U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world

In article , John
Mullen wrote:

Richard Bernstein, NYT
Reprinted in the International Herald Tribune.

U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world

snip of loads of stuff distributed around the Net in gross breach of
copyright

The sympathy of the world (whatever the hell "world" means in that
context) plus two euros will buy you a cup of coffee in some capital
cities.

This post should not be understood as implying support for any US
policy, past, present or future, but merely as a small contribution to
the War against Bull****, which is both more pressing and more
important than the War against Terrorism.

--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" Ibn Khaldun

My .mac.com address is a spam sink.
If you wish to email me, try alan dot lothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 10:49:27 +0100, Alan Lothian
wrote:

U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world

snip of loads of stuff distributed around the Net in gross breach of
copyright

The sympathy of the world (whatever the hell "world" means in that
context) plus two euros will buy you a cup of coffee in some capital
cities.

The US never had the sympathy of the world in any recognisable,
cohesive fashion. Even the enormity of 9/11 was only just sufficient
to suppress the "They brought it on themselves/US foreign policy is to
blame" rants for about 5 seconds.

This post should not be understood as implying support for any US
policy, past, present or future, but merely as a small contribution to
the War against Bull****, which is both more pressing and more
important than the War against Terrorism.

Got my vote.

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

"Alan Lothian" wrote in message
...


This post should not be understood as implying support for any US
policy, past, present or future, but merely as a small contribution to
the War against Bull****, which is both more pressing and more
important than the War against Terrorism.


I'll support that without hesitation.

Keith

"Alan Lothian" wrote in message
...
In article , John
Mullen wrote:

Richard Bernstein, NYT
Reprinted in the International Herald Tribune.

U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world

snip of loads of stuff distributed around the Net in gross breach of
copyright

Having had a look at the Copyright notices of both publications, it seems
you are (technically) right here. Morally, I would contend that crediting
online sources you have lifted text from for a non-profit purpose such as
this, is sufficient. Certainly it's a very common practice. After all,
anybody who wants to can read it online in the original.

The sympathy of the world (whatever the hell "world" means in that
context) plus two euros will buy you a cup of coffee in some capital
cities.

??? Don't get your drift at all.

This post should not be understood as implying support for any US
policy, past, present or future, but merely as a small contribution to
the War against Bull****, which is both more pressing and more
important than the War against Terrorism.

Obviously I didn't think the article I posted was bull****, I thought it was
intreresting and well-written. What made you think it was bull****?

John

In article , John
Mullen wrote:

"Alan Lothian" wrote in message
...
In article , John
Mullen wrote:

The sympathy of the world (whatever the hell "world" means in that
context) plus two euros will buy you a cup of coffee in some capital
cities.

??? Don't get your drift at all.

Then there's no point in my trying to explain it.

--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" Ibn Khaldun

My .mac.com address is a spam sink.
If you wish to email me, try alan dot lothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:34:57 +0100, "John Mullen" wrote:

"Alan Lothian" wrote in message
...
In article , John
Mullen wrote:

Richard Bernstein, NYT
Reprinted in the International Herald Tribune.

U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world

snip of loads of stuff distributed around the Net in gross breach of
copyright

Having had a look at the Copyright notices of both publications, it seems
you are (technically) right here. Morally, I would contend that crediting
online sources you have lifted text from for a non-profit purpose such as
this, is sufficient. Certainly it's a very common practice. After all,
anybody who wants to can read it online in the original.


Ever heard of fair use, or the newswothiness exception?

Do you think "copyright notices" fully and fairly inform you of the
law? Which of course varies in different jurisdictions.

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:34:57 +0100, John Mullen wrote:
"Alan Lothian" wrote in message
...
In article , John
Mullen wrote:

Richard Bernstein, NYT
Reprinted in the International Herald Tribune.

U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world

snip of loads of stuff distributed around the Net in gross breach of
copyright

Having had a look at the Copyright notices of both publications, it seems
you are (technically) right here. Morally, I would contend that crediting
online sources you have lifted text from for a non-profit purpose such as
this, is sufficient. Certainly it's a very common practice.

This is true of lots of antisocial activities.

After all,
anybody who wants to can read it online in the original.

I disagree. Posting a paragraph or precis and refering to the whole
article is acceptable. Shoveling entire articles into discussion
groups is not.


--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

Alan Lothian wrote:

In article , John
Mullen wrote:

Richard Bernstein, NYT
Reprinted in the International Herald Tribune.

U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world

snip of loads of stuff distributed around the Net in gross breach of
copyright

On this point I have to disagree. It is clealry being distributed for the
purpose of comment and reaction, which is classic "Fair use" under the
copyright law.

BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF
LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS (Paris Text 1971)

Article 10

(1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has already
been lawfully made available to the public,
provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their extent
does not exceed that justified by the purpose,
including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of
press summaries

Vince

There is indeed an obvious difference between "quoting a relevant excerpt"
and "reproducing the entire document."

Your point is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

As a personal aside, what would drive a person to do this? I've never
understood that phenomenon- the use of an inappropriate counterargument in
refutation of a position- but I do agree it is effective, as many people are
too weak-minded or are inattentive to the discussion to notice. I, for one,
have never even considered the use of such misdirection to state a case. I
just fundamentally don't understand how anyone would consider using such a
ploy. Was it an accident?

Steve Swartz


"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" wrote in message
...


Alan Lothian wrote:

In article , John
Mullen wrote:

Richard Bernstein, NYT
Reprinted in the International Herald Tribune.

U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world

snip of loads of stuff distributed around the Net in gross breach of
copyright

On this point I have to disagree. It is clealry being distributed for the
purpose of comment and reaction, which is classic "Fair use" under the
copyright law.

BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF
LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS (Paris Text 1971)

Article 10

(1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has
already
been lawfully made available to the public,
provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their
extent
does not exceed that justified by the purpose,
including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form
of
press summaries

Vince

Leslie Swartz wrote:
There is indeed an obvious difference between "quoting a relevant excerpt"
and "reproducing the entire document."

its not the entire document. its a single story in a newspaper




Your point is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.


Dont think so

As a personal aside, what would drive a person to do this? I've never
understood that phenomenon- the use of an inappropriate counterargument in
refutation of a position- but I do agree it is effective, as many people are
too weak-minded or are inattentive to the discussion to notice. I, for one,
have never even considered the use of such misdirection to state a case. I
just fundamentally don't understand how anyone would consider using such a
ploy. Was it an accident?


Im a law professor. I teach this stuff.

im bothered by anyone who misuses the limited monopoly provided by the
copyright law

Vince


Steve Swartz


"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" wrote in message
...


Alan Lothian wrote:


In article , John
Mullen wrote:


Richard Bernstein, NYT
Reprinted in the International Herald Tribune.

U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world

snip of loads of stuff distributed around the Net in gross breach of
copyright

On this point I have to disagree. It is clealry being distributed for the
purpose of comment and reaction, which is classic "Fair use" under the
copyright law.

BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF
LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS (Paris Text 1971)

Article 10

(1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has

already

been lawfully made available to the public,
provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their

extent

does not exceed that justified by the purpose,
including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form

of

press summaries

Vince