META/ Posting Just Links Versus Posting Full, Paraphrasing or Quoting Some /was Re: ALL: Unbelieveable!
- From: DonnaB shallotpeel <shallotpeel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:17:52 -0400
In rec.arts.tv.soaps.misc on Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:30:46 -0500 in Msg.#
<nj1ir3db6aej89pqiiuk7shmjfsid88mvs@xxxxxxx>, DonnaB shallotpeel
<shallotpeel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In rec.arts.tv.soaps.misc on Sun, 17 Feb 2008 08:06:35 -0800 (PST) in Msg.#
<1bebebfa-5c67-4018-89ab-5498d86d57c1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, MarkH
<MarkH_sliprwet@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 16, 7:30 am, DonnaB shallotpeel <shallotp...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I will try to get a chance to read that at some point. (I have to admit that
not having people post all or part of what they're talking about & instead
just posting a link is not a change I like in RATS or Usenet.)
This surprised me. You have been in defense of writers' earning
rights (re: WGA strike).
The WGA strike was not about copyright or copyright protection. Are you
against YouTube? When copyright is enforced today, digitally, it is done so
in a way that completely walks all over fair use, which is a much older
tradition than the digital world.
And, in many instances the writers we're talking about get nothing at all
out of copyright per se. Whoever owns the copyright does.
And, just because I was a supporter of this WGA strike doesn't mean I would
always be, no matter what the issues of contention were.
Thus, why would you deprive writers advertising revenue (from
hits...visits to the original posting) by illegal beyond-fair-use
copies of copywritten materials here on Usenet. Many of the links
that are posted are NOT public domain, even if they don't have the
"link only" disclaimer.
More often than not whatever quoting or paraphrasing that would be necessary
for clarity, without stopping discussion dead in its tracks, can be covered
under fair use.
I could cut-and-paste relevant fair-use quotes (and sometimes to), but
this was an ALL post. It had something about EVERY soap in it. So,
cutting and pasting was not relevant.
Usenet has a long tradition of putting up information as it is with credit
given. Maybe that's a part of its anarchistic side. Or, it could be that so
much of it began in government, military, education & geek-related areas
that there was an accustomed usage to citing & quoting. But, then, later,
commercial users almost always had to pay by the minute. Internationally,
that is still true some places, I am told. In the US some ISPs are already
beginning to meter service again & the biggest of them continue to lobby
Congress like mad to give them powers to completely change the rate
structure they can charge for access. If they succeed, as they succeed, it
is likely that they will create a tiered system where people will again have
all sorts of different amounts of time online available to them, according
to $$ - both what they have available and what the providers in their area
may charge. If you use an NNTP server & newsreader you can easily jump
online & download messages, go offline to read & make replies, later jump
back online to upload messages, etc. Very economical. Usenet, after all, is
not the web.
And, another reason people have often posted info from the web is that
Usenet is archived & many times what was once up on the web isn't any more
in the future. And, if it is archived, there's almost always a charge for a
copy of it. If you're going to pay for an archived copy, it sure does help
to have read it to know whether you really need it or not. <G>
(By the way, although I
ultimately supported it, I'm sad that r.a.t.s got divided into three
networks.)
I voted for RATS to be split into the 4 groups. I liked RATS as it was,
unsplit. But, it was clear to me that there were too many unhappy people to
avoid the split. I could also see, though, that the way the 4 groups were
going to be split wasn't going to please people either. The worst tragedy of
all was that the vote to create RATSn failed by lacking one vote, because
people didn't understand truly the way the split was set up.
Why are you sad now?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: Y&R Braeden on LML
- Next by Date: Re: Y&R Braeden on LML
- Previous by thread: Y&R: wallingford?
- Next by thread: Re: META/ Posting Just Links Versus Posting Full, Paraphrasing or Quoting Some /was Re: ALL: Unbelieveable!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
