D
Dac2000
Guest
Type of situation, then I'll be specific. You read an AP, copyrighted news item, and elsewhere discuss the substance of the article without repeating or copying any parts of it, ie, should John Walker be tried for treason, with opinions liberally expressed.
Exact situation. Read a post on a popular message board, which is frequented by people who post about unethical activities. On another message board, the general situations are discussed, commented on, and frequently ridiculed, with no copying of the original post, whether in entirety or any part thereof, no mention of the originating board, no mention of identifying details of the person(which quite often ARE on the originating board). Thus, the discussion posts are typically "Read elsewhere about a person who did X, isn't that silly". Petty, but we enjoy ridiculing the type of person who would do unethical things but do not, again, get specific or copy the originating info.
I believe that this discussing publicly posted situations in a general manner with no copying of originating posts in any manner does not constitute copyright violation, but is a right of discussion and free speech. It would be like seeing something in an Ann Landers column and saying "I read this column in Ann about a woman who had an argument with her daughter-in-law about X. I think woman is off her rocker, blah-de-blah.." We don't even mention the specific reference where we saw the situation
Yes?
Exact situation. Read a post on a popular message board, which is frequented by people who post about unethical activities. On another message board, the general situations are discussed, commented on, and frequently ridiculed, with no copying of the original post, whether in entirety or any part thereof, no mention of the originating board, no mention of identifying details of the person(which quite often ARE on the originating board). Thus, the discussion posts are typically "Read elsewhere about a person who did X, isn't that silly". Petty, but we enjoy ridiculing the type of person who would do unethical things but do not, again, get specific or copy the originating info.
I believe that this discussing publicly posted situations in a general manner with no copying of originating posts in any manner does not constitute copyright violation, but is a right of discussion and free speech. It would be like seeing something in an Ann Landers column and saying "I read this column in Ann about a woman who had an argument with her daughter-in-law about X. I think woman is off her rocker, blah-de-blah.." We don't even mention the specific reference where we saw the situation
Yes?