Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Copy and Paste of premium content from other shitty websites
Comments
-
-
This statement from your link seems to show why pasting Premium content is a bad idea:ApostleofGrief said:everybody on the internet should actually read this on "fair use":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
You CAN actually copy and paste so long as it meets the criteria. Now, Derek might not want you to be doing that.
In L.A. Times v. Free Republic, the court found that the noncommercial use of LA Times content by the Free Republic Web site was in fact not fair use, since it allowed the public to obtain material at no cost that they would otherwise pay for. -
Read the article in detail and put some thought into it. This permissive rule applies because otherwise it would be impossible for people doing research to say "Dr Jones showed in his paper X however he is incorrect due to factor Y." You have to be able to explicitly state what X is to offer a counterargument.Ducksrule said:
This statement from your link seems to show why pasting Premium content is a bad idea:ApostleofGrief said:everybody on the internet should actually read this on "fair use":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
You CAN actually copy and paste so long as it meets the criteria. Now, Derek might not want you to be doing that.
In L.A. Times v. Free Republic, the court found that the noncommercial use of LA Times content by the Free Republic Web site was in fact not fair use, since it allowed the public to obtain material at no cost that they would otherwise pay for.
So, the intent of the rule is to propel research, criticism, commentary, and by that argument society forward.
Now, it doesn't mean anybody can copy and paste wholesale. If you read the article and think about it it makes sense. You can still be sued, of course, and some people lose fair use cases. Without fair use, however, the world would be much more limited. -
Pretty sure your academic example doesn't work in this case.ApostleofGrief said:
Read the article in detail and put some thought into it. This permissive rule applies because otherwise it would be impossible for people doing research to say "Dr Jones showed in his paper X however he is incorrect due to factor Y." You have to be able to explicitly state what X is to offer a counterargument.Ducksrule said:
This statement from your link seems to show why pasting Premium content is a bad idea:ApostleofGrief said:everybody on the internet should actually read this on "fair use":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
You CAN actually copy and paste so long as it meets the criteria. Now, Derek might not want you to be doing that.
In L.A. Times v. Free Republic, the court found that the noncommercial use of LA Times content by the Free Republic Web site was in fact not fair use, since it allowed the public to obtain material at no cost that they would otherwise pay for.
So, the intent of the rule is to propel research, criticism, commentary, and by that argument society forward.
Now, it doesn't mean anybody can copy and paste wholesale. If you read the article and think about it it makes sense. You can still be sued, of course, and some people lose fair use cases. Without fair use, however, the world would be much more limited. -
What if you're studying fucktards?
-
Good poont^^
-
if you were talking about the fucktards here, for examle, just don't copy the whole article on fucktards. If you take one or two sentences about fucktards and comment or criticize that is fair use. If you fucking copied and pasted the whole article that is copyright violation. There is a 4 step criteria that must be met to constitute fair use. You should know this anyway, bannon, since most of your writing is not your best effort.RaceBannon said:What if you're studying fucktards?
-
I thought we were the fucktards.
