How can an author ban critique?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

vladimir:
You see no moral argument for people having the right to the fruits of their own labor? I see it as one of the most basic rights in a civilized society.
I{SNIP}l.
Click to expand...

Which they crassly commercialize by taking advantage of laws which confer a property right which they can buy,sell ,lease, or license.

Not sure a restaurant guide would be much use after a couple of years. People would be wandering around looking for the Beefeater, Amadeus and the Old Inn forever.
 
I always find such talk amusing: "...critique of a literary work is a protected First Amendment right at least in the United States and hopefully in the Netherlands/Bonaire as well." I've not see the critique, but from the description it sounds it was well beyond rights granted by A-1. It sounds like you published (posting on the net is publishing) well more than "fair use" of her work - with rewriting.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Also see: 10 Big Myths about copyright explained

"The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's vital so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works -- only the ability to appropriate other people's."
 
Net Doc - I understand your position, but the brunt of your solution is going to be borne by the users who come here to discuss things openly.
 
I have BSDME; also found a real handy dive site guide on Bonaire published there that gives a brief summary of each dive site. not as lengthy as BSDME, but contained all of the essential information on each site. Oh, by the way, it is FREE.
 
NetDoc:
I am giving her through the weekend to respond to my response to her e-mail. If her knee jerk reaction is to threaten to sue me, then we will just auto-censor the name of her book and remove all threads that reference it. I just don't need the hassle and the threat of a lawsuit. I am sure that the bigger loss will be hers.
Click to expand...
She's messing with the God of a virtual world. Who does she think she is? With one keystroke, you can "disappear" her!

You've convinced me to sign up as a supporting member. Add my $3.95 to your legal fund.
 
I read the original posts before they were pulled. They guy was only excited about a project he was working on for himself. He was not planning on publishing it, sharing it or distributing it. Talk about turning an ant hill into Mount Everest. Wow! He in fact put up the pdf with the text turned to giberish so that no one would or could copy it. You go NETDOC!:no
 
laurelgsc:
I read the original posts before they were pulled. They guy was only excited about a project he was working on for himself. He was not planning on publishing it, sharing it or distributing it. Talk about turning an ant hill into Mount Everest. Wow! He in fact put up the pdf with the text turned to giberish so that no one would or could copy it. You go NETDOC!:no
Click to expand...

His original project,as he described it, is probably an infringement. And nothing has been pulled yet.
 
rjchandler:
He was typing out a new copy, adding artwork and laminating that.
Click to expand...

You are correct, I missed the typing out new copy part.

I just read the newer code and the modification itself is a violation under 17 USC subsection 106 "Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: ...
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work"

The lamination would be ok. Retyping is a violation even under older rules. The surprising one is the artwork making it derivative even if not offered for resale or personal use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom