Slashdot presents the *entire* copyrighted work, by itself, with no directly associated commentary, for the purposes of evading the copyright holder's chosen license.
Well, I did read the entire section I linked to.And I'm certainly glad that some else followed my links. Having said that, there is ample precedent for quoting the entire work: see a recent case involving Kelly v Arriba. Or check out my previous post or for a humorous example check out this Harvard law professors commentary Not to mention a close reading might note that the section I quoted
...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies [emphasis mine -Rich] [...] for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,[...]is not an infringement of copyright."
specifically allows the **entire** work.
"No directly associated commentary" ??? What were those 800+ posts about then? Natalie Portman and hot grits? No, slashdot is a discussion forum where people such as you and I discuss each others posts,hopefully in relation to the Story heading. For example if I were to cut and paste US Code Section 107 Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use and just post that without relevent comentary I would argue that I would be definitely commenting on the story, it is a relevent part of discussing copyright law. In much the same way merely posting Microsoft's Kerberos Document allows informed commentary and as such should be considered fair use. I believe that in the context of a story and discussion about Microsoft's "enhancements" to Kerberos it is squarely within the rights of fair use to quote the entire spec. Now if the story heading was about the latest super cool 200 gig mp3 player and someone posted the spec without commentary then yes it would be a violation of copyright.
While I won't claim to know the reasoning behind every posters posting of Microsoft's spec I'm sure it could be just as easily claimed that they were facilitating the discussion and commentary about the so-called Kerberos Enhancements.
Slashdot derives revenue from the posted work by selling advertising space in conjunction with the display of Microsoft's copyrighted work, the presence of which they endorse by refusing to remove it.
I hardly believe that programers come to slashdot to gain technical knowledge and specs, especially when slashdot's own heading states News for Nerds Stuff that matters . I'm no linguist but that sugests to me that this site is a *news* site, not a programmers technical resource site,( which we both know, since we seem to be in the minority of posters who have actually bothered reading the US Code, would also be covered as a resource for teaching, another fair use exception.)
Incidentally, slashdot gains readership (and thereby income) from from the lively discussions following from their headlines and Jon Katz commentaries/flamefests, hence the claims of fair use for news reporting/commentary.
In regards to your comments about licensing issues I think that slashdot (and you and I) do not need to concern themselves with pointless bickering over GPL versus click thru versus etc, especially since fair use allows quoting of licensed/non licensed material regardless of GPL vs. Microsoft's click thru license.
Regards, Rich p.s.
In regards to the Arriba case I first pointed out:
The court found the first factor to weigh in favor of fair use. It found the nature of Arriba's use to be "significantly transformative" in that it sought to catalog and improve access to images on the Internet. This purpose was significantly different than the plaintiff's purpose in using the photographs (i.e., to illustrate his own photography). That the defendant's use of the images was commercial was mitigated because their use was "more incidental and less exploitative [in] nature than more traditional types of 'commercial use.'"
I would argue in the same vein that Slashdot's use of Microsoft's Kerberos Document is significantly different from Microsoft's use of the document, transforming it from merely a specification into a news story for commentary. The so called comericial use here in slashdot could also be considered incidental and less exploitive than say a competitor using the document. As a news organaztion slashdot's use of the document is completely different than Microsoft's. Unless of course CmdrTaco and Co. are planning a Slashdot/Kerberos implementation.
pps. *a note: I'll finish with the obligatory retort:)
If you bothered to read the fair use statutes of US Law ( link )You'ld see that the posting of the Kerberos spec clearly falls under the right of fair use.
"...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies [...] for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,[...]is not an infringement of copyright."
Clearly slashdot is a news reporting site, clearly people who posted the spec were critisising it, and finally many people have been commenting on it, a more perfect example of fair use would be hard to find.
The examples you point out fail to meet the standards of fair use, since in your example the infringing sites would not be 1) a news report, 2) critisism, 3) or commentary upon the sites. Not to mention failing to meet several other requirements of fair use that I will let you discover by reading the above link.
*a note: You may wish to do some *basic* research before posting next time.
As such, as much as I hate to say it, if any comments quoted more than a reasonable fair use section of the document, Slashdot doesn't have a legal leg to stand on and this is just a bit of grandstanding.
Actually quoting an entire document can fall within the fair use doctrines. For example if I had quoted your entire comment. But don't just trust me, trust a harvard law professor: See the amusing link of Harvard law professor William W. Fisher, III where he copies a suck.com article, presumably for a class. He also mentions a recent case which states:
The Fair Use Doctrine allows certain use of copyrighted material under special circumstances. Four factors weigh for or against fair use: (1) purpose and character of the use, (2) the nature of the copyrighted work, (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. (Click here to see the complete "fair use" doctrine) I would argue that it is hard to comment or report upon something without actually viewing what it is that is to be commented on. So even those posters who merely posted the entire document could be said to be furthering disscussion on the document. Especially since Slashdot is a disscussion forum where posts are not to be read in an individual way but rather as an ongoing corespondence between posters.
Quoting selectively from the fair use section of the us code 17 section 107 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. Plainly Microsoft doesn't have a leg to stand on. But we all knew that didn't we? -Rich
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention a close reading might note that the section I quoted
specifically allows the **entire** work.
Slashdot derives revenue from the posted work by selling advertising space in conjunction with the display of Microsoft's copyrighted work, the presence of which they endorse by refusing to remove it.
I hardly believe that programers come to slashdot to gain technical knowledge and specs, especially when slashdot's own heading states News for Nerds Stuff that matters . I'm no linguist but that sugests to me that this site is a *news* site, not a programmers technical resource site,( which we both know, since we seem to be in the minority of posters who have actually bothered reading the US Code, would also be covered as a resource for teaching, another fair use exception.)
Incidentally, slashdot gains readership (and thereby income) from from the lively discussions following from their headlines and Jon Katz commentaries/flamefests, hence the claims of fair use for news reporting/commentary.
In regards to your comments about licensing issues I think that slashdot (and you and I) do not need to concern themselves with pointless bickering over GPL versus click thru versus etc, especially since fair use allows quoting of licensed/non licensed material regardless of GPL vs. Microsoft's click thru license.
Regards,
Rich
p.s.
In regards to the Arriba case I first pointed out:
The court found the first factor to weigh in favor of fair use. It found the nature of Arriba's use to be "significantly transformative" in that it sought to catalog and improve access to images on the Internet. This purpose was significantly different than the plaintiff's purpose in using the photographs (i.e., to illustrate his own photography). That the defendant's use of the images was commercial was mitigated because their use was "more incidental and less exploitative [in] nature than more traditional types of 'commercial use.'"
I would argue in the same vein that Slashdot's use of Microsoft's Kerberos Document is significantly different from Microsoft's use of the document, transforming it from merely a specification into a news story for commentary. The so called comericial use here in slashdot could also be considered incidental and less exploitive than say a competitor using the document. As a news organaztion slashdot's use of the document is completely different than Microsoft's. Unless of course CmdrTaco and Co. are planning a Slashdot/Kerberos implementation.
pps.
*a note: I'll finish with the obligatory retort
Nope, not hypocritical at all.
If you bothered to read the fair use statutes of US Law ( link )You'ld see that the posting of the Kerberos spec clearly falls under the right of fair use.
"...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies [...] for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,[...]is not an infringement of copyright."
Clearly slashdot is a news reporting site, clearly people who posted the spec were critisising it, and finally many people have been commenting on it, a more perfect example of fair use would be hard to find.
The examples you point out fail to meet the standards of fair use, since in your example the infringing sites would not be 1) a news report, 2) critisism, 3) or commentary upon the sites. Not to mention failing to meet several other requirements of fair use that I will let you discover by reading the above link.
*a note: You may wish to do some *basic* research before posting next time.
-Rich
Actually quoting an entire document can fall within the fair use doctrines. For example if I had quoted your entire comment. But don't just trust me, trust a harvard law professor:
See the amusing link of Harvard law professor William W. Fisher, III where he copies a suck.com article, presumably for a class. He also mentions a recent case which states:
The Fair Use Doctrine allows certain use of copyrighted material under special circumstances. Four factors weigh for or against fair use: (1) purpose and character of the use, (2) the nature of the copyrighted work, (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. (Click here to see the complete "fair use" doctrine)
I would argue that it is hard to comment or report upon something without actually viewing what it is that is to be commented on. So even those posters who merely posted the entire document could be said to be furthering disscussion on the document. Especially since Slashdot is a disscussion forum where posts are not to be read in an individual way but rather as an ongoing corespondence between posters.
Quoting selectively from the fair use section of the us code 17 section 107
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. Plainly Microsoft doesn't have a leg to stand on. But we all knew that didn't we?
-Rich