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.

You did just fine here on discussing the article without quoting further content:



viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9394&p=147005#p147005

Please continue doing so.

_________________
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 ?

Correct. That is actually preferred to quoting any of the article.

rules.html

Quote:

Your short description of what the content is about written in your own words, or if you have to, the first couple of sentences of content.[/b]

_________________
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!

This is not an arbitrary rule, it is the law here in the US. If you quote more than what we have in our rules, you may find yourself at the other end of a cease and desist letter from the copyright holder's attorneys, which is never pleasant. Normally, we (EnviroLink) wouldn't really care, but because of the absurdity of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the same attorneys mentioned int he previous sentence would (and have tried in the past) contact EnviroLink and make us shut down the boards for 10 days.

It's good practice to express your interpretation of other people's written or spoken ideas, rather than just regurgitating them. If doing that makes you uncomfortable, just give it a try and see what happens. You may be surprised at how well it can work!

-josh

According to Merriam Webster, the word "couple" may (in this context) be defined as an indefinite small number (a few).
It could be, (as suggested) limited to two sentences but it could just as well be construed to mean 3 or more sentences.
As a paragraph may consist of two or more sentences,
Clearer wording and sentence structure is needed in the rules to avoid future confusion on this issue.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/couple
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/few[2]

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 reference.com. 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

Sorry if the definitions are inconvenient to your purposes but words do mean things, and you are trying to stay out of trouble because of the absurdity of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act carried to the next logical level one may be worried if ones uses a word in discussing an article that appeared in said article.Using your reference matteral…
reference.com.
Why not just say provide a link to the peice with no comentary...

I am sorry if the clarification offered wasn't sufficient in helping you understand. Allow me once again--no more than two sentences may be excerpted from copyrighted material.

That is what is meant by the rule in question. Now of course, one is still free to interpret it as they see fit. If they happen to be wrong and act on it, there are solutions for that too.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Then change the wording and sentance struckture of the rule... Simple as that, no fuss, no muss, no discussion, no misunderstandings but as it is, it is ambiguous. And you forget about the fair use exemptions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the act it's self may or may not apply to use of news articals posted for disccushion

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!

And neither is in line with usage of conventional English language and wording My suggestion is if you want no more than two sentences… then say that in the rules.