On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]>wrote:
> Vortex-L is an educational organization. > Not relevant. If Harvard wouldn't do what you did because they'd be opening themselves up to a copyright infringement lawsuit. > It does not compete with Forbes for advertising dollars. > True, but that's not the point > The attribution and link goes back to Forbes.com so they can make their > money. Only the text was reposted, not the pictures. > Doesn't matter ... you published the full text. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use > > > Copyright Act of > 1976<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Copyright_Act_of_1976>, > 17 U.S.C.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_17_of_the_United_States_Code> § > 107 <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html>. > 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— > (1)the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of > a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; > > Sure, but your interpretation is wrong because republishing the complete text of a work is not fair use. > > Kevin, > Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should your > work ever be misappropriated without the thief even asking. > [mg] > ***My work has been 'misappropriated', many times. How do you think I > came to be familiar with this section of the copyright code? > > Your familiarity with the copyright code should have therefore told you that you were violating copyright. > > Copying the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits. > ***That's hogwash. Your real objection is because people will read it > here or elsewhere rather than at Forbes, where the advertising dollars > settle. If it was about wasted bits, you wouldn't even bother to bring it > to anyone's attention. > I was making a joke ... and of course I want the hits. I don't write for my own pleasure. And you have violated my and Forbes' copyright and stolen our hits. I didn't raise this with my editor at Forbes because I didn't want the list and William Beatty to have to deal with the fallout. I also thought you might have been sensible and handled it but evidently you aren't willing to and I've heard nothing from William. Now it's all a moot point because enough time has passed that it's not going to have much impact on the posting's hits. Even so, no matter what BS arguments and self-justifications you make, you violated copyright. > And as an FYI, I did you a favor. You need to understand how modern > advertising links work on today's internet. 95% of the traffic goes > through Google, and 90% of users will only go to the first 5 or 6 hits from > Google. Google is Forbes's direct competitor for advertising dollars, so > they include Forbes hits down below their own clients. By pushing your > article on nonprofit educational sites, the search terms that lead to your > article are now much higher on the hit list. > Wrong. I don't have time to educate you but you are simply wrong. > > [mg] > > > > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Andrew <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ** >> I am with Mark. Kevin needs to grow some ethics. >> >> Andrew >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Mark Gibbs <[email protected]> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:28 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released: >> >> Kevin, >> >> Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should your >> work ever be misappropriated without the thief even asking. >> >> [mg] >> >> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Mark: >>> Welcome to da internets. I hope you don't 'loose' your reputation. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Mark Gibbs <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Kevin, >>>> >>>> Publishing a summary or abstract of my piece would have been fine >>>> (under the concept of "Fair Use") but posting my article in full to a list >>>> (and a public list at that) is a breach of both my copyright and Forbes'. >>>> I'd be less annoyed if you'd waited a week or two but for heaven's sake, >>>> this is the Internet ... you can cite a link as Alan Fletcher did so people >>>> can get directly to the original article (which, BTW, has been updated). >>>> Copying the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits. >>>> >>>> William, please delete Kevin's post from the archive. >>>> >>>> Yours, >>>> Mark Gibbs. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Kevin O'Malley >>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> posting it here on Vortex for purposes of using it elsewhere... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Alan Fletcher <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Mark Gibbs has an article up : >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ >>>>>> >>>>>> (Shout-out and plot to ... guess who? ) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
