copyrights and EagleTalk - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: May 27, 2005

copyrights and EagleTalk

Date: May 27, 2005

Before this gets blown out of proportion, I believe Lanny is referring to the display of the Rivals membership icons & full text quotations.

As he points out, hyperlinking is OK. But personally, there is very little that needs to be shown here, really. The stuff that has been posted was mainly "inflammatory"...

I would suggest that webmaster delete the posts that are bothering him so much or at least edit them. I'm not 100% of how this would be possible if he doesn't provide a complete listing of the posts that his "council" deems to be copyright violations, but I'm sure that some of the "hardworking ET businessman types" who seem to spend 24/7 on the internet have compiled such a listing.

Date: May 27, 2005

I know it's a bit more hassle, but I really hope that the "offending" material from EagleTalk will be edited, instead of deleting the entire thread that contains it.

Robert Campbell

PS. Have the EagleTalkers ever been admonished not to cut and paste material from this board?

Date: May 27, 2005

I know that at least one poster uses direct quotes from AAUP as his "signature" at the bottom of his posts in an effort to deride professors and promote SFT. I think one of the J.D.s from the "Lassen has a J.D." thread could strut their stuff and craft a letter to Lanny Boy.

Date: May 27, 2005

Until Mr. Mixon furnishes the actual material in question, I don't see how it can be removed. However, as far as I know, Dr. Young is not the webmaster. If Mr. Mixon would like to shine the bright light of day on the things that are posted on ET, such as threats to shoot people at the university, that might not be a bad thing.

Oh, that leads me to a question. If a middle-aged man climbed to the top of the dome in order to shoot people, how would he determine who is a professor, who is a parent, who is an older student, who is a visiting politician, or who is his neighbor/relative/fellow church member, or -- God forbid -- another Eagle Talker. You gentlemen really should think these plans through.

Date: May 27, 2005

(Sung to the tune of "Londonderry Air"):

Oh, Lanny Boy
you need to learn the difference
between the words
"council" and "counsel".
You might consult
a common function in Word
that helps you check the words you just can't spell.

But this I know: You really can't be faulted.
You're just a blinded, foolish, mindless clone.
You think the world revolves around Eagle Talk,
And your favorite resident, the bumbling Gnome.

Oh, Lanny Boy
The posts, the posts are callin'.
From thread to thread
Your Eagle Talkers boast
That they are true
supporters of old Shelby
because he does just what they want the most.

He gives them Raines, Eustachy, Ford, and Carruth.
He builds them up as being the best (wurl' class).
But this we know: he's really a buffoon
Who just can't seem to find his a$$
much less spell "SACS".

Date: May 27, 2005

I find this very interesting. Not the email from ET, but the response. I find it interesting that an individual would right a letter to Amy Young (it appears from the post that this isn't the first email Young has recieved on the issue) requesting that the AAUP respect a legal copyright, and is met with this type of response.

I would have assumed that individuals who hold the close the principles of the AAUP would have a greater respect of "intellectual property" even if you don't agree with the property.

I noticed someone asked why Mixon didn't provide a complete list of the violations, well it looks like he provided two examples that are still active on the board, and it appears that nothing was done about it.

Just strange to me.

Date: May 27, 2005

Seeker, we don't actually know who the webmaster is, so we can't actually do anything about the posts.
Also, please remember we are talking about people who want to shoot us. That's a lot more serious than somebody posting copyrighted material. They weren't upset about what their guy did, why should we get upset about this?
Also, large chunks of material from this board were copied and handed out at the infamous "business" meeting, and people were incorrectly (and slanderously) blamed for advocating violence. Even our own Professor Jameela Lares, as non-violent a person who ever lived, had such comments attributed to her. Yet when their guy makes really vicious and frightening remarks, it's not taken seriously.
We have "metaphor alerts" for a reason.

Date: May 27, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Seeker
"Just strange to me."

I have to agree with Seeker. At least the two posts that Lanny pointed out should be deleted. The one that displays the Rivals membership icons definitely needs to go. I'm not sure "EagleTalk.net" would carry a lot of weight vis-a-vis copyright violations, but I think "Rivals.com" might. Rivals is sensitive to external sites copying their "exclusive" interviews, rankings, etc., or displaying their logos than they are to protecting what may be posted on one of their message boards.

I'll defer to ram or one of the lawyuhs here, but I do believe the burden is on ET to list the specific items/posts that are in question. Lanny has provided two & those should be removed. (It may very well be that those are the only examples he has.) However, a request to "remove anything that might be a violation" is impossible to fulfill, legally or practically. (I'm sure some ET'rs regard every post on this board as a "violation" of some ilk & variety

)

Seeker, this being the interim between terms, it's perfectly understandable to me why Dr. Young might not have replied to an earlier email from Lanny. To paraphrase Occam, "never attribute to malice that which may be adequately explained by an over-filled in-box."

Date: May 27, 2005

I'm not saying that Mr. Mixon is not technically correct, nor am I saying that it's okay for posters here to use copyrighted material. In fact, the webmaster has already asked/warned about this some time ago. I'm just intrigued and a little angered that our concerns about what's-his-face got blown off, and he's still in office.

Seeker's too young to remember Austin. Reading it in a history book is not the same as seeing it on the news.

Date: May 27, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: LVN
"Seeker, we don't actually know who the webmaster is, so we can't actually do anything about the posts.
Also, please remember we are talking about people who want to shoot us. That's a lot more serious than somebody posting copyrighted material. They weren't upset about what their guy did, why should we get upset about this?
Also, large chunks of material from this board were copied and handed out at the infamous "business" meeting, and people were incorrectly (and slanderously) blamed for advocating violence. Even our own Professor Jameela Lares, as non-violent a person who ever lived, had such comments attributed to her. Yet when their guy makes really vicious and frightening remarks, it's not taken seriously.
We have "metaphor alerts" for a reason. "

LVN

Just a couple of points here, unless you can prove that either Lanny or Don T. (the owners/operators of ET) attended the big Warren Paving meeting, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand. This board, so far as I can tell has no copyright terms attached to it, unlike EagleTalk. It may very well be a good idea to have some sort of copyrigth drawn up. But, until then the board is unprotected.

As for the so-called shooting threat. That is still laughable to me. But, if you did take it seriously, I believe the poster in question was "threatening" fellow ET posters, so I guess I was the only one in danger. Somehow two totally differnet posts made at different times on different subjects were somehow morphed together to make you andn everyone else here, think that the comments were directed at faculty members, which they clearly were not.

Date: May 27, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"I know it's a bit more hassle, but I really hope that the "offending" material from EagleTalk will be edited, instead of deleting the entire thread that contains it. Robert Campbell PS. Have the EagleTalkers ever been admonished not to cut and paste material from this board?"

Is the information on this board copyrighted, or is it protected just because you are all so superior to the rest of the world?

Date: May 27, 2005

We're superior, definitely. Surprized you had to ask.

Date: May 27, 2005

Why is EagleTalk so frightened? Good gosh - what are you people so afraid of? Degrees? Education? Intelligence? And if they are afraid of those things, why did they go to school at all, or send their kids at all? They want to play ball, get up a team in the park or something, geez.
This is so stupid. EagleTalk tears down professors, players, coaches and anyone else they can think. Yet anything said on the aaup board means we're acting "superior."
Get a grip.

Date: May 27, 2005

Dear Mr. Mixon,

Five minues on eagletalk barely scratches the surface of copyright infringement on that board.

1. Unauthorized use of Cubs logo, right down to the TM

ExtremePanic, delightfullyuncouth

2. Entire story from copyrighted Clarion-Ledger

The Black Attack
Post #227
Posted on 5/22 10:17 AM

3. Unauthorized use of USM logo

Stallion-USM, chester cheeto, EasyEagle, Southern Miss Alum

4. Unauthorized use of images from Jennifer Adcock's copyrighted site, jenniferadcock.com

Catfish Eagle

And on and on and on ...

Get back to us after you clean up eagletalk's act.

Sincerely,
Nebulous N. Misguided Counsel, Esq.

Date: May 27, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Some Beach
"Why is EagleTalk so frightened? Good gosh - what are you people so afraid of? Degrees? Education? Intelligence? And if they are afraid of those things, why did they go to school at all, or send their kids at all? They want to play ball, get up a team in the park or something, geez.
This is so stupid. EagleTalk tears down professors, players, coaches and anyone else they can think. Yet anything said on the aaup board means we're acting "superior."
Get a grip."

I think that people are making a very big issue of this, and I suspect that is why Amy Young posted the email here. But, the fact is that all Mixon has asked is for the board organizer to respect a legal copyright. That is the root of the issue, weather you like, dislike, love or hate ET, the owners, members, ect, is copyrighted information.

I think the copyright should be respected, and I see no use to try to make fun of Mixon or anyone else that posts there. It also dose no good to call names and try to stir up more people against the cause.

Remember what happened at USM the last time Athletics and Academics locked horns.

Date: May 27, 2005

Seeker, as the poster above you showed, EagleTalk wants rules for aaup that even it doesn't abide by. As usual.

And yes, I remember what happened last time A locked horns with A. Bud lost his job so G could get all the money. That was the very, very beginning of it all. It's nasty just to think about it/

Date: May 27, 2005

The question should be, is this a battle worth fighting or should the webmaster just delete the two posts Mixon pointed out and move on?

My thought is just delete the freaking posts and move on. What is so hard about that?

Date: May 27, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Seeker
" Remember what happened at USM the last time Athletics and Academics locked horns."

Seeker,

I agree with your basic point: copyrights should be respected. However, the sentence I've quoted is one of the saddest I've read on this board in a long time. It's sad that at USM (as well as at many other schools) athletics can and do trump academics. I know you are just stating a truth, not necessarily endorsing it, but I couldn't help being struck by the pathetic fact that in the U.S., many if not most alumni see universities and colleges primarily as sports factories. I wish we could go back to square one and make all sports at all colleges purely amateur and intramural.

Date: May 27, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"
Seeker,
I agree with your basic point: copyrights should be respected. However, the sentence I've quoted is one of the saddest I've read on this board in a long time. It's sad that at USM (as well as at many other schools) athletics can and do trump academics. I know you are just stating a truth, not necessarily endorsing it, but I couldn't help being struck by the pathetic fact that in the U.S., many if not most alumni see universities and colleges primarily as sports factories. I wish we could go back to square one and make all sports at all colleges purely amateur and intramural."

Would you like to see something that is even worse that that. It's not just college, it's filtered down to the HS level. I found this articled linked to a college sports site yesterday.

Many of you may be aware that this is going on, and I was to an extent, but this is unreal. A few weeks ago, we all celebrated when Lamar County passed a bond issue to build new classrooms and expand teaching facilities in the district. They fought tooth and nail to get the $43M bond issue passed......not so long ago a school district in Texas passed a $20M+ bond issue to build a highschool football stadium.....read on

Houston New Paper

Date: May 27, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
"Before this gets blown out of proportion, I believe Lanny is referring to the display of the Rivals membership icons & full text quotations. As he points out, hyperlinking is OK. . . . I would suggest that webmaster delete the posts that are bothering him so much or at least edit them. . . . "

It's too late. Already blown out of proportion.

I agree with Invictus: delete the "cut and paste" posts. Link to them at their source. Mr. Mixon has asked nicely (despite the veiled threats, triple negatives and embarrassing spelling). Do the nice thing and accommodate to the extent possible.

What does the law require? I have no idea. (I am changing the subject now, going on to a bigger issue.)

I work out here in the "real world" that Mr. Ware was talking about in yesterday's Hattiesburg American. As the law changes, I know only about changes in my specialty. Anyone who wanted to spend time with me so that they could get experience in the "real world" would be very bored, very quickly. Why? Because my clients, my customers don't need "cutting edge" help. Hardly anybody does; they need help with matters that are routine to me, but that are beyond their own experience and education.

None of us in the "real world" have the time to keep up with the broad developments in areas not directly related to what we do. Because it has been more than twenty years since I was in law school, I have no idea how the law of copyright has changed. I suspect the development of the Internet will have occasioned much change. If I had the inclination and time to learn about "cutting edge" copyright law, I would have to go to a law journal, published by scholars at a law school somewhere. It is in their "real world" that they have the time, indeed, the obligation to keep up with the broad changes, the new developments, across all the different, sometimes disparate fields of study and endeavor.

When I was in school, there was much discussion about internships that would give students a chance to gain practical experience in "the real world." One very fine professor (who had come to teaching after a career of successful practice) remarked, "No, this time in school is your only chance to learn the theory. You will have your entire career to gain practical experience, and you'll almost never have the time or opportunity to learn any more theory." So far, his prediction has been correct.

So -- back to the original question -- if you want to find out what the law dictates, you're going to have to ask someone who practices or studies that kind of law. In the meantime, delete the offending posts, not as a concession to the demands of the law, or even those of Mr. Mixon. As a "practical" matter, courtesy is easy and very inexpensive

.

Date: May 27, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Seeker
" I think that people are making a very big issue of this, and I suspect that is why Amy Young posted the email here. But, the fact is that all Mixon has asked is for the board organizer to respect a legal copyright. That is the root of the issue, weather you like, dislike, love or hate ET, the owners, members, ect, is copyrighted information. I think the copyright should be respected, and I see no use to try to make fun of Mixon or anyone else that posts there. It also dose no good to call names and try to stir up more people against the cause. Remember what happened at USM the last time Athletics and Academics locked horns."

I hate to admit that I agree with Seeker. Also I would love the post on the AAUP board to be spread far and wide. I welcome ETers to copy and post all they want. One purpose of this board is to spread truth, the more help we get the better.

Date: May 27, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: ram
"
I agree with Invictus: delete the "cut and paste" posts. Link to them at their source. Mr. Mixon has asked nicely (despite the veiled threats, triple negatives and embarrassing spelling). Do the nice thing and accommodate to the extent possible.
What does the law require? I have no idea "

I, in turn, agree with ram, although I'll add that copyright law allows you to directly quote excerpts from a copyrighted work (we academics do get some "real world" experience publishing articles and books). But it will be quicker and less messy for our Webmaster to replace any cut and pasted posts from EagleTalk with links to them.

Robert Campbell

Date: May 27, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Some Beach
" I remember what happened last time A(thletics) locked horns with A(cademics). Bud lost his job so G could get all the money. That was the very, very beginning of it all. "

Is that what Seeker was talking about? Who is Bud? Kirkpatrick? No, that wouldn't make sense, because Lisa would have gotten all of his money and then some. The very, very beginning of what "it all?"

What did happen at USM the last time Athletics and Academics locked horns?

Date: May 27, 2005

Copyright Law of the United States of America

and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code

Circular 92
---------------------

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html. Emphasis added.

Date: May 27, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: LVN
"Seeker's too young to remember Austin. Reading it in a history book is not the same as seeing it on the news."

In the interest of avoiding posting coyrighted material here, I'll simply link to the lyrics of a Kinky Friedman song.

Has anyone perchance notified Rivals.com about Toy's post? It probably violates several of the terms of their acceptable use agreement.

Date: May 27, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Way out of the loop
"
Is that what Seeker was talking about? Who is Bud? Kirkpatrick? No, that wouldn't make sense, because Lisa would have gotten all of his money and then some. The very, very beginning of what "it all?"
What did happen at USM the last time Athletics and Academics locked horns? "

I heard that one of the reasons Bud was canned was he had control of the money made off licensing official USM products and spread it around--used it to do lots of different things. Don't know whether that is true. It certainly wasn't the only reason SFT fired him. He fired everyone with any memory.

Date: May 27, 2005

Two words: fair use.

Bite me, Lanny

Date: May 27, 2005

"Fair use" applies only to the use of copyrighted materials for educational purposes. The AAUP-USM message board would not fall within the fair use exemptions of copyright law. Sorry.

Date: May 27, 2005

lawyer,

You'd be more believable if you'd address the fair use provisions quoted in info's post above.

RC