Today's WSJ...aviation articles 1/2

rps wrote:

It's a nice article, but was there any reason to violate Mr.
McCartney's and the WSJ's copyright? Please just post a link or point
people to the article, perhaps inserting an excerpt. Interested
parties will find it.

The article appears to require a paid subscription to the site.

--
Peter

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
The article appears to require a paid subscription to the site.

Even more reason to respect the copyright (as unfortunate as the
consequences of doing so may be).

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:30:18 -0400, "Peter R."
wrote:

It's a nice article, but was there any reason to violate Mr.
McCartney's and the WSJ's copyright? Please just post a link or point
people to the article, perhaps inserting an excerpt. Interested
parties will find it.

The article appears to require a paid subscription to the site.

That's correct, or if a subscriber to the print edition, one can fetch
articles within the past seven days.

I see nothing wrong with posting the article here. I've done it myself
in the past. It serves a public service, and it's good publicity.

Indeed, I have a WSJ posted on my website. I wrote the author, and he
basically said: it's fine by me, and there are two ways you can go
about it: just post it, or ask for permission and hope you get an
answer. I took the hint and just posted it.

WSJ is the best and second-largest daily paper in the US (second only
to USA Today, which in my judgment is hardly a newspaper at all). The
more people who hear about it, the better.

There's actually a portion of the Copyright Law called "Fair Use" that
allows a person to reproduce portions of a copyrighted work for the purpose
of commentary, education, even satire.

From http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

"Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the
reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining
whether or not a particular use is fair:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

the nature of the copyrighted work;

amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work."

I think it would have qualified if he hadn't reproduced the article in its
entirety. But I'm not a lawyer...

Cubdriver usenet AT danford.net wrote in
news
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:30:18 -0400, "Peter R."
wrote:

It's a nice article, but was there any reason to violate Mr.
McCartney's and the WSJ's copyright? Please just post a link or point
people to the article, perhaps inserting an excerpt. Interested
parties will find it.

The article appears to require a paid subscription to the site.

That's correct, or if a subscriber to the print edition, one can fetch
articles within the past seven days.

I see nothing wrong with posting the article here. I've done it myself
in the past. It serves a public service, and it's good publicity.

Indeed, I have a WSJ posted on my website. I wrote the author, and he
basically said: it's fine by me, and there are two ways you can go
about it: just post it, or ask for permission and hope you get an
answer. I took the hint and just posted it.

WSJ is the best and second-largest daily paper in the US (second only
to USA Today, which in my judgment is hardly a newspaper at all). The
more people who hear about it, the better.