A few months ago, Skeet asked me to remove his "private" e-mail from my site. Although the fair-use provision of the copyright law permits quoting for the purpose of criticism, I agreed to comply. But I didn't say anything about not paraphrasing his e-mail and responding to that.
As they say, be careful what you wish for. If anything, the paraphrased version makes Skeet look more foolish than the quoted version. And this blog posting should ensure that my response to his screed continues to rank high in Google. Too bad if his employers and loved ones search for him and find his "whining" rant first.
Whether you've seen this posting or not, now's a good chance to revisit it. See the kind of nonsense mascot opponents have to put up with. According to Skeet and his ilk, there's no legitimate reason to oppose clownish Native stereotypes. Anyone who does has some nefarious agenda.
For more on the subject, see Team Names and Mascots.
2 comments:
Writerfella here --
In actual point of fact, the Millennium Copyright Act limits quoting the published text of others to 200 words and no more. writerfella used it against a 'writer' who quoted more than half of wf's published article called "Legends Of The Kiowa" from INFO JOURNAL #52. The quoting entity was withdrawn and never has reappeared...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
In point of fact, you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to copyright law. I have a master's degree in library science, so I do.
First, there's no such thing as the Millennium Copyright Act. You must be referring to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act--with the emphasis on the word "digital."
Second, the DMCA "criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services that are used to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works (commonly known as DRM) and criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, even when there is no infringement of copyright itself." It has little or nothing to do with nontechnological copyright issues.
Third, no law has changed or circumvented the fair-use provision of the copyright law--namely, the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107. This remains the law of the land.
I explained fair use to you before, but you were too dense or dumb to grasp what I said. Read it again, because everything I told you is still true.
If you don't believe me, read what the US Copyright Office says about fair use. It confirms that length is only one of four factors used to judge copyright violations. It does not specify any maximum length for a quotation.
Here, let me spell it out for you in the government's own words: "There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission." To reiterate, there's no number. Quoting 199 words doesn't necessarily protect you and quoting 200 words doesn't necessarily endanger you.
Try to get this through your thick skull: Your case was decided for reasons other than exceeding a 200-word limit. We know this because no such limit exists, according to the government. I suspect your lawyer told you the 200-word story because he knew you couldn't handle the intricacies of copyright law.
Anyway, I'm tired of educating you about something you and every other writer should know. If you still don't understand what I've written in plain English, ask your lawyer for help.
Post a Comment