How do you know they don't have permission to distribute that document?So somehow GUE copyrighted items have more protection than other people's. I know GUE thinks of themselves as special, but that special!
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
How do you know they don't have permission to distribute that document?So somehow GUE copyrighted items have more protection than other people's. I know GUE thinks of themselves as special, but that special!
Because if they did they, it would make sense for them to announce they had obtained permission instead of suggesting that we all try and find pirate PDF copies....Lots of people do not seem to understand that IP theft is theft!How do you know they don't have permission to distribute that document?
Ooh. Contributory copyright infringement!"The book is currently out of print, however, PDF copies do exist. Seek and ye shall find!"
Lots of people do not seem to understand that unauthorized use of IP is not necessarily theft.Lots of people do not seem to understand that IP theft is theft!
Where can I find some authority for that? I have always been under the impression that, of the Fair Use factors, the third factor, "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole," is likely to weigh heavily against you if you copy the entire work. Excerpts, sure, but an entire book, even if out of print and arguably "factual"?In particular, in the USA individual non-commercial use of out-of-print factual works are highly likely to fall under the Fair Use exception to copyright.
And lots of people do not understand what non-commercial use means?Lots of people do not seem to understand that unauthorized use of IP is not necessarily theft.
In particular, in the USA individual non-commercial use of out-of-print factual works are highly likely to fall under the Fair Use exception to copyright.
17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
www.law.cornell.edu
Link is to the relevant US Code. For a more complete explanation, be sure to click the Notes tab.
Vance Harlow's books?Excerpts, sure, but an entire book, even if out of print and arguably "factual"?
You mean why wouldn't they be considered completely factual? I would argue that "completely factual" is something more like a technical specification, which would be entitled to thinner copyright protection than something that conveys facts in a more original way.What can be considered only "arguably factual" about them?
Because if they did they would probably be charging for it and not giving it away. GUE are not known for failing to take a cut.How do you know they don't have permission to distribute that document?
Pure speculation. I'll wait for facts, thanks. Anyone concerned about this needs to contact GUE and ask how they can redistribute a copyrighted document.Because if they did they would probably be charging for it and not giving it away. GUE are not known for failing to take a cut.