importance, of the copied material must be considered. Some Justices have looked to see that "no more was taken than was necessary" to achieve the purpose for which the materials were copied.
Factor 4 -
Effect upon Potential Market
The fourth factor considers the extent of harm to the market or potential market of the original work caused by the infringement. This test takes into account harm to the original, as well as harm to derivative works.
Source
17 U.S.C. § 107 (1988 ed. and Supp. IV).
Lucianarchy said:
Luci,
There is nothing there that says wholesale cut & paste constitutes fair use. Notice that the fair use factors enumerated there call for a derivative work, such as commentary or criticism. Excerpts are permitted under such fair use. There is no blanket copyright exemption granted to non-profits.
Lucianarchy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,105
Re: Hoyt: JREF Rules are Immaterial??
I am not claiming that the mods or the sponsor are censoring. It is evident, otoh, that Hoyt, Liarson etc, try to do so. As FU of such articles is permitted in law in non-profit educational formats, the requirement to remove the PEAR PRP paper or the SPR info does not exist in law. It does not appear to be a resource issue for the JREF board either. There was no legal infingement and given the bandwidth given to non-educational matters on the JREF forum, then there appears to be no valid resource issue either. So I am skeptical as to the reasons why they were asked to be removed,
SteveGrenard said:
I am not claiming that the mods or the sponsor are censoring. It is evident, otoh, that Hoyt, Liarson etc, try to do so. As FU of such articles is permitted in law in non-profit educational formats, the requirement to remove the PEAR PRP paper or the SPR info does not exist in law. It does not appear to be a resource issue for the JREF board either. There was no legal infingement and given the bandwidth given to non-educational matters on the JREF forum, then there appears to be no valid resource issue either. So I am skeptical as to the reasons why they were asked to be removed,
Re: Re: Hoyt: JREF Rules are Immaterial??
<marquee>Attention Wal-Mart JREF Shoppers!</marquee>
Luci hath decreed all non-profits exempt from copyright rules. Starting this evening at 5:00pm, JREF will feature free smash hit films. Go to "Free Movies" on the JREF home page. All articles ever published are now being compiled in the "JREF FREE library" section. We will begin with "A" titles this week, and work as swiftly as we can to post every book ever published! Free art by all masters, past and present, can be found in the "Gallerie Randie". Renoir will be the first featured artist. The entire contents of all scientific periodicals will be found in "Hey we can too do this, we're non-profit."
They're no longer laughing with you, Luci. They are past laughing at you, Luci. They are just shaking their heads wondering what drugs you're on.
Lucianarchy said:
<marquee>Attention Wal-Mart JREF Shoppers!</marquee>
Luci hath decreed all non-profits exempt from copyright rules. Starting this evening at 5:00pm, JREF will feature free smash hit films. Go to "Free Movies" on the JREF home page. All articles ever published are now being compiled in the "JREF FREE library" section. We will begin with "A" titles this week, and work as swiftly as we can to post every book ever published! Free art by all masters, past and present, can be found in the "Gallerie Randie". Renoir will be the first featured artist. The entire contents of all scientific periodicals will be found in "Hey we can too do this, we're non-profit."
They're no longer laughing with you, Luci. They are past laughing at you, Luci. They are just shaking their heads wondering what drugs you're on.
Re: Re: Hoyt: JREF Rules are Immaterial??
Steve,
Oh, Steve. Please. You are such a ridiculous character.
There has not been anything "revealed", because I have been very very open about your constant violation of forum - and copyright - rules.
It is not censorship, it is following the law. I challenge you to present your evidence that I misattribute, misquote, or reverse object and subject (whatever the heck that means!).
Do you consider trying to get people to answer questions "censorship"? You sure did on your own defunct SurvivalScience board, where I was told that asking for evidence was considered harrassment.
If you have complaints about my "censoring", then I urge you to file a complaint with the moderators.
You have absolutely no grasp of copyright law (or anything else either). Go on, complain. You are simply ludicrous.
The "Questions for Lucianarchy" stay.
SteveGrenard said:
Steve,
Oh, Steve. Please. You are such a ridiculous character.
There has not been anything "revealed", because I have been very very open about your constant violation of forum - and copyright - rules.
It is not censorship, it is following the law. I challenge you to present your evidence that I misattribute, misquote, or reverse object and subject (whatever the heck that means!).
Do you consider trying to get people to answer questions "censorship"? You sure did on your own defunct SurvivalScience board, where I was told that asking for evidence was considered harrassment.
If you have complaints about my "censoring", then I urge you to file a complaint with the moderators.
Lucianarchy said:
You have absolutely no grasp of copyright law (or anything else either). Go on, complain. You are simply ludicrous.
The "Questions for Lucianarchy" stay.
I don't know if I'd exactly call this censorship, but you've certainly summed up something I've experienced and witnessed in debate with each of the people you mention. I suppose their intent is, as you say, to stifle debate, although unfortunately its so difficult to prove "intent". Nevertheless, I'm convinced that is the desired effect--and, of course, to discredit one's opponents by using these tactics rather than engaging in fair and accurate debate.
Just my two cents, but the tactics you describe certainly ring true to me, even if they may not techincally be actual censorship. But, yes, the outcome is often the same--to shut down opposition to what one thinks, and to stifle the free exchange of ideas.
FutileJester
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2002
- Messages
- 274
Re: Re: Hoyt: JREF Rules are Immaterial??
The rule is being applied without bias. The PEAR paper was posted in violation of the rules, whereas other posters have simply respected the rules and not posted full articles. Hmm, maybe the reason that only PEAR and SPR articles have been cut down to links is that everyone else has had to courtesy not to break the rules? Can you show a single example of a full article posted by anyone that was not edited down to a link?
As to the legal post, it was indeed interesting. It seems that some factors argue for and some against, so I don't see how this is clear evidence that what we're talking about here falls under fair use. The non-profit issue is called 'non-determinative', the presumed purpose of research or criticism is weak since it was posted intact without comment, and the relative amount factor is maxed out (entire article). Something not mentioned is the impact of this being an Internet publication, which means it potentially has a much wider audience than print, and also might factor against fair use (the entire world is not a classroom discussing a paper after all).
Big uncertainties at best. Considering that JREF is located in the most litigious country in the world, the rule is more than reasonable. Now I doubt there would be a real problem with SPR, and Hal said as much as well, but in the absence of explicit permission the rule must be applied uniformly.
Lucianarchy said:
The rule is being applied without bias. The PEAR paper was posted in violation of the rules, whereas other posters have simply respected the rules and not posted full articles. Hmm, maybe the reason that only PEAR and SPR articles have been cut down to links is that everyone else has had to courtesy not to break the rules? Can you show a single example of a full article posted by anyone that was not edited down to a link?
As to the legal post, it was indeed interesting. It seems that some factors argue for and some against, so I don't see how this is clear evidence that what we're talking about here falls under fair use. The non-profit issue is called 'non-determinative', the presumed purpose of research or criticism is weak since it was posted intact without comment, and the relative amount factor is maxed out (entire article). Something not mentioned is the impact of this being an Internet publication, which means it potentially has a much wider audience than print, and also might factor against fair use (the entire world is not a classroom discussing a paper after all).
Big uncertainties at best. Considering that JREF is located in the most litigious country in the world, the rule is more than reasonable. Now I doubt there would be a real problem with SPR, and Hal said as much as well, but in the absence of explicit permission the rule must be applied uniformly.
Clancie said:
You want a "fair and accurate debate"? Then try to answer some of the very relevant questions that derive from your claims, Clancie, instead of just ignoring them. You demand answers from others, but you dodge any tough ones yourself.
You have made it very clear what your tactic is: Ignore the tough questions in the threads they arise, then complain when they pop up in a collated Q4Clancie-thread that they are taken out of context. Along with the various accusations, which you have - so far - not been able to back up.
You even have gone so far as to put me on ignore (I have lost count of how many times this has happened!), and yet, you still complain about the questions. It must really bug you to be unable to remove that thread which documents your tactics.
If you have complaints, direct them to the moderators.
Hmmm....Why is this thread degenerating into personal attacks?
Is this the quality of debate one seeks? If one does not want to debate in a certain style, one should debate only with people one finds desirable. Really, these personal attacks are getting tiresome.
It seems to me before accusations of misattribiting and such are thrown around, one needs to substantiate them.
I seem to recall Steve making such accusations against me- without merit.
Against Stumpy- without merit
Against Brown- without merit.
I seem to recall him mocking another poster on not knowing the difference between testes and testees- when he himself was incorrect.
So here is an idea:
If you find a poster so objectionable- put him on permanent ignore. Enough with the attacks and the comments! Just ignore them. If you can't ignore them, then do them the courtesy of answering the questions. It is simply unfair to take potshots and not answer questions. It is unfair to steer threads on paranormal into personal attacks- and I hate it when it is done on both sides. When someone plays dirty, point it out and provide proof- kind of like I did above. Stop with accusations without proof, because that just detracts from credibility- from all parties. I cringe equally when a believer calls a skeptic a bully and when a skeptic calls a believer a liar.
So, enough. Frankly, I am fed up with this subforum. It has gone the way of politics- old grudges, old accusations clouding good discussions. One thread mirroring a dozen previous ones.
Is this the quality of debate one seeks? If one does not want to debate in a certain style, one should debate only with people one finds desirable. Really, these personal attacks are getting tiresome.
It seems to me before accusations of misattribiting and such are thrown around, one needs to substantiate them.
I seem to recall Steve making such accusations against me- without merit.
Against Stumpy- without merit
Against Brown- without merit.
I seem to recall him mocking another poster on not knowing the difference between testes and testees- when he himself was incorrect.
So here is an idea:
If you find a poster so objectionable- put him on permanent ignore. Enough with the attacks and the comments! Just ignore them. If you can't ignore them, then do them the courtesy of answering the questions. It is simply unfair to take potshots and not answer questions. It is unfair to steer threads on paranormal into personal attacks- and I hate it when it is done on both sides. When someone plays dirty, point it out and provide proof- kind of like I did above. Stop with accusations without proof, because that just detracts from credibility- from all parties. I cringe equally when a believer calls a skeptic a bully and when a skeptic calls a believer a liar.
So, enough. Frankly, I am fed up with this subforum. It has gone the way of politics- old grudges, old accusations clouding good discussions. One thread mirroring a dozen previous ones.
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
So here's a rhetrorical question (you needn't answer) renata since you bring up previous debates that are irrelevant to the substance of this one. Why?
So many people can't get past the past, and so many people do not want to discuss what's relevant, putting them on ignore is a very good idea. These are the folks who labor under the very real misconception that they "are this Board." Nobody can legitimately
fit that description. It is a community made of of all kinds including these ignorable types and, well, I guess now you've proven to be one of those yourself -- I mean eligible for somebody's ignore list.
It is indeed tiresome and worse but don't neglect to consider those who cast the first stone ... and I mean in this debate. They
are trolls and baiters by definition.
Thanks Mark. You're right. The new SPR site is great and will make a whole lot of difference when discussing the research and observations that have been published in these journals and proceedings these past 100+ years.
So many people can't get past the past, and so many people do not want to discuss what's relevant, putting them on ignore is a very good idea. These are the folks who labor under the very real misconception that they "are this Board." Nobody can legitimately
fit that description. It is a community made of of all kinds including these ignorable types and, well, I guess now you've proven to be one of those yourself -- I mean eligible for somebody's ignore list.
It is indeed tiresome and worse but don't neglect to consider those who cast the first stone ... and I mean in this debate. They
are trolls and baiters by definition.
Thanks Mark. You're right. The new SPR site is great and will make a whole lot of difference when discussing the research and observations that have been published in these journals and proceedings these past 100+ years.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,596
I wonder if the SPR site is as objectionable and scientific as the "Answers in Genesis" site. LOL.