Discussion of use of published material

[Lightning-Nl]

Apology accepted. I was aware you must've missed that. It's just that the tone was a bit odd, considering I went through the trouble to supply this, infringing copyright. It was a bit much after that other comment (Just because "the study" isn't up to date, is a pretty piss poor reason not to post it). But I'm all chilled, don't worry.

Just so you know, anything to do with medical studies, as long as they've already been published (which yours was) then it's not copyright infringement.

There is a special exemption for medical studies for rules of copyright because their about medical information. So no... You weren't infringing a copyright...

SwampFox -_-

 

[sekio]

Just so you know, anything to do with medical studies, as long as they've already been published (which yours was) then it's not copyright infringement.

Uh, no? Just because it's been published doesn't make it the public domain. If you are redistributing articles against the wishes of the publisher (e.g. Elsevier, most chemistry/biology/medicinal journals, Science/Nature/Cell, so on so forth), who usually want money for their articles, then that's copyright infringement.

 

[crOOk]

Uh, no? Just because it's been published doesn't make it the public domain. If you are redistributing articles against the wishes of the publisher (e.g. Elsevier, most chemistry/biology/medicinal journals, Science/Nature/Cell, so on so forth), who usually want money for their articles, then that's copyright infringement.

I don't think this would be pursued legally, but still it should most definitely infringe copyright. Lol why else would they sell their journals for a shitload of money when people can just come along and redistribute the articles in online forums (there are forums dedicated to this btw).
I guess in some cases it could at least be argued that the benefit of the general public (e.g. in terms of harm reduction) is of greater legal value than the protection of copyrights.

 

[Hammilton]

Just so you know, anything to do with medical studies, as long as they've already been published (which yours was) then it's not copyright infringement.

There is a special exemption for medical studies for rules of copyright because their about medical information. So no... You weren't infringing a copyright...

SwampFox -_-

LOL

Why is it that people with absolutely no idea about what they're talking about make such authoritative statements? Were that really a thing Elsevier wouldn't be charging the ridiculous prices they do and companies like Nature Publishing Group or Wiley-Blackwell probably wouldn't exist. I'm not sure how you think that this would work, because if that were the case they'd sell one copy.

It is true that some studies with government funding must be published in PLoS ONE, but that's miles away from the claim I've quoted.

And Crook, don't be upset, Fox was upset about being called out for not bothering to provide sources by Sekio earlier in the thread, copyright is a good reason for not posting an article; a citation should be sufficient as I think most of us have the ability to obtain the an article with at least a DOI. If you cite your claims, give good explanations, anyone who wants to read it more deeply is able to do so.

 

[crOOk]

LOL

Why is it that people with absolutely no idea about what they're talking about make such authoritative statements? Were that really a thing Elsevier wouldn't be charging the ridiculous prices they do and companies like Nature Publishing Group or Wiley-Blackwell probably wouldn't exist. I'm not sure how you think that this would work, because if that were the case they'd sell one copy.

It is true that some studies with government funding must be published in PLoS ONE, but that's miles away from the claim I've quoted.

And Crook, don't be upset, Fox was upset about being called out for not bothering to provide sources by Sekio earlier in the thread, copyright is a good reason for not posting an article; a citation should be sufficient as I think most of us have the ability to obtain the an article with at least a DOI. If you cite your claims, give good explanations, anyone who wants to read it more deeply is able to do so.

I see, thanks man. I would still do this though, if an article is worth the effort, since I assume the risk of suffering legal consequences is relatively small as long as it's just selected information that I cite. I just don't think the prices for single articles are appropriate for those who do not have access to journals, but seek very specific information.

 

[ebola?]

Off-topic

I guess in some cases it could at least be argued that the benefit of the general public (e.g. in terms of harm reduction) is of greater legal value than the protection of copyrights.

Unfortunately, what we'd like to do ethically often stands at odds with policies that protect our site by avoiding any (even very minor) legal activity, hence our somewhat stringent treatment of access to for-pay articles. As a reminder, excerpts are pretty much always fine, but one should use the present system in the journal article thread to secure delivery of full, for-pay texts when needed.

ebola

 

[Lightning-Nl]

Yeah I exaggerated a bit with the full study thing. However, the law states you're allowed to quote excerpts from the study if no other substitute can be used. These are part of the "Fair Use" laws.

 

[Lightning-Nl]

And Crook, don't be upset, Fox was upset about being called out for not bothering to provide sources by Sekio earlier in the thread, copyright is a good reason for not posting an article; a citation should be sufficient as I think most of us have the ability to obtain the an article with at least a DOI. If you cite your claims, give good explanations, anyone who wants to read it more deeply is able to do so.

That's what I do - that's my thing. Get butthurt, then pass it on to someone else. That's why impulsive anger is so debilitating to be honest. Also, Sekio is a very intelligent person - if I'm gonna plagiarize something from someone, it might as well be something from someone who's at least as smart as I am.

 

[crOOk]

Unfortunately, what we'd like to do ethically often stands at odds with policies that protect our site by avoiding any (even very minor) legal activity, hence our somewhat stringent treatment of access to for-pay articles. As a reminder, excerpts are pretty much always fine, but one should use the present system in the journal article thread to secure delivery of full, for-pay texts when needed.

ebola

Aye, I will keep that in mind and check the thread next time I post an exerpt. I didn't know there was one.

@Fox
Why that is what I call a well-reflected individual.

I didn't know about those Fair Use laws. Good to know I'm safe to post stuff like this.

 

[ebola?]

Oh, you did fine. I just thought a reminder that there are some guidelines in place might be useful going forward.

I didn't know about those Fair Use laws.

These are pretty specific to the US. Japanese copyright law, for example, allows for art that would be considered plagiarist in the states. How are things treated over in Germany?

ebola

 

[crOOk]

These are pretty specific to the US. Japanese copyright law, for example, allows for art that would be considered plagiarist in the states. How are things treated over in Germany?

ebola

In all honesty, I would have to look into that. I would not even know where to look, but I could surely find out.

EDIT: Basically you can freely quote in independent works that either explained the cited source or look at it from another angle. This is the short version. I can't say which requirements a piece of text must fulfil to be considered an independent "sprachwerk" (product of language?). This and several paragraphs of our constitution (freedoms of ideology, arts, opinion, press, information and last but not least science) are the basis for the Zitatprivileg (citing privilege) which to understand in detail would require me to read through pages of legal information. I guess no one will give a fuck if you cite an article that explains ketamine's pharmacology on a drug forum).

 

[Lightning-Nl]

In all honesty, I would have to look into that. I would not even know where to look, but I could surely find out.

I always found Google to be a great resource.

However, I've never really hear of any fearful copyright stories come out of Germany (at least, here in the US anyways). More than likely, if you're worried about it - you should just find the same article, under a publisher located here in the US. Then upload that to a United States based hosting website (pastebin.com is great for this. I use it all the time to share Java scripts and C/C++ coding segments)

Then just link to that. Since you're not hosting it, and it's being held here in the US, I think it would make you less responsible if someone were to get upset about it. Plus, then all they would have to do is send a DMCA notice to pastebin an pastebin would get rid of it. You would never get involved.

However, Germany isn't the same as the United States. So you shouldn't take my post with anything more than a grain of salt until you do your own research.

 

[ebola?]

I always found Google to be a great resource

.

You don't say.

However, I've never really hear of any fearful copyright stories come out of Germany (at least, here in the US anyways). More than likely, if you're worried about it - you should just find the same article, under a publisher located here in the US. Then upload that to a United States based hosting website (pastebin.com is great for this. I use it all the time to share Java scripts and C/C++ coding segments)

Then just link to that. Since you're not hosting it, and it's being held here in the US, I think it would make you less responsible if someone were to get upset about it. Plus, then all they would have to do is send a DMCA notice to pastebin an pastebin would get rid of it. You would never get involved.

However, Germany isn't the same as the United States. So you shouldn't take my post with anything more than a grain of salt until you do your own research.

Actually, all this is unnecessary--quoting excerpts with citation (even very long excerpts), is fine.

ebola

 

[Hammilton]

I have a feeling that an excerpt that covers more than a page worth of a typical journal article will be considered infringing by the copyright holder, and they may well be upset about much less than that.

 

[crOOk]

However, I've never really hear of any fearful copyright stories come out of Germany (at least, here in the US anyways). More than likely, if you're worried about it - you should just find the same article, under a publisher located here in the US. Then upload that to a United States based hosting website (pastebin.com is great for this. I use it all the time to share Java scripts and C/C++ coding segments)

Yeah, pastebin sounds like it'd be a good dump for this. Then again, part of why I post things on large forums like bluelight (pretty much the only large forum I've been active on for so many years) is that I know the content will never be removed, except on a few rare occasions (like the gallery pic of my former drug collection or the thread about my dmt lab incident... ).

I always found Google to be a great resource

Thanks bro, I'll check that one out.

edit: whoa, very nice site, thanks for pointing me to it!