Clayton-Mother Charged in school theft

Get over it...

 

I work no less than a mile from there and I was telling my DH that the kids still has to go to that school. I feel so sorry for that poor kid. I just hope the staff and students don't give him a hard time! It's not his fault him mom was stupid!

 

It is a shame.

 

I worked with a guy who lives in Johnston county who has the same last name. I know he is divorced. I am so curious if thats his ex

 

It is sad.

The story originally appeared here: http://www.theherald-nc.com/front/story/7712.html

There was one more paragraph of the story that wasn't quoted in the original post:

"All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be published, broadcast or redistributed in any manner."

 

what's that got to do with the story?

 

I was quietly pointing out that the original poster violated The Herald's rights under 17 U.S.C. Section 101 et Seq. also know at the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

You can harp on me all you like, but when anyone cuts and pastes entire passages of someone else's copy (even a newspaper article) without attributing it, you automatically are passing it off (however unintentionally) as original work which puts the poster, and 4042.com in the position of being the target of legal action...which is why I was kind enough to attribute the copy to its rightful owner - The Herald.

I send DMCA violation letters on behalf of my clients who have their content stolen in this exact manner. 99% of the time, the person in violation simply didn't know that they must, by law, attribute the passage.

By attributing the copy, I moved it from the "stolen" category into that of "fair use."

I'm not a lawyer, but I get paid to write for a living. And even though it appears in a newspaper, someone does own that article. I know I always appreciate it when someone attributes my work instead of simply cutting and pasting.

Jason

 

no harping....just asking. However I am relatively certain no ones rights were violated by posting that story on this message board.

 

I understand. And that's usually the reply I get from people I send DMCA letters to - right before my client sues them.

When the rightful owner of something says:

"All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be published, broadcast or redistributed in any manner."

...and the material was published, broadcast and redistributed, it's a violation of the owner's rights. It seems like a harmless law, I know, but millions of dollars in punitive damages are being decided in courts across America over this very issue.

Your child would fail a course (or should fail a course) if they didn't attribute that passage. Why should adults be any less accountable to the law?

 

all of that makes perfect sense for legal matters and school reports. I guess I fail to see the relativeness, and my original question actually, to this message board where history shows, that all posters are just putting information out there for conversation. You will be a busy guy posting all those rights and legal terms on practically every single thread, as we on 4042, are quite 'copy and paste' addicted.

 

Trust me, I have no interest in following every single copyright violation on 4042.com. We're (mostly) adults here. It's when I see an entire page copied, that it sets off a flag for me. Copy a sentence - ok. Copy a paragraph - maybe. But (to me) a whole page would get a cease and desist order from my lawyer if I owned that story.

I see your point about just 'putting information out there for conversation.'

My point is, we're all responsible for what we 'put out there.' Doesn't matter how casual the forum is, or whether we're just 'conversing.' We're all bound by the laws of this country. Even the ones that get broken every day on 4042.com.

I think that The News & Observer might argue that one person's "conversation" is another person's copyright violation. If they didn't take it seriously, they wouldn't have dedicated nearly 700 words to in on their Term of Use page.

Thank you.

 

I copy and paste articles on here all the time, but I always try to make sure that I quote it and include the URL to link back to the original story. Is it okay to do that? I sure don't want Webbie getting in trouble for something I do.

 

May seem over the top on some of this copyright violation, but we are a capitalist country and people have ownership rights. Want to see it taken to an extreme? See this post

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/04/04/university-prof-says.html

 

As long as you make 'some' attempt to attribute, you 'should' be fine. Because this is a discussion group and not really a profit generator, I don't see anyone having a problem with simple attribution. If we started charging admission, there might be a problem.

However, if someone wanted to take it to the extreme as in the professor post, one could argue that every word on the site contributes to search engine rankings which theoretically make the site rank higher, giving it more visitors and therefore more clicks on money-generating ads. Someone may claim their un-attributed content aided in that profit and try to get some punitive damages. But again, that's a bit extreme.

 

This is the problem with the law. It applies to everybody equally. Even the wackos.

 

Actually, in this case it would be the registered forum owner who would get such a letter as it is their responsibility to conform to the laws by either removing the posts or conforming to the fair use requirement.

 

The fair use section of the copyright laws generally allow a URL link and a small portion of the article to give an idea. Some sites limit it to a couple of sentences to a couple of paragraph maximum. It is generally more of a problem for sites with large amounts of traffic and a greater visibility on search engines.

 

That sounds easy enough to do, Wayne. Thanks for the advice.

Considering 4042.com ranks #4 in Google for the term "Clayton NC News," I'd say it's got the visibility on search engines - even higher visibility than the owner of the content.

Thanks again.

 

Thanks Wayne.

I tried to cover my bases by mentioning individuals and the site owner.

Either way, nobody wants to see 4042.com in a law suit. The courts are busy enough as it is.

 

Kell et al,
as someone who has has had to file suit over loss of intellectual property, I can vouch for the importance of protecting it. While I know that few, if any, posters here would have any malicious intent, it still represents a potential threat to loss of ownership rights.

We are battling now with the state government, in a fashion, for the rights of products that we have copyrighted and trademarked. Seems simple enough on its surface, to me. But, I don't have a gazillion lawyers at my disposal, whose salary I help pay as a taxpayer. I have to pay up front for my representation.

Granted, the intellectual property in question may not be worth much to you, and to the state, probably even less. We have literally invested over a thousand hours, and probably five thousand of our own dollars to get this thing ready to market, not to mention the potential income it represents...well.yes, I do want my property rights respected. And if I want that for me, I want it for everyone else.

I know that nothing was mentioned in malice. Allow me to put my perspective on it.

H6