Copyright (was: You have a postcard)

[John A Swartz]

>It's definitely illegal, John...but it doesn't bother me as much as
it does you.

What actually bothered me was not so much the notion that it was illegal,
but that the "disclaimer" implied that the site developer knew that
the material might be "objectionable", and only made the promise to
remove it if the "artist" complained - and left it basically up to the
artist to find the website (like musicians should be constantly surfing
the net to see who might be using their stuff).

>And I'll add here that it's a lot different than what
Barnicle did, because these postcard people aren't claiming to have
written the songs and lyrics...in fact, the disclaimer makes it clear
that they did not.

My point wasn't that it was the same thing.  My point was Barnicle at
least could claim (whether one believed him or not is subject to debate)
ignorance or sloppiness, as opposed to outright plagiarism.  The disclaimer
on the site, in my interpretation, implies that the site is knowingly
infringing on copyright.  Which is why I suggested that people would've
been really upset with Barnicle had he added a "disclaimer" to his article
that basically said he'd stop quoting George Carlin if George asked him
to.  (BTW, I don't mean to attack Mike Barnicle here - I like a lot of
his work - I have mixed feelings as to his actions, but all I know is
that he put his employers in a lose-lose situation).

>Personally, I just chalk it up in this fashion:  What do you expect?
This is the Internet. And I'm sure there is no net user out there who
has not, at one time or another, benefited in some way from
information or material that the poster did not have permission to
post!

No disagreement (see my other post on my feelings on the benefits to
artists due to stuff like this), and I suspect that the internet will
eventualy force some serious re-looking at copyright law and "intellectual
property" (does that mean I have to be an intellectual to claim any
plagiarism in the future ;-)

>It's
potential is huge as a source of alternative information, but there's
so much MISinformation out there that I end up really only trusting
sources that had credibility in the real world long before there even
was an internet, like the networks, Reuters, USA Today, ESPN, etc. Oh
well.

What?  You don't believe everything you see on the web?  I suppose you
don't think those "Get Rich Quick" e-mails work either...  ;-)

John