Copying Content from other sources
-
@tim_g said in Copying Content from other sources:
@scottalanmiller said in Copying Content from other sources:
@tim_g said in Copying Content from other sources:
@scottalanmiller said in Copying Content from other sources:
@tim_g said in Copying Content from other sources:
@scottalanmiller said in Copying Content from other sources:
@tim_g said in Copying Content from other sources:
It says in the top paragraph what the terms apply to.
Why then don't we post a new T&C here on ML and claim that it applies to the SW community?
Because you can't do that on behalf of an entity you don't own. As far as I know, SW owns the SW community.
As far as you know. But it isn't on the website in question, and nothing makes you agree to it to use it or informs you about it. It's a random peer domain with no direct association with the community.
You can't just go to some OTHER website, and find a T&C, and use that. That was my point.
When you create an account on SW in order to post content, those are the terms listed that you agree to by creating an account.
Sure, maybe NEW members are bound by that. By AFTER I created an account, the T&C were removed and control of the community handed to the community members. So anything agreed to before that was wiped clean. So there is no such agreement in place.
Okay, so if there are not T&C, what laws/rules apply?
Just the generic ones.
-
@tim_g said in Copying Content from other sources:
Is it free for all? Do any copyright laws apply when there are no terms and conditions to agree to?
Yes, sort of. But it is the copyright of the writer.
-
@tim_g said in Copying Content from other sources:
The only Terms I can find on SW, allow any and all use of "User Content" however anybody wants.
If those terms do not apply, then what does apply?
They can't grant rights that didn't already exist. If that permission isn't there by default, then it can't be granted by the terms anyway.
-
@tim_g said in Copying Content from other sources:
The only Terms I can find on SW, allow any and all use of "User Content" however anybody wants.
If those terms do not apply, then what does apply?
Keep in mind, as the terms are somewhere between secret and don't exist (I checked and there were none last week, I had many people verify that it was a 404 page) - even the ones that they make you accept are purely for people who create accounts and agree to them (so no one before 2010 for sure, is affected, and no one that is anonymous.) So the use of the content is governed only by the generic laws for anyone not logged in at the time.
-
If nothing else applies, then it seems at least "Fair Use" would: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
-
@tim_g said in Copying Content from other sources:
If nothing else applies, then it seems at least "Fair Use" would: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
Yes, Fair Use would definitely apply.
-
I don't believe that Fair Use can be waived, by the definition of the doctrine.
-
Here's some good additional info... the content may not even be eligible for copyright in the first place:
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/public-domain/welcome/
-
@tim_g said in Copying Content from other sources:
Here's some good additional info... the content may not even be eligible for copyright in the first place:
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/public-domain/welcome/
Yes, that's why we had mentioned questions, answers, and facts. Those things generally aren't eligible for copyright in the first place. It depends, if someone posts an article, a story, or something of that nature it is normally covered. But if someone is asking a question or answering a question or just providing supporting evidence, it's not copyrightable in the first place.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Copying Content from other sources:
@tim_g said in Copying Content from other sources:
Here's some good additional info... the content may not even be eligible for copyright in the first place:
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/public-domain/welcome/
Yes, that's why we had mentioned questions, answers, and facts. Those things generally aren't eligible for copyright in the first place. It depends, if someone posts an article, a story, or something of that nature it is normally covered. But if someone is asking a question or answering a question or just providing supporting evidence, it's not copyrightable in the first place.
I don't recall anyone posting any copyrighted material in a SW post, then someone copying it to here. Even if that was ever the case, still, it'd fall under "Fair use".
-
Maybe the question is not if we are allowed to but if we should do it.
-
@tim_g said in Copying Content from other sources:
@scottalanmiller said in Copying Content from other sources:
@tim_g said in Copying Content from other sources:
Here's some good additional info... the content may not even be eligible for copyright in the first place:
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/public-domain/welcome/
Yes, that's why we had mentioned questions, answers, and facts. Those things generally aren't eligible for copyright in the first place. It depends, if someone posts an article, a story, or something of that nature it is normally covered. But if someone is asking a question or answering a question or just providing supporting evidence, it's not copyrightable in the first place.
I don't recall anyone posting any copyrighted material in a SW post, then someone copying it to here. Even if that was ever the case, still, it'd fall under "Fair use".
Nope, not aware of that ever happening.
-
@thwr said in Copying Content from other sources:
Maybe the question is not if we are allowed to but if we should do it.
Well, that's a bigger question. And it goes both ways. To some, it seems like talking about technical content from somewhere else is bad. But most people seem to think that it is good.
What's the condition that quoting and discussing technical stuff is bad? Especially given that the need to do so is that other forums for open discussion are not available?
-
Who cares? Does ML have the funds for a lawsuit? No, probably not. Unless we all want to start paying monthly fees for the use of ML, but I would think that would defeat the purpose of ML in the first place.
They don't want us to have anything to do with them. If that's the case, then let them go burn their boat while they are rowing it.
-
Some might argue a duty to discuss here (or elsewhere) as a need to protect content that is otherwise not protected, and to have open, honest discussions that are not edited, modified, or blocked.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Copying Content from other sources:
@thwr said in Copying Content from other sources:
Maybe the question is not if we are allowed to but if we should do it.
Well, that's a bigger question. And it goes both ways. To some, it seems like talking about technical content from somewhere else is bad. But most people seem to think that it is good.
What's the condition that quoting and discussing technical stuff is bad? Especially given that the need to do so is that other forums for open discussion are not available?
Some people may think that it's a bit odd that we are discussing 99% "orange" content. Do you remember any discussion about superuser / StackExchange topics for example?
-
@thwr said in Copying Content from other sources:
Some people may think that it's a bit odd that we are discussing 99% "orange" content. Do you remember any discussion about superuser / StackExchange topics for example?
I'm not aware of those sites blocking open discussion on their own platforms. Do they share a need for their discussions to be protected? If so, they should definitely be treated similarly. As they are Q&A platforms, rather than IT peer review platforms, they don't tend to suffer the same risks.
-
If you are aware of communities where people aren't free to discuss technology and business, by all means cross post here under fair use.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Copying Content from other sources:
@thwr said in Copying Content from other sources:
Some people may think that it's a bit odd that we are discussing 99% "orange" content. Do you remember any discussion about superuser / StackExchange topics for example?
I'm not aware of those sites blocking open discussion on their own platforms. Do they share a need for their discussions to be protected? If so, they should definitely be treated similarly. As they are Q&A platforms, rather than IT peer review platforms, they don't tend to suffer the same risks.
Just an example, but good point.
-
They also tend to be... "I got error X", or just "press button Y". While useful, they tend to be very trivial with information that has little value beyond fixing the current issue.
