Sunday, January 16, 2005
This is a post from someone else's site. You've stolen it. You've been rumbled. Stop now.
precisely as peter puts it.
blogspot will be hearing about this.
I see you have a link on your sidebar titled - People who think.
Maybe you should think before you steal.
I definitely do want to know if this is stealing. And I hope blogspot and others can clarify more the question about the rights of quoting something on a blog.
As I understand it, excerpting a quote is not equal to stealing, but if it is, I want to understand why it is.
And I would like to understand why it is legal for other millions of people to quote millions of other sources just as I have done and this not be stealing.
Or are you saying the millions of quotes and references in the blog world (and outside) are all illegal? And if they are illegal, which law did they break? Why doesn´t fair use apply in this case? You have not given me an explanation.
Having a clear understanding of this issue is much more important than quoting your particular blogs, because it entails freedom to quote, period. Aside from the unpleasant conflict that it is generating. But if it is my right to quote and comment, then that´s what I will do. If I don´t have that right, then I will delete the quotes or paraphrase them.
``Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too.''
I was just reading on copyright and it seems I could fit under a copyleft attitude towards my blog (regarding the freedom of other people to comment on and develop what I write).
Does it really matter if a comment appears on one blog or one several blogs? How is this not stifling public debate and freedom of speech? What is the rationale applied to free news articles in sites that have no financial gain in any way? Is news worthy different than non-news worthy?
Another very related question came up. I am an author of a book, and I publish one copy of the book only. It goes to the Library of Congress. I decide I don´t like my book. Can I force the Library of Congress to burn the book so no one will read it?
And so no one will quote it? Review it? If one has the power to have the Library destroy the book and another person had made a copy of part of the text, could they quote parts of the book? Maybe this is another area of law called destroyrights. (Actually I know something like this exists with another name).
This is analogous to the author of a blog post that prohibits anyone to copy any portion of their blog entries which they have publicly published and then decides to delete something.
It sounds totally outlandish to me, this prohibition. Suppose I write something on my blog today. And I simply say: no one can quote anything I write. Tomorrow someone wants to comment on what I wrote but I delete the post. Then they can´t "quote" me, even by way of a link, because I didn´t give them "permission" to make a quote. Or could they then claim copyright for the text, since there was nothing like it remaining?
On the other hand, there is the question of equating each blog entry to poetry. Can a blog entry/blurb be equated to a poem and not to a comment? Even if it is clearly not a poem? But then what are the rules about how much can be copied/quoted?