Electronic "Taggent" To Keep Subscribers From Reposting Articles

> They'll be a fee for the NYT again starting next year,

Maybe there could be some way to put a unique electronic "taggent" on
each subscriber's download -- the poor man's version might be a
strategically placed misspelling -- to determine which subscribers
are
violating the copyright laws.

At a minimum it might force them to at least retype the entire
article.

The slow dime over the fast nickel science and technology pages that
charge $20/article don't have the same IP theft problems as the
"popular" press.

Some kind of cooperative effort with Google and others may be
necessary
to make it work.


Bret Cahill

On Sep 17, 8:10&#4294967295;am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > They'll be a fee for the NYT again starting next year,
>
> Maybe there could be some way to put a unique electronic "taggent" on
> each subscriber's download -- the poor man's version might be a
> strategically placed misspelling -- to determine which subscribers
> are
> violating the copyright laws.
>
> At a minimum it might force them to at least retype the entire
> article.
>
> The slow dime over the fast nickel science and technology pages that
> charge $20/article don't have the same IP theft problems as the
> "popular" press.
>
> Some kind of cooperative effort with Google and others may be
> necessary
> to make it work.
>
> Bret Cahill

Lots of people read the harsh totalitarian
copyright warnings projected by NYT and
other papers/sites and completely fail to
understand the quite liberal
FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS to the copyright law.

Any news story posted to usenet would be
fully covered by the FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS
because it is for discussion purposes and
not for profit.

Perhaps the NYT should pay for their
news gathering with advertising?

> > > They'll be a fee for the NYT again starting next year,
>
> > Maybe there could be some way to put a unique electronic "taggent" on
> > each subscriber's download -- the poor man's version might be a
> > strategically placed misspelling -- to determine which subscribers
> > are
> > violating the copyright laws.
>
> > At a minimum it might force them to at least retype the entire
> > article.
>
> > The slow dime over the fast nickel science and technology pages that
> > charge $20/article don't have the same IP theft problems as the
> > "popular" press.
>
> > Some kind of cooperative effort with Google and others may be
> > necessary
> > to make it work.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> Lots of people read the harsh totalitarian
> copyright warnings projected by NYT and
> other papers/sites and completely fail to
> understand the quite liberal
> FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS to the copyright law.
>
> Any news story posted to usenet would be
> fully covered by the FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS
> because it is for discussion purposes and
> not for profit.
>
> Perhaps the NYT should pay for their
> news gathering with advertising?

Just post a teaser part of the article and the link.

That way they'll be able to afford real science writers.


Bret Cahill

> > > They'll be a fee for the NYT again starting next year,
>
> > Maybe there could be some way to put a unique electronic "taggent" on
> > each subscriber's download -- the poor man's version might be a
> > strategically placed misspelling -- to determine which subscribers
> > are
> > violating the copyright laws.
>
> > At a minimum it might force them to at least retype the entire
> > article.
>
> > The slow dime over the fast nickel science and technology pages that
> > charge $20/article don't have the same IP theft problems as the
> > "popular" press.
>
> > Some kind of cooperative effort with Google and others may be
> > necessary
> > to make it work.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> Lots of people read the harsh totalitarian
> copyright warnings projected by NYT and
> other papers/sites and completely fail to
> understand the quite liberal
> FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS to the copyright law.
>
> Any news story posted to usenet would be
> fully covered by the FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS
> because it is for discussion purposes and
> not for profit.
>
> Perhaps the NYT should pay for their
> news gathering with advertising?

Just post a teaser part of the article and the link.

That way they'll be able to afford real science writers.


Bret Cahill

> > > They'll be a fee for the NYT again starting next year,
>
> > Maybe there could be some way to put a unique electronic "taggent" on
> > each subscriber's download -- the poor man's version might be a
> > strategically placed misspelling -- to determine which subscribers
> > are
> > violating the copyright laws.
>
> > At a minimum it might force them to at least retype the entire
> > article.
>
> > The slow dime over the fast nickel science and technology pages that
> > charge $20/article don't have the same IP theft problems as the
> > "popular" press.
>
> > Some kind of cooperative effort with Google and others may be
> > necessary
> > to make it work.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> Lots of people read the harsh totalitarian
> copyright warnings projected by NYT and
> other papers/sites and completely fail to
> understand the quite liberal
> FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS to the copyright law.
>
> Any news story posted to usenet would be
> fully covered by the FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS
> because it is for discussion purposes and
> not for profit.
>
> Perhaps the NYT should pay for their
> news gathering with advertising?

Just post a teaser part of the article and the link.

That way they'll be able to afford real science writers.


Bret Cahill

On Sep 17, 10:45&#4294967295;pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > > > They'll be a fee for the NYT again starting next year,
>
> > > Maybe there could be some way to put a unique electronic "taggent" on
> > > each subscriber's download -- the poor man's version might be a
> > > strategically placed misspelling -- to determine which subscribers
> > > are
> > > violating the copyright laws.
>
> > > At a minimum it might force them to at least retype the entire
> > > article.
>
> > > The slow dime over the fast nickel science and technology pages that
> > > charge $20/article don't have the same IP theft problems as the
> > > "popular" press.
>
> > > Some kind of cooperative effort with Google and others may be
> > > necessary
> > > to make it work.
>
> > > Bret Cahill
>
> > Lots of people read the harsh totalitarian
> > copyright warnings projected by NYT and
> > other papers/sites and completely fail to
> > understand the quite liberal
> > FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS to the copyright law.
>
> > Any news story posted to usenet would be
> > fully covered by the FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS
> > because it is for discussion purposes and
> > not for profit.
>
> > Perhaps the NYT should pay for their
> > news gathering with advertising?
>
> Just post a teaser part of the article and the link.
>
> That way they'll be able to afford real science writers.
>
> Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



Just a few links about 'fair use':

http://www.ccsj.edu/blackboard/BB%20Copyright_Fair_Use.pdf

http://home.earthlink.net/~cnew/research.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

(note: consult a real, actual lawyer instead of the Internet for free
legal advice - and if you want the good advice as opposed to the free
stuff, you'll probably have to pay).

On Sep 17, 11:14&#4294967295;pm, kevin <kevinjmc...@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Sep 17, 10:45&#4294967295;pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > They'll be a fee for the NYT again starting next year,
>
> > > > Maybe there could be some way to put a unique electronic "taggent" on
> > > > each subscriber's download -- the poor man's version might be a
> > > > strategically placed misspelling -- to determine which subscribers
> > > > are
> > > > violating the copyright laws.
>
> > > > At a minimum it might force them to at least retype the entire
> > > > article.
>
> > > > The slow dime over the fast nickel science and technology pages that
> > > > charge $20/article don't have the same IP theft problems as the
> > > > "popular" press.
>
> > > > Some kind of cooperative effort with Google and others may be
> > > > necessary
> > > > to make it work.
>
> > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > Lots of people read the harsh totalitarian
> > > copyright warnings projected by NYT and
> > > other papers/sites and completely fail to
> > > understand the quite liberal
> > > FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS to the copyright law.
>
> > > Any news story posted to usenet would be
> > > fully covered by the FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS
> > > because it is for discussion purposes and
> > > not for profit.
>
> > > Perhaps the NYT should pay for their
> > > news gathering with advertising?
>
> > Just post a teaser part of the article and the link.
>
> > That way they'll be able to afford real science writers.
>
> > Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Just a few links about 'fair use':
>
> http://www.ccsj.edu/blackboard/BB%20Copyright_Fair_Use.pdf
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~cnew/research.htm
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
>
> (note: consult a real, actual lawyer instead of the Internet for free
> legal advice - and if you want the good advice as opposed to the free
> stuff, you'll probably have to pay).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hmm.. somehow I lost the bottom part of the post.  What I was going to
say was that 'fair use' is a bit more stringent than some people
think.  A relative of mine (who is a very good lawyer), told me that
if a professor ran off a dozen copies of a textbook and handed out
free copies to his class, then that would be a slam dunk felony
copyright conviction for any good lawyer.  When Iasked about the 'non-
commercial' part, he said - what's non-commercial about selling
someone a college education?

Kevin McGee

On Sep 17, 11:14=A0pm, kevin <kevinjmc...@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Sep 17, 10:45=A0pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > They'll be a fee for the NYT again starting next year,
>
> > > > Maybe there could be some way to put a unique electronic "taggent" =
on
> > > > each subscriber's download -- the poor man's version might be a
> > > > strategically placed misspelling -- to determine which subscribers
> > > > are
> > > > violating the copyright laws.
>
> > > > At a minimum it might force them to at least retype the entire
> > > > article.
>
> > > > The slow dime over the fast nickel science and technology pages tha=
t
> > > > charge $20/article don't have the same IP theft problems as the
> > > > "popular" press.
>
> > > > Some kind of cooperative effort with Google and others may be
> > > > necessary
> > > > to make it work.
>
> > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > Lots of people read the harsh totalitarian
> > > copyright warnings projected by NYT and
> > > other papers/sites and completely fail to
> > > understand the quite liberal
> > > FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS to the copyright law.
>
> > > Any news story posted to usenet would be
> > > fully covered by the FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS
> > > because it is for discussion purposes and
> > > not for profit.
>
> > > Perhaps the NYT should pay for their
> > > news gathering with advertising?
>
> > Just post a teaser part of the article and the link.
>
> > That way they'll be able to afford real science writers.
>
> > Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Just a few links about 'fair use':
>
> http://www.ccsj.edu/blackboard/BB%20Copyright_Fair_Use.pdf
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~cnew/research.htm
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
>
> (note: consult a real, actual lawyer instead of the Internet for free
> legal advice - and if you want the good advice as opposed to the free
> stuff, you'll probably have to pay).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hmm.. somehow I lost the bottom part of the post.  What I was going to
say was that 'fair use' is a bit more stringent than some people
think.  A relative of mine (who is a very good lawyer), told me that
if a professor ran off a dozen copies of a textbook and handed out
free copies to his class, then that would be a slam dunk felony
copyright conviction for any good lawyer.  When Iasked about the 'non-
commercial' part, he said - what's non-commercial about selling
someone a college education?

Kevin McGee

> > > > > > They'll be a fee for the NYT again starting next year,
>
> > > > > Maybe there could be some way to put a unique electronic "taggent" on
> > > > > each subscriber's download -- the poor man's version might be a
> > > > > strategically placed misspelling -- to determine which subscribers
> > > > > are
> > > > > violating the copyright laws.
>
> > > > > At a minimum it might force them to at least retype the entire
> > > > > article.
>
> > > > > The slow dime over the fast nickel science and technology pages that
> > > > > charge $20/article don't have the same IP theft problems as the
> > > > > "popular" press.
>
> > > > > Some kind of cooperative effort with Google and others may be
> > > > > necessary
> > > > > to make it work.
>
> > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > Lots of people read the harsh totalitarian
> > > > copyright warnings projected by NYT and
> > > > other papers/sites and completely fail to
> > > > understand the quite liberal
> > > > FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS to the copyright law.
>
> > > > Any news story posted to usenet would be
> > > > fully covered by the FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS
> > > > because it is for discussion purposes and
> > > > not for profit.
>
> > > > Perhaps the NYT should pay for their
> > > > news gathering with advertising?
>
> > > Just post a teaser part of the article and the link.
>
> > > That way they'll be able to afford real science writers.
>
> > > Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Just a few links about 'fair use':
>
> >http://www.ccsj.edu/blackboard/BB%20Copyright_Fair_Use.pdf
>
> >http://home.earthlink.net/~cnew/research.htm
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
>
> > (note: consult a real, actual lawyer instead of the Internet for free
> > legal advice - and if you want the good advice as opposed to the free
> > stuff, you'll probably have to pay).- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Hmm.. somehow I lost the bottom part of the post. �What I was going to
> say was that 'fair use' is a bit more stringent than some people
> think. �A relative of mine (who is a very good lawyer), told me that
> if a professor ran off a dozen copies of a textbook and handed out
> free copies to his class, then that would be a slam dunk felony
> copyright conviction for any good lawyer. �When Iasked about the 'non-
> commercial' part, he said - what's non-commercial about selling
> someone a college education?

Regardless of the law it could still be at least technically possible
to make subscriptions available with the stipulation that the articles
not be re posted.

It may very well require a huge joint cooperative effort but it could
still be worth it.

Not that _I_ would have thought of it either but it's surprising
someone with 20-20 foresight -- these people exist -- didn't say,
"maybe we ought to consider including an option to help protect
copyrighted material.  If we do it now it won't be necessary to redo
everything later on . . ."


Bret Cahill

On Sep 17, 11:41&#4294967295;pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > They'll be a fee for the NYT again starting next year,
>
> > > > > > Maybe there could be some way to put a unique electronic "taggent" on
> > > > > > each subscriber's download -- the poor man's version might be a
> > > > > > strategically placed misspelling -- to determine which subscribers
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > violating the copyright laws.
>
> > > > > > At a minimum it might force them to at least retype the entire
> > > > > > article.
>
> > > > > > The slow dime over the fast nickel science and technology pages that
> > > > > > charge $20/article don't have the same IP theft problems as the
> > > > > > "popular" press.
>
> > > > > > Some kind of cooperative effort with Google and others may be
> > > > > > necessary
> > > > > > to make it work.
>
> > > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > > Lots of people read the harsh totalitarian
> > > > > copyright warnings projected by NYT and
> > > > > other papers/sites and completely fail to
> > > > > understand the quite liberal
> > > > > FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS to the copyright law.
>
> > > > > Any news story posted to usenet would be
> > > > > fully covered by the FAIR USE EXCEPTIONS
> > > > > because it is for discussion purposes and
> > > > > not for profit.
>
> > > > > Perhaps the NYT should pay for their
> > > > > news gathering with advertising?
>
> > > > Just post a teaser part of the article and the link.
>
> > > > That way they'll be able to afford real science writers.

Was that a joke about NYT's issues a few years back
with writers with fraudulent credentials?

> > > > Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Just a few links about 'fair use':

http://www.ccsj.edu/blackboard/BB%20Copyright_Fair_Use.pdf
http://home.earthlink.net/~cnew/research.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

I didn't even look at those.
I can tell you that legal opinions on this vary WILDLY,
probably because of gutless overcaution or
just plain ignorance.   Get OVER your pretense
that any attorney actually has a definitive answer.

You could hire 6 different attorneys and get
6 different answers.   Ask them if they
consulted Shepherds Digest to sheperdize the case law.

> (note: consult a real, actual lawyer instead of the Internet for free
> legal advice - and if you want the good advice as opposed to the free
> stuff, you'll probably have to pay).

The FAIR USE exception was supposedly designed
specifically so that it could NOT be obfuscated behind
legal technicality or require hiring a member of the
lawyers GUILD to interpret the exceptions.

kevin wrote
> Hmm.. somehow I lost the bottom part of the post. &#4294967295;What I was going to
> say was that 'fair use' is a bit more stringent than some people
> think.

Then you went on to describe a copyright
violation that is BLATANTLY not covered by
the FAIR USE exceptions.  Whole books.

kevin wrote
> &#4294967295;A relative of mine (who is a very good lawyer), told me that
> if a professor ran off a dozen copies of a textbook and handed out
> free copies to his class, then that would be a slam dunk felony
> copyright conviction for any good lawyer. &#4294967295;When Iasked about the 'non-
> commercial' part, he said - what's non-commercial about selling
> someone a college education?

Whole books would be a violation on RSS or usenet as well.

FAIR USE does not exempt whole books from copyright.

> Regardless of the law it could still be at least technically possible
> to make subscriptions available with the stipulation that the articles
> not be re posted.

NYT seems to have already tried that sort of protectionism.
At that point it would become a contract violation and
not a copyright violation where FAIR USE offers an exception.

> It may very well require a huge joint cooperative effort but it could
> still be worth it.

You wrote that from the perspective of authors and
publishers and seem to be trying to minimize
the FAIR USE exceptions to copyright law.

At the same time you seem to concede the
exceptions when you suggest more restrictive
subscription to access content with contractual
stipulation OUTSIDE of the law.
(Then enforceable by terminating subscription or
through tort action for contract violation but NOT
for copyright law violation..)

I have posted THOUSANDS of complete news articles
to usenet with links and I have never even been asked
by any publisher to cease, not that I would.

I loved the part where one of you tried to instill the
fear of booga booga and suggest that this simple
issue needs a paid professional legal consultation.

The FAIR USE exceptions were designed specifically
to NOT require the expense of an attorney to interpret.

Writers and publishers HATE the FAIR USE exceptions.
Most would like to deny that they exist at all.

Do any of the stern legal warnings that publishers
put at the bottom even mention FAIR USE exceptions?

> Not that _I_ would have thought of it either but it's surprising
> someone with 20-20 foresight -- these people exist -- didn't say,
> "maybe we ought to consider including an option to help protect
> copyrighted material. &#4294967295;If we do it now it won't be necessary to redo
> everything later on . . ."
>
> Bret Cahill

Was that a joke about the Steamboat Willie thing?