topless coffee shops in maine?

[J.A.W.]

I think this steady diet of mindless tabloid material—whether linked to or pasted in—is both boring and out of place here. We all like a good laugh from time to time, but this is mostly Murdoch crap.

I totally agree.

[Jim Alfredson]

Actually, I invite our friend aloc to start a blog where he can post this stuff to his heart's content. Just please put a link to any articles not eponymously penned, please.

[AllenLowe]

in the spirit of the great Buddah, I agree with everyone here. But as for this being a tabloid story, you have to understand that, in Maine, this is big news.

Edited January 3, 2012 by AllenLowe

[Tim McG]

With all due respect, there is a "fair use" clause in American copyright laws. Wherein, if the copyrighted material is not passed off as one's own or used to make money or used for anything other than educational purposes, no laws have been broken.

As a HS teacher, the "fair use" clause is exercised on a daily basis. If not for its existence, 99% of America's teachers would be in jail right now.

Shouldn't that apply here, as well?

Not necessarily. Just as the rules for drinking alcohol are different in terms of where & how you can consume & how much, fair use is different when it's for non-profit educational purposes versus posting stuff on the web.

I don't follow you.

Alcohol is a controlled substance which has the ability to impair the user. How that compares to reading an article is beyond any reasonable explaination. I'm sorry, it just isn't the same thing. Not even close.

Fair use does not specifically and only limit itself to public schools. It merely states that if you use copyrighted material for educational and not-for-profit situations, there is no breach of the law.

With all due respect, there is a "fair use" clause in American copyright laws. Wherein, if the copyrighted material is not passed off as one's own or used to make money or used for anything other than educational purposes, no laws have been broken.

As a HS teacher, the "fair use" clause is exercised on a daily basis. If not for its existence, 99% of America's teachers would be in jail right now.

Shouldn't that apply here, as well?

Not necessarily. Just as the rules for drinking alcohol are different in terms of where & how you can consume & how much, fair use is different when it's for non-profit educational purposes versus posting stuff on the web.

Are for-profit schools restricted when it comes to fair use?

I think the consideration goes to making a profit specifically from the copyrighted material.

I'll let you sort the rest of it out.

Edited January 8, 2012 by GoodSpeak

[Tim McG]

In case anyone really wants to know about "fair use" and not throw it around like a slogan (like so many people do with "free speech"), here's a link -- get it, a link? -- to a very useful guide through the morass:

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html

And I quote:

"For example, if you wish to criticize a novelist, you should have the freedom to quote a portion of the novelist’s work without asking permission."

With all due respect, I really don't think an author of an article/column which appears in a daily newspaper [papers which are losing readership to blogs, internet news and the like] is going to take issue with the re-printing of that article, which will be soon lost in the archives of his own newspaper and never read again, will seek out a Jazz BBS and sue. In fact, it will only enhance his notoriety and, therefore, increase his readership.

I further quote:

"For example, one important factor is whether your use will deprive the copyright owner of income."

If said author is being read more, wouldn't that also mean his income will increase due to a larger readership? How is this any different from a newspaper clipping one might share with a friend? Should they also fear legal ramafications?

I post on several other BBS's where this has never been an issue...and, I suspect, for the very same reasons I just outlined. Key point: Membership on this BBS is FREE. Nobody is making any money off of the re-printing of any article here.

Personally, I seriously fail to see the need for all the adrenaline. Perhaps, and with all due respect, of course...a little common sense might be applied here?

Edited January 8, 2012 by GoodSpeak

[JSngry]

I think the thing about linkage is the traffic numbers that result from click-throughs.

[AllenLowe]

methinks Goodspeak is correct.

Though I do thing Alcoosiosioosos should be banned until he comes up with a user name that I can pronounce.

[paul secor]

Actually, I invite our friend aloc to start a blog where he can post this stuff to his heart's content. Just please put a link to any articles not eponymously penned, please.

The voice of reason speaks.

[AllenLowe]

thank you, I always like to bring a taste of Aristotelian rationality to any conversation in which I partake.

Edited January 8, 2012 by AllenLowe

[Quincy]

I don't follow you.

It was an analogy. Time, place, circumstance and degree all matter in matters of the law. That's the point I was making, whether it's alcohol consumption, free speech, gun use, sexual intercourse, copyright, cell phone use, etc. Some of things you can do in public, some you can do while driving, some you can do in public theater, and some you probably shouldn't. Thus what you do in your school concerning "fair use" may not apply on a web forum, since it's different. Get it?

But the important thing regarding fair use is what the owner of this web site has asked of posters. And that has been made clear.

[JSngry]

There was a poster here a few years ago whose livelihood was somehow tied up to the traffic count on their company's website. This wasn't a retail site, it was a journalistic one. something about ad rates/revenue for the site depending on traffic counts, so when you paste the entire article here, it discourages the traffic to the actual site, which of course lowers the traffic count, which in turn lowers the feasible advertising rate, which then lowers revenue, which ultimately lowers individual income, including that of our fellow board member. IIRC, that was the genesis of the house rule.

It seemed like an entirely reasonable request then,to only post a snippet and a link instead of an entire article, and it still does.

[AllenLowe]

free speech does not give you the right to yell "theater" in a crowded fire.

[Tim McG]

I don't follow you.

It was an analogy. Time, place, circumstance and degree all matter in matters of the law. That's the point I was making, whether it's alcohol consumption, free speech, gun use, sexual intercourse, copyright, cell phone use, etc. Some of things you can do in public, some you can do while driving, some you can do in public theater, and some you probably shouldn't. Thus what you do in your school concerning "fair use" may not apply on a web forum, since it's different. Get it?

But the important thing regarding fair use is what the owner of this web site has asked of posters. And that has been made clear.

And I get that.

All I'm saying is "fair use" does not apply to alcohol consumption or sex or cell phone use. Some may wish to have their copious use of alcohol or sexual prowess copyrighted, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon relative to current copyright laws.

Edited January 8, 2012 by GoodSpeak

[Larry Kart]

There was a poster here a few years ago whose livelihood was somehow tied up to the traffic count on their company's website. This wasn't a retail site, it was a journalistic one. something about ad rates/revenue for the site depending on traffic counts, so when you paste the entire article here, it discourages the traffic to the actual site, which of course lowers the traffic count, which in turn lowers the feasible advertising rate, which then lowers revenue, which ultimately lowers individual income, including that of our fellow board member. IIRC, that was the genesis of the house rule.

It seemed like an entirely reasonable request then,to only post a snippet and a link instead of an entire article, and it still does.

That's it.

[AllenLowe]

www.warandpeace.com

[.:.impossible]

There was a poster here a few years ago whose livelihood was somehow tied up to the traffic count on their company's website. This wasn't a retail site, it was a journalistic one. something about ad rates/revenue for the site depending on traffic counts, so when you paste the entire article here, it discourages the traffic to the actual site, which of course lowers the traffic count, which in turn lowers the feasible advertising rate, which then lowers revenue, which ultimately lowers individual income, including that of our fellow board member. IIRC, that was the genesis of the house rule.

It seemed like an entirely reasonable request then,to only post a snippet and a link instead of an entire article, and it still does.

I can't believe this has to be explained in 2012.

[JSngry]

There was a poster here a few years ago whose livelihood was somehow tied up to the traffic count on their company's website. This wasn't a retail site, it was a journalistic one. something about ad rates/revenue for the site depending on traffic counts, so when you paste the entire article here, it discourages the traffic to the actual site, which of course lowers the traffic count, which in turn lowers the feasible advertising rate, which then lowers revenue, which ultimately lowers individual income, including that of our fellow board member. IIRC, that was the genesis of the house rule.

It seemed like an entirely reasonable request then,to only post a snippet and a link instead of an entire article, and it still does.

I can't believe this has to be explained in 2012.

Hey - this is a jazz board. Many things that happened after 1968 or so still have to be explained.

:ph34r: :ph34r:

[Tim McG]

There was a poster here a few years ago whose livelihood was somehow tied up to the traffic count on their company's website. This wasn't a retail site, it was a journalistic one. something about ad rates/revenue for the site depending on traffic counts, so when you paste the entire article here, it discourages the traffic to the actual site, which of course lowers the traffic count, which in turn lowers the feasible advertising rate, which then lowers revenue, which ultimately lowers individual income, including that of our fellow board member. IIRC, that was the genesis of the house rule.

It seemed like an entirely reasonable request then,to only post a snippet and a link instead of an entire article, and it still does.

That's it.

TBH, isn't bandwith use more of an issue, Larry?

I certainly will comply with Jim's wishes in order to post here, but it seems to me there is a bit more going on here besides the rent, so to speak.

Just sayin'.

[Tim McG]

There was a poster here a few years ago whose livelihood was somehow tied up to the traffic count on their company's website. This wasn't a retail site, it was a journalistic one. something about ad rates/revenue for the site depending on traffic counts, so when you paste the entire article here, it discourages the traffic to the actual site, which of course lowers the traffic count, which in turn lowers the feasible advertising rate, which then lowers revenue, which ultimately lowers individual income, including that of our fellow board member. IIRC, that was the genesis of the house rule.

It seemed like an entirely reasonable request then,to only post a snippet and a link instead of an entire article, and it still does.

Seems like more than a little bit of a stretch, logic-wise, Jim.

Reminds me of the current Direct TV commercials wherein some guy gets pissed at cable, blows off some steam on the racquetball court, gets hit in the eye, gets an eye patch from the doctor, he looks like a tough guy, some thugs want to test his toughness, he ends up lying in a ditch. Moral: Don't end up in a ditch; drop cable and go Direct TV.

It's a false syllogism.

To wit:

A=B

B=C

Therefore, A=C

Dogs are animals

Cats are animals

Therefore, all dogs are cats.

Look. You guys do what you want...it's your place. But the reasoning is faulty, IMHO.

Edited January 9, 2012 by GoodSpeak

[Aggie87]

It's a false syllogism.

To wit:

A=B

B=C

Therefore, A=C

Dogs are animals

Cats are animals

Therefore, all dogs are cats.

Those two things aren't the same at all.

[JSngry]

There was a poster here a few years ago whose livelihood was somehow tied up to the traffic count on their company's website. This wasn't a retail site, it was a journalistic one. something about ad rates/revenue for the site depending on traffic counts, so when you paste the entire article here, it discourages the traffic to the actual site, which of course lowers the traffic count, which in turn lowers the feasible advertising rate, which then lowers revenue, which ultimately lowers individual income, including that of our fellow board member. IIRC, that was the genesis of the house rule.

It seemed like an entirely reasonable request then,to only post a snippet and a link instead of an entire article, and it still does.

Seems like more than a little bit of a stretch, logic-wise, Jim.

Take it up with the guy who presented the request, and the guy who approved it as board policy.

But yeah, it makes sense to me - fewer clickthroughs = less recorded traffic = less provable "viewership" = less an advertising rate that can be charged.

It's not really "logic" as much as it is simply how shit works.

[cih]

There was a poster here a few years ago whose livelihood was somehow tied up to the traffic count on their company's website. This wasn't a retail site, it was a journalistic one. something about ad rates/revenue for the site depending on traffic counts, so when you paste the entire article here, it discourages the traffic to the actual site, which of course lowers the traffic count, which in turn lowers the feasible advertising rate, which then lowers revenue, which ultimately lowers individual income, including that of our fellow board member. IIRC, that was the genesis of the house rule.

It seemed like an entirely reasonable request then,to only post a snippet and a link instead of an entire article, and it still does.

Seems like more than a little bit of a stretch, logic-wise, Jim.

Take it up with the guy who presented the request, and the guy who approved it as board policy.

But yeah, it makes sense to me - fewer clickthroughs = less recorded traffic = less provable "viewership" = less an advertising rate that can be charged.

It's not really "logic" as much as it is simply how shit works.

plus, the links to a site improves its search engine status

[AllenLowe]

www.everybookeverwritten.com

[cih]

on the other hand, as I understand it, gratuitous or incongruous links to your website count as a negative

www.britishgas.co.uk

Edited January 9, 2012 by cih

[JSngry]

It's a false syllogism.

To wit:

A=B

B=C

Therefore, A=C

Dogs are animals

Cats are animals

Therefore, all dogs are cats.

Those two things aren't the same at all.

Word. It's a good thing you teach English and not math!