If you reply to this long (10 kB) post please don't hit the reply
button unless you prune the copy of this post that may appear in your
reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already
archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.
The abstract of my post "Re: copyright" [Hake (2012a)] reads in part
[bracketed by lines "HHHH. . . . ."]:
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
I think that DJW's making pdf's available to her students would be in
accord with "Fair Use" of copyrighted material as provided for in
Sections 107 and 108 of the US Copyright Law; see e.g., Cornell
University Law School information for Sect. 107 at
<http://bit.ly/eNseEp> and Sect. 108 at <http://bit.ly/qyWm2Y>.
In the latter it's stated that (translating from legalise to
English): "it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or
archives to reproduce no more than one copy of a work, and to
distribute such copy, provided the distribution is made without any
purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and includes a
notice that the work is or may be protected by copyright."
It should be noted that standardista-basher Susan Ohanian
<http://bit.ly/LPTI2p> and the indefatigable Jerry Becker
<http://bit.ly/OOwkNZ> have both been distributing copyrighted
material for years without substantive problems. Doubtless the verb
"becker," meaning "to distribute copyrighted material free of charge,
consistent with 'Fair Use', " will doubtless make it into Webster's
by 2020.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
To which Keith Taber (2012a) responded in part [slightly edited for
clarity; bracketed by lines "TTTTTT. . . . .", my insertion of
numbers 1, 2, 3. . . . ."):
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
1. In response to Richard Hake's multiple postings last night on
'several discussion lists' regarding his views on what is allowed
under copyright . . . .,
2. i.e., that passing on pdfs (technically transmitting copies of the
file) of a copyright article to a group of people is okay.
3. I cannot see how Hake can draw the conclusion that this is fair
use based on the quote he gave (which surely should not be a quote if
it is in his own 'translated' words):
4. it is clearly NOT covered because a whole article is being
reproduced electronically and distributed to several people. If
copyright is reserved for the article, then this will almost
certainly be an infringement of the conditions of use. (Please see my
PhysLrnR post "Re: copyright" [Taber (2012b)] of 15th July.)
5. I think it is a little dangerous to post suggestions that such
copyright infringements are covered by fair use.
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
Considering Taber's five points (above) in order:
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1. Taber (2012a) wrote: "In response to Richard Hake's multiple
postings last night on 'several discussion lists' regarding his views
on what is allowed under copyright . . . . ,"
WRONG! My post "Re: copyright" [Hake (2012a)] did NOT give "my views"
on copyright. Instead, as stated in the abstract it relayed:
a. " 'Fair Use' of copyrighted material as provided for in Sections
107 and 108 of the US Copyright Law; see e.g., Cornell University Law
School information for Sect. 107 at <http://bit.ly/eNseEp> and Sect.
108 at <http://bit.ly/qyWm2Y>."
b. my translation of Sect.108 at <http://bit.ly/qyWm2Y> from legalise
to English.
222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
2. Taber (2012a) wrote: "that passing on pdfs (technically
transmitting copies of the file) of a copyright article to a group of
people is okay."
WRONG! What I wrote in Hake (2012a) was: "I think that DJW's making
pdf's available to her students would be in accord with 'Fair Use' of
copyrighted material." DJW need not transmit copies of the pdf file
in order to make pdf's available to her students. She could, for
example, place the pdf file on her own website in accord with "Fair
Use," Sect. 107 at <http://bit.ly/eNseEp> and Sect. 108 at
<http://bit.ly/qyWm2Y>, and as done e.g., by Joe Redish
<http://bit.ly/M91ORI> and David Meltzer <http://bit.ly/evNlqb>, and
then transmit the URL to her students.
3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
3. Taber (2012a) wrote: "I cannot see how Hake can draw the
conclusion that this is fair use based on the quote he gave (which
surely should not be a quote if it is in his own 'translated' words):
WRONG! I drew the conclusion "that DJW's making pdf's available to
her students would be in accord with 'Fair Use' of copyrighted
material" on the basis of:
a. Sections 107 and 108 of the US Copyright Law; see e.g., Cornell
University Law School information for Sect. 107 at
<http://bit.ly/eNseEp> and Sect. 108 at <http://bit.ly/qyWm2Y>, and
b. my translation of Sect.108 at <http://bit.ly/qyWm2Y> from legalise
to English.
Even if Taber and others disagree with "b" they cannot dismiss "a".
As regards Taber's charge that I have misused quotation marks, Taber
evidently is unaware that, according to e.g., Webster's New
Collegiate Dictionary, 1980, p. 1587, double quotation marks "...."
may be used, not only to enclose direct quotations, but also: "to
enclose words or phrases borrowed from others, words used in a
special way, . . . ."
444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
4. Taber (2012a) wrote: "it is clearly NOT covered because a whole
article is being reproduced electronically and distributed to several
people. If copyright is reserved for the article, then this will
almost certainly be an infringement of the conditions of use. (Please
see my PhysLrnR post "Re: copyright" [Taber (2012b)] of 15th July.)"
WRONG! Please see Sections 107 and 108 of the US Copyright Law; see
e.g., Cornell University Law School information for Sect. 107 at
<http://bit.ly/eNseEp> and Sect. 108 at <http://bit.ly/qyWm2Y>. Also,
as indicated in my PhysLrnR post "Re: copyright" [Hake (2012b)]:
55555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555
5. Taber (2012a) wrote: "I think it is a little dangerous to post
suggestions that such copyright infringements are covered by fair
use."
I think it is a little dangerous for Taber (2012a) to post
suggestions that "Fair Use" as set forth in Sections 107 and 108 of
the US Copyright Law; see e.g., Cornell University Law School
information for Sect. 107 at <http://bit.ly/eNseEp> and Sect. 108 at
<http://bit.ly/qyWm2Y> is illegal.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 23 July
2012; NOTE: to access posts on CLOSED PhysLrnR archives the one needs
to subscribe :-(, but that takes only a few minutes by clicking on
<http://bit.ly/nG318r> and then clicking on "Join or Leave
PHYSLRNR-LIST." If you're busy, then subscribe using the "NOMAIL"
option under "Miscellaneous." Then, as a subscriber, you may access
the archives and/or post messages at any time, while receiving NO
MAIL from the list! CLOSED PhysLrnR archives .
Hake, R.R. 2012a. "Re: copyright" online on the OPEN AERA-L archives
at <http://bit.ly/LWmBtO>. Post of 17 Jul 2012 09:34:35 -0700 to
AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are
being transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog
"Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/LwI2jv> with a provision for
comments. I apologized in Hake (2012c) for misspelling "Barowy" as
"Baraway."
Hake, R.R. 2012b. "Re: copyright" online on the CLOSED! PhysLrnR
archives at <http://bit.ly/O4g2Vx>. Post of 17 Jul 2012 19:29:26
-0700 to PhysLrnR.
Hake, R.R. 2012c. "Re: copyright" online on the CLOSED! PhysLrnR
archives at <http://bit.ly/MkN4MY>. Post of 18 Jul 2012 15:23:47-0700
to PhysLrnR.
Taber, K. 2102a. "Re: copyright," online on the OPEN! Phys-L
archives at <http://bit.ly/NO2AnD>. Post of 19 Jul 2012 08:37:23
+0100 to Phys-L and several other discussion lists, among them
PhysLrnR and AERA-K.
Taber, K. 2102b. "Re: copyright," online on the CLOSED! PhysLrnR
archives at <http://bit.ly/NO09kZ>. Post of 15 Jul 2012 18:33:48+0100
to PhysLrnR.