If it is okay to copy an entire article onto a blog with my commentary attached, then what is there to stop me from posting the entire Lord of the Rings novel with a review written by me attached. I just can't buy the argument that it is okay to copy an entire article. What is so hard about providing a hyperlink to the article you wish to share?

Nobody has a right to control what I do, as long as I'm not distributing it.

Publishing a copy of an article here with your own comments attached is a form of distribution and would therefor violate the rights of the author of the article being copied.

I have watched this blog develop and must agree it has all the markings of another phase of censorship, done by a group of political shills having an agenda, who have lost the ability to respond to and refute the truth on their own site. The facts of copyright law are being used as preface to censorship, and I would know first if copyright was violated as I have put up dozens of articles for my archive here.

You neglect to consider the 'intent' aspect of the definition in infringement. If one were to 'plagiarize' as one poster points out, then one is subject to anathematization as a intellectual fraud. By posting whole articles it also respects the author by not selectively representing his/her view on a matter. Often I have disagreed with the author's conclusion, but believe the author has the right to full and honest representation of their view, not my selective -and often abused aspect of copyright law, which is the birth place of plagiarism - excerpting, but the whole verbatim text. This is lawful intent and not profit, or plagiarism.

As a non-paying member, I have no vested right to object to ANY alteration of the site guidelines, and have always been agreeable to any and all changes, however suspect they are to me personally. If Brad & Co. wish me to stop such practice, I have no choice or be banned, and this is the law, without regard to copyright law. I view this as a veil for suppressing opposing views and information a certain political party wants its puppets to not learn of. Another gesticulation done when the day is lost for failing political views under the glare of free and open information on the issues.

In the end it is not I who censors, not we - the averagejoes - who suppress. Do not hang your head and feel as if you are criminal or wrong to put up views that are oppopsed by the owners. They have no response to truth but this. It is but another step toward the end of this site when all is said and done, as it turns into the censored and biased site Brad says he started it to escape.

Now I would leave out a word or sentence of each post just to mess around but it isn't worth it to me. Should we all just submit our blogs with any quotes to a censor board or body you obviously are become Brad? Tell us, what can we now say on YOUR site? Can we still disagree; post information not on Fox news?

I feel kind of chilly in here. Must be my free speech.

"Nobody has a right to control what I do, as long as I'm not distrbuting it." is suppose to be a quote from programcsharp.

If you wish to make this an issue of User Policy Agreemnet, feel free and go for it. But please don't make this an issue of copyright infringement because you have no case. If Arianna Huffington has an issue I'm certain her lawyers will be contacting me. On the other hand, and knowing Arianna, I am certain she is quite happy to have her materials distributed far and wide, especially on a site wish such bias as this one.

Wahkonta, what is so hard about providing a hyperlink to the articles you want to share? All you have to do is write a few comments about what you think then provide a link to the article. People can still click on the link and read the article.

This is part of a vast right wing conspiracy to silence free speech.

Hmm I think everyone should attend college-level Writing.

Citing all quotes and making sure all quotes has a " " is a very basic part of writing a essay or even a summary.

Why does all my articles has no " " or cites? It's because it's purely my own work.

I think some individuals are making a big fuss over this new rule because they want to believe that there is a conspiracy to censor what they say, and they want to believe that they are victims of oppression. They enjoy protesting too much.

Tech Cat:"If it is okay to copy an entire article onto a blog with my commentary attached, then what is there to stop me from posting the entire Lord of the Rings novel with a review written by me attached. I just can't buy the argument that it is okay to copy an entire article."
Assuming this is a reply to my post, I'd have to ask you to reread my post or at least quote the portion you disagree with. If you actually read it, rather then just posting "What is so hard about providing a hyperlink to the article you wish to share?" with no supporting arguments, you'd see that I am not saying that one should be able to copy an article. Actually, I'm arguing for the opposite -- as I say above,

"Where the usage starts to be illegitimate is when you start copying and sharing the content with a mass audience, or charging for the content. For example, reposting an article in full, or sharing copyrighted programs or music online."

That seems pretty clear to me. If you are just copying an article in full, that's not acceptable. However, if you are adding significant value -- say you're refuting it's points one by one, it makes sense to quote the parts you are refuting. That's fair use. If you look at the copyright code posted by Jeff, "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" are specifically protected as fair use. As XX said, citing quotes and using them in an article is fair use, and standard journalistic practice. Just copying verbatim rather than for use to comment or criticise is not.

As for your assertion that my position fosters "posting the entire Lord of the Rings novel with a review written by me attached", that seems valid on the surface. However, when you look critically, you'll see that there is a big difference in the ratio of newly generated material to original material. In the case of quoting someone in an article, or citing specific points of contention, there is going to be at least a 1:1 ratio, probably much higher of material created by the new author verses the original material. In your hypothetical situation of posting a full book with a (probably 1000-2000 word) review attached, you are posting mainly the original author's work, with just a tidbit of your own in comparison.

To sum up: I believe that distributing copyrighted works is wrong and illegal. However, quoting them (even in full, if that is necessary for the criticism) for the specifically granted types of fair use _is fair use_. That is the definition of fair use. Look at the copyright code. It is fair use. I am not defending those who plagurize -- plagurism is wrong. I am asserting that quoting is not plagurism, but fair use. As is personal copying in whatever amount, for whatever use, as long as the copies are not distributed to others.

Forgive my naivety, but if our blog sites belong to us, so much so that we accept the terms of use, and so much so that we even have the comments to our articles, wouldn't it be us that are pursued in a lawsuit and not JoeUser.com? I realize this is a rule now that is being enforced here, and as a rule to use the services, we accept it or leave, I'm just trying to understand the legal part of it all.

*sigh*  it has nothing to do with whether you make money on something.  People sharing songs on napster don't make money, and neither do people who carry off material and post it in its entirety.  Again....

U.S. Copyright Office - Can I Use Someone Else’s Work? Can Someone Else Use Mine? (FAQ)

"How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?
Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See FL 102, Fair Use, and Circular 21, Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians.

Could I be sued for using somebody else's work? How about quotes or samples?
If you use a copyrighted work without authorization, the owner may be entitled to bring an infringement action against you. There are circumstances under the fair use doctrine where a quote or a sample may be used without permission. However, in cases of doubt, the Copyright Office recommends that permission be obtained."

"Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians." in the first section refers to the circular linked, not the section as a whole.

This is *not* persecution.  This is the law.  You would think that all you muckrakers would watch the news enough to hear about people getting sued for this periodically.

Also in the first line is an important item being missed:

"Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. " keyword: all

and in this particular case, I believe we are entirely within fair use. occasionally people post full columns of known interest to a limited audience for private eduactional purposes, and generally referring from authors whom I know persoanlly would be happy to have their work reposted here (or elsewhere).

So, whether it is fair sue or copyright depends on all circumstances. I personally probably post a higher percentage of full columns than maybe anyone on this site (brad may know). Anyway, there are a handful of people on JoeUser who I know are interested in what I post and it for their benefit and that we may comment to each other about it. Often we are having a conversation about it. This is no different than if I made printed copies and handed them around or posted one at the coffee shop. I am quite confident I am in no difficulty under any form of copyright law.

If JoeUser wushes to have a policy restricting such use, this is their prerogative. Please just let us all know what your policy will be and if we need to agree to a new user agreement.

BTW, is this really about fair use issues, or is this about storage space on the server? Certainly we can just use quotes and a link.

No, again Jeff, no where does it ever say that you can use all of an article.  It specifically says in numerous places "limited portions" and "a quote or a sample". 

When it says "Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances." it means that even small amounts can be too much depending on the character of the work, like a hook stolen for a Rap song.  If I quote ten lines of a Time article, that is probably okay.  If Emenem quotes ten lines of someone else's work, it probably isn't.  That is why they make the point of saying:

"There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances."

They can't say exactly how much of a "a quote or a sample" is inappropriate, because every case is different.  No where, no where at all, does it say an entire work can be copied via fair use, except perhaps educators or librarians, and even then I doubt it.

This is one of those issues that you guys simply can't 'agree to disagree' on.  You won't have to deal with it when Time's or Slate's lawyer sends an email to JoeUser accusing them of copyright infringement.  As we have seen time and again with Peer to Peer, the excuse that "The user did it!" doesn't work.  It is the site they go after.