IMPORTANT! Posting WotC articles wholesale...

ianleblanc · May 13, 2008

Now if they could only make WotC's site as user-friendly as Enworld...

"I hack my PSP so it can do things that it _should've_ been able to do out of the box,"
- Darwin

Henry · May 13, 2008

billd91 said:
Actually, US copyright law should be the primary reason. Copying a whole article does not constitute "fair use". Excerpts in review do.

This.

Plus, it's not something new -- we don't permit people attaching the whole Order of the Stick comics over here, for example -- and I've been seeing ever since April's increase in WotC previews that people have been just copying the whole preview over here rather than just linking.

Piratecat · May 14, 2008

Lanefan said:
Assuming, of course, that the link is accessible to us to-be-non-subscribing paeons...

Lanefan

I'm afraid folks will need to subscribe - currently for free - make do with the blurb, or go without. As Henry says, there are both copyright issues and general politeness to consider. We want to do what's both right and reasonable.

AZRogue · May 14, 2008

Piratecat said:
I'm afraid folks will need to subscribe - currently for free - make do with the blurb, or go without. As Henry says, there are both copyright issues and general politeness to consider. We want to do what's both right and reasonable.

It's fair. Subscribing is free, at the moment, so only a very minor inconvenience. In the future, however, people will just have to decide if the articles (among other things) are worth the fee and go from there. At least people can still paraphrase, so people will know mostly what's going on.

Sir_Darien · May 14, 2008

Lanefan said:
Assuming, of course, that the link is accessible to us to-be-non-subscribing paeons...

Lanefan

Dude, its FREE!

Just make a garbage email address at hotmail and use it to create an account. It asks you for a minimal amount of info name, email, bday, thats about it. everything else is optional.

Boarstorm · May 14, 2008

Sir_Darien said:
Dude, its FREE!

Just make a garbage email address at hotmail and use it to create an account. It asks you for a minimal amount of info name, email, bday, thats about it. everything else is optional.

He did say "to-be". Obviously it won't always be free, and that's where his concern lies.

Gah, and I thought _I_ had a problem with snark.

Mercutio01 · May 14, 2008

These two articles from the Publishing Law Center - publaw.com - are germane to this conversation.

http://www.publaw.com/work.html
http://www.publaw.com/fairuse.html

As well as the entry on Fair Use from the US Copyright Office and a supplementary article also from the US Copyright Office.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

I'm sure that reprinting an article in its entirety is always a violation of copyright law.

Boarstorm · May 14, 2008

I certainly don't want to imply I'm in favor of copyright violation by my defense of a fellow poster -- I'm against piracy in any form, but I have to wonder at something.

Law has been infamous for being unable to keep up with the advances of the Internet Age. I mean, how many years was it before it was decided that taxes could be applied to internet puchases?

When a company publishes an article on the internet and allows it to be viewed, for free, by anyone who bothers to tack an "authenticate=True" condition on the end of the address, can they really claim they didn't release it into the public domain?

I mean, certainly, crediting the source and not implying it's your own work is called for, but I wonder at the true legality and whether an unscrupulous lawyer (or simply one who has a different value system than my own) might be able to succussfully argue that anything freely posted could be freely distributed.

Something to ponder, anyway.

And, Mercutio01, if any of this is addressed in any of the articles you mentioned above, I apologize. I didn't bother wading through the legalese, but I appreciate you posting it for any who are so inclined.

Mercutio01 · May 15, 2008

When a company publishes an article on the internet and allows it to be viewed, for free, by anyone who bothers to tack an "authenticate=True" condition on the end of the address, can they really claim they didn't release it into the public domain?

The same could be said of the AP publishing news stories on the internet then, no? That's just not the case. Releasing something on the internet is actually publication. Technically, if you took my post here and published it in a book and didn't get my permission, I could sue for copyright infringement. And I could probably win. In fact, there was something akin to that in the late 90's, but I can't find the details now. It came down to someone at an online-writing forum who posted a story which was then included in an anthology, correctly attributed to the author, but without his permission.

Morrus · May 15, 2008

Boarstorm said:
I certainly don't want to imply I'm in favor of copyright violation by my defense of a fellow poster -- I'm against piracy in any form, but I have to wonder at something.

Law has been infamous for being unable to keep up with the advances of the Internet Age. I mean, how many years was it before it was decided that taxes could be applied to internet puchases?

When a company publishes an article on the internet and allows it to be viewed, for free, by anyone who bothers to tack an "authenticate=True" condition on the end of the address, can they really claim they didn't release it into the public domain?

I mean, certainly, crediting the source and not implying it's your own work is called for, but I wonder at the true legality and whether an unscrupulous lawyer (or simply one who has a different value system than my own) might be able to succussfully argue that anything freely posted could be freely distributed.

Something to ponder, anyway.

And, Mercutio01, if any of this is addressed in any of the articles you mentioned above, I apologize. I didn't bother wading through the legalese, but I appreciate you posting it for any who are so inclined.