1/2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ufo1
To: updates@globalserve.net
Subject: Re: ... Washington DC 1952 investigation
References: 
>From: KRandle993  [Kevin Randle]
>Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 10:25:04 EST
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ... Washington DC 1952 investigation
>
Hello the list, and to Kevin Randle...
Kevin, you were saying...
>> >Let's keep copyright infringement in mind here.
>>>Contrary to popular belief, you can't just scan the chapter into
>>>the computer and post it all over the internet. That is illegal.
>>>In fact, we play fast and loose with the law here by posting
>>>whole newspaper articles, even with the proper credit being
>>>given. The copyright laws are quite specific and what most people
>>>believe to be fair use is, in fact, outlawed.
...And I replied...
>>Kevin,
>
>>We run into alleged copyright infringement every day. I know
>>of no laws that prohibit the reproduction of _excerpts_ from
>>any publication providing there is no intent to profit from
>>the endeavor. The wording of copyright protections are a lot
>>tougher sounding than the legal ways of backing them up.
>>I go to great lengths to obtain permission where it's poss-
>>ible.
>Excerpts, yes, but whole chapters, no. In fact, as we all go to
>the library to copy articles from magazines, we are all engaging
>in copyright infringement. While the laws are clear the
>enforcement is less clear. I was just suggesting that we all be
>careful before we begin to post whole chpaters on the internet.
>
>>When it's not practical, I limit my discussion to brief ex-
>>cerpts and/or re-phrasing of the author's message. For in-
>>stance, were I to use excerpts from one of your copyright
>>works, and you found it necessary to object, I would simply
>>cease and desist. ...No law-suit necessary or applicable.
>
>You seem to understand not only the law, but the spirit of
>the law which many refuse to understand. Copyright law is
>designed to product the authors of specific work from having
>that work exploited by others. Again, there is a fair use
>doctrine, but many people claim fair use and then engage
>in infringement. No, Jack, I'm not suggesting that you are
>guilty of that, only attempting to make a point that is
>sometimes lost.
Thank you
You went on to say...
>>And Jack, what gave you the idea that the newspaper clippings
>>from the time would be more accurate than Ruppelt's analysis of
>>the situation, especially since you haven't read it? Ruppelt
>>seemed to provide an interesting insight into the functioning of
>>the UFO investigation in 1952 and gives some clues about the
>>thinking at the higher levels. Ruppelt's work is important to
>>understanding the whole of the 1952 flap.
>
To which I replied...
>>> Continued to next message
--- FMail 1.22
---------------