Banning ? ETHICS OF MY PUBLICATIONS

Frans Tassigny

Description

 Here is my philosophy, I try to raise a little speech and my publications must show:
 • Whether it becomes an intention, a desire, a vision, guidance, individual and collective choice;
• Participate consciously ...
More precisely and groups on Facebook
Frans Frans Tassigny You will notice that I have all Eraser carefully reviews that do not want the point to be published and without harm to the understanding of the seizure, the more I corrected otho, trimmed predicates idle and untoward ( or too laudatory) sycophants SYSTEMATICALLY involved in any groups.
  [Moins]

Informations

• Publié par: Une-Universite-de-la-Psychanalyse
• Nombre de lectures: 7
• Langue: English

Extrait

10 great myths of copyright for Dummies

By Brad Templeton

This aims to combat urban legends found on the internet regarding copyrights and publishing online and to answer questions relating to it.

Thank you note that we'll talk about the myths about copyrights. This assumes that you know at least what the copyright - the exclusive legal right of the author of a creative work to control the use made of his work. If you do not know this, you can refer to my own brief introduction to copyright.

1) If there is no mention of a work is under copyright, copyright does not apply.

This was true before, but today almost all countries have ratified the Berne Convention on copyright. United States, any private work and created after 1 April 1989 is protected by the copyright regime, there is a reference or not. Assume that the works of others are secured by copyright and can not be copied, except stated otherwise. It happens that some works have lost their protection but is not shown, but do not take a risk if you do not have proof that this is the case.

It is true that mention strengthening protection and warning value, which allows to derive greater damages and interest, but it is not mandatory. If it looks like a work of author, assume that the rights apply. This also applies to images. It is forbidden to scan pictures from a magazine and publish them on the internet. This applies to any image of unknown origin.

The correct form of a statement is: "Copyright [dates] by [author / owner]"

You can use C in a circle © instead of "Copyright" but "(c)" has never been given the force of law. The phrase "all rights reserved" was required by some countries, but it is not a legal requirement. In some countries, however, it can establish the use of a "moral right".

2) If I do not pay, there is no infringement of copyright

False. Compensation will be taken into account for the calculation of damages awarded by the court, but this is the only consequence. It is, anyway, a violation of the law is punishable - and that can have serious consequences if you set the value of the property in question. The United States recognizes an exception for private copying in music [translator's note: this is also the case in France], but the courts have clarified that this does not include distribution limited private copying as Napster.

However, if the work in question has no value, the violation is purely legal and rarely leads to legal action. The invocation of Fair Use (see below) also takes into account the concept of money.

3) If it is published on the Internet, it is in the public domain

False. Nothing new and creative is now in the public domain, unless its owner does not explicitly placed there (*). Explicitly, such a note from the author / owner saying: "I give this work to the public domain" By these words or terms is analogous.

Some argue that publication on the Internet is an implicit authorization to allow the public copy very broadly. D'' Others believe that the Internet itself is a network of recording and automatic transfer and thousands of copies are made on demand (in the absence of consent) who publishes.

There is room for discussion, but, even if it is true (and the authors pray that it is not) it would only mean that publishers can implicitly "the kind of copy usually granted when you publish on the Internet" and any one provision of his work in the public domain, it is important to remember that, legally speaking, computers do not copy anything, only humans do. We give instructions to computers, the permissions that are not reserved for real people. In addition, an implied permission can not have the force explicit permission given to a particular person.

Note that we assume that the publisher has the right to put online. If this is not the case, then all copies are illegal and no license or implicit theoretical assignment of copyright is feasible.

(*) Copyright may expire after a certain time, breaking down work into the public domain, subject to special rules that apply to older works. But it is not of recent works internet era.

Important to a work in the public domain is a complete abandonment of all rights. We can not limit the application of public non-commercial applications. Once it is in the public domain, anyone can change a fraction and put his name forward. you need to use Creative Commons licenses to grant only partial rights

4) What I posted is an application of fair use

See the notes on fair use (http://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php) and links therein for a detailed answer, but keep the following in mind:

The exception to the U.S. Fair use copyright was designed to secure applications such as commentary, parody, right to information, research and education work protected by copyright without to ask for permission. It was essential that copyright does not limit the freedom of other authors and merely make it impossible to appropriate the labor of another. The intention of the user of a work and damage to the commercial value of the latter are important considerations. If you play a New York Times article, is to criticize the quality, because have not had the time to write your own article or to prevent your readers to pay for access to the website of the newspaper? The first case will be considered under the Fair Use, the other probably not.

Fair Use is generally made up of a short extract and attributed to its author (and one should not use more than necessary to comment). Should not undermine the commercial value of the work of others - in the sense that people no longer need to buy (which is why a complete reproduction problem.) In a famous case, the reproduction in a newspaper article of 300

words from Gerald Ford memoirs which contained 200,000 was not recognized as Fair use because it was the most important 300 words - why for which he had pardoned Nixon.

Most reproductions of text within comments have no impact on the commercial value of the original text and are recognized as Fair Use. However, the fair use doctrine is not accurate. The courts decide on a case-by-case comment justify an exception to copyright. There have been cases coming out of Fair Use.

The concept of Fair Use varies from one country to another and different names ("fair dealing" in Canada) and covers other limitations outside the United States.

Facts and ideas can not be protected by copyright, but the way they are expressed, can. You can still expose the facts in your own style.

Attention to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act amended the copyright and copyrights on the Internet in several ways. In particular, the right to use copy protection systems has been strengthened, some programs have become illegal and the scope of fair use has been reduced.

5) If you do not defend your copyright you lose it. - Someone has filed his name!

False. Copyright can not lose these days, unless there is explicitly renounced. You can not take advantage of copyright a name, something as indefinite, or even a title. This is the law of the trademark (trading), which apply to names. The latter can actually lose or weaken if it is not defended.

The trademark applies to a term contained in a brand within a product or a specific service. For example, the "Delta" airline "Delta Airlines" has been filed, although it is a common word, but only in the context of air transport. "Delta Hotel" has the exclusivity for everything that relates to hotels. (This case is unusual because the two companies are in the field of travel. Usually industries are more distinct.) Neither one nor the other has the word itself, only the background and it gives them no complete control (refer to notions of trademark law for more detail).

You can not use the trademark of someone else in a way that attenterait the value of the brand or in a way that might make people confuse you with the real owner of the mark, or could afford to take advantage of the reputation of the brand.

For example, if I was giving advice on music videos, I would not sign with a term similar to "mtv" (ndt: chain specializing in music videos). You can use marks to criticize or parody, so it is clearly visible that you're not the owner.

6) If I write a story, it based on an existing work, that I wrote mine

False. United States law on copyright is quite explicit about the so-called "derivative works" - works based or derived from another work protected by copyright. They are the exclusive property of the owner of the original work. This applies even if the new work stems from a highly creative process. If you write a story using the characters or universe of someone else, you need the permission of the author.

Yes, this means that almost all fanfiction is unquestionably a violation of copyright. If you want to publish a story about Jim Kirk and Mr. Spock, you need the full permission of

Paramount. It is a rule greatly bypassed, but all holders of popular works do not pretend to ignore the existence of fanfiction, nor do they subtly encourage it because they need it. Do not get me wrong, they are the ones who have the right to decide whether or not to leave you.

There are two important exceptions: criticism and parody. The application of the Fair use allows you to turn Star Trek into ridicule without asking permission to use the character of Mr. Spock. This is not the ultimate weapon: you can not write a text and call parody if it is not really a fair Use the walk as follows: you be sued for breach of copyright , you acknowledge that you have copied a work and invoke fair use. Judgment in each case, which will analyze your goals will be made.

However, it is also important to note that no court has ever ruled on the issue of fanfiction because the defendants did not have the means to oppose a powerful production company. Some argue that fanfiction is non-commercial, the courts apply the exception of Fair Use. You can refer to Chilling Effect

7) They can do nothing against me, right defendants enjoy the presumption of innocence

Legislation on copyright is largely civil law. If you violate copyright you will be sued in civil court, not criminal. The presumption of innocence is a principle of criminal law, as well as the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Sorry, but in copyright cases, these protective principles do not apply in the same manner, if at all. It is played on the evidence that will convince the most the judge or jury, although the rules vary depending on the type of offense. In civil law, you may even be asked to testify against your own interests. (Note: criminal law can not compel an accused to testify under oath, as this may force them to choose between testify against himself or to give false testimony).

8) But the violation of the copyright is not a crime or something so serious?

Today (90 years) violation of copyright involving more than 10 copies and reaching a value greater than $ 2500 is a crime. So, beware. (The good thing is that the criminal law protections apply.) However, do not expect to throw people in jail for embezzling your inbox. The courts have other fish to fry. The legislation is recent, not yet shaped by practice. (...)

9) It does not hurt anyone - in fact it is the free advertising

It is the responsibility of the copyright holder to decide whether to advertise, even free. If desired, we will contact you. Do not evaluate yourself if it will prejudice the holder, ask him. It is not usually difficult to reach. (...) Even if you do not see why the author or copyright holder would be affected, think about the fact that piracy on the net is detrimental to all those who want to enjoy this wonderful technology without getting caught in a war trenches.

10) I was sent a copy / a copy, I have the right to / publish

Getting a copy does not transfer the copyright. All emails that you write are protected by copyright. However, email is not secret, unless it is previously stated. So you can probably tell you who sent it and what it contained. You can even quote from when needed. Someone who would be a trial on the revelation of an ordinary message likely would get no damages, because the message has no value. However, to remain strictly within the law, you should ask first.

On the other hand, do not fart cable if someone forwarded the email you sent. If it was a personal missive ordinary, a minimum market value without copyright notice (like 99.9% of all emails), you probably will not get any damages if you attack to justice. Note, however, that regardless of the law, keeping private correspondence private is a courtesy one should usually honor.

11) So, I can not reproduce anything?

Myth No. 11 (I do not want to change the title of this famous article afterwards) is a common question.

No, copyright is not lock anything that can be published. Indeed, in different ways and rewarding authors, it encourages them not only accept but also to finance and distribute the publication of their work, so that they reach many more people than if they were free or unprotected - not promoted.

It should be borne in mind that copyright has two main goals, namely the protection of the right of the author to obtain compensation in exchange for his commercial work and precious, more recently, the protection of the general law the author to control the way are his work is exploited.

If the law of copyright makes it technically illegal to reproduce without permission most contemporary creative works (with the exception of applications Fair Use), protection is less if the work does not have real market value. The author may object to the publication, ask for damages and to pay the expense. With regard to damages, it is indexed to the potential loss due to the author of the publication, rather than the defendant's gains. In the absence of market value, as is the case for a typical e-mail or a message on a forum, assessed damages shall be void. Only one author particularly litigious (and who could afford) would go to court if they can not rely on any damage. It must be said that the courts have no indulgence for attackers vindictive, unless the defendants are even more.

However, the right of an author to control what happens to his work is taken into account, even in the absence of market value. If you violate copyright "because it is possible because it is free of charge," put yourself in question. Generally respect the right of authors to control the use of their creation is taken seriously by lawyers.

In addition, even if a lot of people take advantage of them abuse the Fair Use, this concept remains an important element in ensuring the right to criticize or citation. It has also been applied for acts like make private copies of TV shows and transfer them to your MP3 music from your CDs. Learn it before you invoke it.

In brief

• Today, almost all works are under copyright protection from the moment they were created without any legal notice is required.

• It is possible that copyrights are violated even in the absence of profits from you, they do not account for the assessment of damages to be paid to the author.

• Publication on the internet does not mean that the work falls into the public domain does not grant any implied Authorization copy, except perhaps for mechanisms resulting copy of

the Internet [NTT: I think we here thinking that aggregators which kinds of copies of articles or pages]

• The Fair use is a complex doctrine intended to ensure positive social goals. Have the reflex question your re-publication and ask yourself why you can not rewrite the text with your own words.

• It does not lose its copyright by not defending it (it is only by trademark law). Protection of names is also a concept of trademark law, there is not copyright a name.

• The fanfiction any derivative work of works protected by copyright is a violation of copyright.

• The law on copyright is essentially civil law, the principles of presumption of innocence does not apply. Beware, however, the new copyright laws that criminalize certain cases.

• Publish an email received is technically a violation of copyright but mention that you received is not. In general, forget email does no damage, so is rarely the subject of a lawsuit. The law is fairly protective of property without market value.

• I have two questions on copyright and they are deleted again.

To summarize this:

- Is it to illustrate a point, publish part or all of an article and under what conditions, as is commonly done? M we had said that it 'is possible by specifying the link. That is it really? All that you "publish" on the internet is accessible to all power and often free.

- Another different question: To be published on the net at it recognition of publication (or public event) for companies to author asking for your membership to be presented publicly released one to three times I do not know . The net value there for those companies that aim to defend yourself (legally if applicable) and you repay the copyright collected.

Thank you to answer these two questions. 1ST is the concern and affecting us all.

•

• provence

•-There 11:00

• I would add that not knowing if you read and understand my answer, I included in an article tonight. The story of "recovery" from other publications is current concern. I hope that somebody will respond. thank you.

ETHICS OF MY PUBLICATIONS

 Here is my philosophy, I try to raise a little speech and my publications must show:

 • Whether it becomes an intention, a desire, a vision, guidance, individual and collective choice;

• Participate consciously ...

More precisely and groups on Facebook

Frans Frans Tassigny You will notice that I have all Eraser carefully reviews that do not want the point to be published and without harm to the understanding of the seizure, the more I corrected otho, trimmed predicates idle and untoward ( or too laudatory) sycophants SYSTEMATICALLY involved in any groups.

I leave voluntarily mistakes expressive puns etc. or indicative of slip, this entry is more opportunity to test and learn about it, I must admit that I was shocked by the discoveries made without detect any trace of manipulation, it is not true for others ... I recently refused to give me his sources, I had to "swallow" your word and it came from Mr. Journet, j ' sure hope it is a simple misunderstanding.

: When you subscribe to a public group and when we know that all members are allowed to publish, it is in the choice of the group, see for Administrators by clicking on the small wheel, then edit the group, are selected publications, the concern is that administrators are familiar with these choices but necessarily registered members. Then you must know that when the group is public, anyone can copy and paste or screenshots. Once you become aware that someone shows. But how many do and do not say? When others take the words of someone to peddle besides just changing a few sentences. You must go to the evidence that in our society, intellectual property has become more unmanageable than otherwise. As well as the maintenance of respect and integrity and that in all social strata and all sectors including those that would require the most attention to ethics and trust relationship. So what to do when you enter a time in a group where all of a sudden it's the tsunami and those who feel it coming, including those who began drinking the cup several times in the first high waves, and the wise moderators issues were heard (normal, there was little ^ ^ ...) have carapatés not necessarily loose but can simply work better elsewhere and calm and you enter for a second Once in a similar group repeating the same patterns as the first little closer?

Continue to annoy you to lose valuable energy, you send conflicting words better you complain then?

I do not like to preach, but there's enough, you should be ashamed to behave well, to get bogged down in such an atmosphere, and it hurts me a few friends who have read and reread to embark still leave to respond to provocations.

It is not at all what people need autistic adults or children, or even their parents and it hurts me so to see what state of irritation are many parents even though I understand how that cause them to be on edge. Yes it is the pain I feel, not rage and this is where I draw my grief will escape such a climate, not out of cowardice but to preserve my potential and my energy because I know that work better and more efficiently in a calm and intelligence of the heart, in a search for compromise through a deepening and deepening must neither be a slippery slope to quicksand, or a track riddled with arrows and stones. So leave a group, yes, but not to repeat the same patterns of nonsense and spend time disputes that blur the debates, we must practice those with the intelligence of the heart combined with the intellect. A human working properly the day thinking joined the heart, so that he forgets his heart, he is ready to turn a vane in the slightest wind! Thought connected to the intelligence of the heart, that is we need today as the foundation.

Do you realize that in this group, manipulators and agitators who are watching you from the top of their high thrones infested policy for each and pharmaceutical lobbies for others (even if one or more drugs of the allopathic range would be indispensable ), they are above the vultures and they count the points!