EnviroLink Forum

I can understand the concern about getting the forum in hot water regarding copyrighted materials being copied but I also find the inability to quote more then the initial poster's quote to be very limiting to any discussion of the article and to pointing out the things that I think need to be highlighted from the article. I am not sure how - or if - the rule can be opened up a bit but as it is, it is going to reduce my activity on this forum due to frustration of not being able to easily comment on the article itself.

_________________
TANG SOO!

It may be irritating, but I believe it will be OK to comment fully on an article by using your own words.... and opinions.

Is that right Fos ?

_________________
TANG SOO!

For me it isn't concern as much as clarity. I just want to be sure I understand where we're coming from.

If Ann puts up a link and posts one or two sentences from the article in the link, at no point during the rest of the thread may anyone post another sentence from the orginal article in the orginal link. After the inital post the best anyone can do is say go back and look at the article, but in saying that you can't tell them what to look for.

As an example. The first post quoted a sentence that said "the sky is red".

So after that we can only say, no go back and look at the orginal article it said more then that.

Or can we say, no as it said in the article "the sky is really blue it's just red at sunset or sunrise". It seems to me this way is still quoting the article word for word, so this would not be permitted.

This is why I was looking for clarity.

_________________
I don't know what your problem is but I bet its hard to pronounce.

Two sentences of content is the limit. Beyond that, talk about it. If the best one can do is just say, "go back and read the article", then I suppose that's the best one could expect of them. Or, preferably, one could absorb enough when they read to effectively speak to the subject matter in their own words.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Personally Pops, I can suggest ' getting around ' this problem by joining senteces with a colon or semi-colon or even these ' ..............' .

I suppose what counts is the interpretation put on it by lawyers in a litigation case.

I'm surprised you didn't use the "two hounds" definition from . I am not a legal expert, nor do I purport to give legal advice. Our rules are written the way they are written to maintain some semblance of order and to cover the EnviroLink Network's legal rear if there are problems.

When I use the word "couple" in the rules, it is the common reference for two things (in this case, sentences). As jhawk attempts to cheekily point out, there is no exact standard for how long the sentences should be, unless I gave you the number of characters (including spaces) that you are allowed to use. Due to the potential length of sentences, I could easily imagine a copyright challenge on two fully copied sentences, if you had two really, really long ones. So, the "first couple of sentences" (but definitely no more than two) will have to be your guide.

Rather than waste everyone's time defining every last thing, we'll let everyone use their judgement and restrain their postings to a length that seems right, such as "a couple of sentences."

Thank you for the mind-numbing excursion into semantic variability.

-josh

_________________
TANG SOO!

Pops, you've gotten my interpretation and Josh's position on the matter. Continuing to question and debate it is no longer appropriate.

_________________
TANG SOO!