in-line :-
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:52, Vickram Crishna<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Raj Mathur <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday 05 Sep 2009, Vickram Crishna wrote:
>>
>> > 'Fair use' is a matter that continues to pose problems for legal
>> > systems around the world, and I doubt the legal experts on this list
>> > have the authority to pronounce judgment on those who choose to
>> > encumber their posts with such lengthy signatures.
>>
>> I make the CD and send it to him, charging him Rs 25
>> for the media and transfer costs. By doing this I'm violating the
>> licence of the mail and am technically liable to be prosecuted for
>> copyright violation.
>
> This is a very reasonable and likely scenario. However, I contest your
> suggestion that the acts of creating and distributing CDs are gains from the
> content of the email. You would have incurred those costs, and received the
> compensation for it, whether or not the impugned mail was included.
> To argue one step further, you/the recipient would also have incurred a cost
> to physically gain access to the CD, ie, by mail or courier, and it is hard
> to see how this is in any way gains from the specific content of OP.
> Certainly, the Indian Post wouldn't have a leg to stand on, if it were to be
> prohibited (or taxed, for that matter) from carrying commercial content on
> the grounds that it is gainfully earning directly from that content. It
> isn't, in fact, it merely charges for the cost of carriage, and not for the
> content thereof.
> Were this not so, I would see millions of Indians, hungry for the contents
> of this mailing list, paying more just to ensure OP's mails are deleted from
> it.
> To sum up, the costs of such reproduction and transmission cannot be
> construed as gains from the content. This is exactly the bone of contention
> about fair use with which courts and legal experts around the world wrestle,
> and the license is therefore intended to avoid such wrangling.
> But let's get OP's own reasoning for including the license (don't be shy, or
> be put off by flames, to admit it was but youthful enthusiasm)?
Hi Vikram,
Thank you for taking a better stand than the obvious :)
No, it was more than that. I see three ways to do it :-
a. Have no license at all, as anyways whatever you write means you
have copyright on it.
b. Have a copyright signature having encumberances
c. Use the one which I have used.
From whatever experiences I have been seeing around me I've seen
increase in online plagiarism . Few examples to give my point :-
1. http://eoid.org/2009/08/19/spicejets-magazine-a-study-in-plagiarism/
2.
http://twilightnewmoon.blogspot.com/2009/08/writer-accuses-twilight-author-of.html
3.
http://naveen.instablogs.com/entry/indian-bloggers-enraged-at-yahoo-indias-plagiarism/
4. http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1124746727015&oid=213367860373
5.
http://rising.blackstar.com/heres-why-you-should-add-your-name-and-copyright-notice-when-posting-photos-o.html
While granted most of them have to do with photos and articles its
just saving my back. You could say/claim that I'm 'paranoid' or
whatever else, this is the only way I see of minimally protecting
myself . And of course, I don't see the number of cases here
diminishing as newspapers cutting their staff more and more and
becoming less relevant to mainstream.
> --
> Vickram
> http://communicall.wordpress.com
<snipped>
--
Regards,
Shirish Agarwal
My quotes in this email licensed under CC 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
http://flossexperiences.wordpress.com
065C 6D79 A68C E7EA 52B3 8D70 950D 53FB 729A 8B17
_______________________________________________
network mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
