A Transaction of Mutual Necessity

[spinproof]

I hope you are not a Copyright attorney on the side! If he were to copy the article and then SELL it for a profit that would be Copyright Infringement.
Cutting and pasting an article on a message board and not giving credit to the author is NOT Copyright infringement. I guess it could be considered plagerism but since most of us are out of college now I dont think that that would be of much concern.

WRONG ! By not giving proper credit infers the writer is the author which is infringement if in fact he is not! Profit has nothing to do with copyrights! Cutting and pasting is in itself a copyright infringment if in fact proper credit is not given the author and source!

 

[Dangerkitty]

WRONG ! By not giving proper credit infers the writer is the author which is infringement if in fact he is not! Profit has nothing to do with copyrights! Cutting and pasting is in itself a copyright infringment if in fact proper credit is not given the author and source!

You just described and defined plagiarism. Go to www.dictionary.com and find out for yourself.

Furthermore you can find the in's and out's of Copyrights at www.copyright.gov

See below.

PUBLICATION

Publication is no longer the key to obtaining federal copyright as it was under the Copyright Act of 1909. However, publication remains important to copyright owners.

The 1976 Copyright Act defines publication as follows:

"Publication" is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.



​

NOTE: Before 1978, federal copyright was generally secured by the act of publication with notice of copyright, assuming compliance with all other relevant statutory conditions. U. S. works in the public domain on January 1, 1978, (for example, works published without satisfying all conditions for securing federal copyright under the Copyright Act of 1909) remain in the public domain under the 1976 Copyright Act. Certain foreign works originally published without notice had their copyrights restored under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). Request Circular 38b and see the "Notice of Copyright" section of this publication for further information.


Federal copyright could also be secured before 1978 by the act of registration in the case of certain unpublished works and works eligible for ad interim copyright. The 1976 Copyright Act automatically extends to full term (section 304 sets the term) copyright for all works, including those subject to ad interim copyright if ad interim registration has been made on or before June 30, 1978.


A further discussion of the definition of "publication" can be found in the legislative history of the 1976 Copyright Act. The legislative reports define "to the public" as distribution to persons under no explicit or implicit restrictions with respect to disclosure of the contents. The reports state that the definition makes it clear that the sale of phonorecords constitutes publication of the underlying work, for example, the musical, dramatic, or literary work embodied in a phonorecord. The reports also state that it is clear that any form of dissemination in which the material object does not change hands, for example, performances or displays on television, is not a publication no matter how many people are exposed to the work. However, when copies or phonorecords are offered for sale or lease to a group of wholesalers, broadcasters, or motion picture theaters, publication does take place if the purpose is further distribution, public performance, or public display.



Publication is an important concept in the copyright law for several reasons:

• Works that are published in the United States are subject to mandatory deposit with the Library of Congress. See discussion on "Mandatory Deposit for Works Published in the United States."
• Publication of a work can affect the limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner that are set forth in sections 107 through 121 of the law.
• The year of publication may determine the duration of copyright protection for anonymous and pseudonymous works (when the author's identity is not revealed in the records of the Copyright Office) and for works made for hire.
• Deposit requirements for registration of published works differ from those for registration of unpublished works. See discussion on "Registration Procedures."
• When a work is published, it may bear a notice of copyright to identify the year of publication and the name of the copyright owner and to inform the public that the work is protected by copyright. Copies of works published before March 1, 1989, must bear the notice or risk loss of copyright protection. See discussion on "Notice of Copyright" below.

 

[capt. megadeth]

Do the math. RJs and RJ-providers are not a growth industry.

The fukin airlines are NOT a growth industry

 

[spinproof]

"Publication" is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.
Originally Posted by spinproof
WRONG ! By not giving proper credit infers the writer is the author which is infringement if in fact he is not! Profit has nothing to do with copyrights! Cutting and pasting is in itself a copyright infringment if in fact proper credit is not given the author and source!


...and your point is....? No copyright has been established because it hasn't been filed with the proper authorities...? The writer hasn't been payed for his work?

Copyright is established by article ,author, date FIRST published. I'm afraid you've lost me on the rest and the point you are trying to reach.
What is incorrect in what I've expressed?

 

[Dangerkitty]

...and your point is....?

My point is that you have no idea what you are talking about. You keep defining plagiarism not copyright infringement.

Do you dabble in Copyright laws in your off time? I doubt it. If you are so concerned about all this why dont you go to www.aviationplanning.com and talk to Michael Boyd himself.

 

[spinproof]

Great! Thanks for setting me straight!

 

[spinproof]

....now back to my original "Jab"...so FDJ2 you're (got to be careful here)"plagiarizing" Your hero's thoughts as if they were your own!!!! Oh how original it is of the both of you !

RJ's bad!!! Bad RJ's!!! Bad, Bad RJ's!!

 

[General Lee]

Is he calling me a "hero" again? I can only sign sooo many autographs (on Ebay also--$50 each). No, I don't hate RJs, and I think they have a place in this industry, but they aren't what Fred Greed thought they would be--a panacea for this industry. Businessmen don't really need "frequency" as much as the want lower prices. With lower prices, RJs become too expensive to operate---and larger planes with more seats are needed to compete. We "had" more RJs than anyone (maybe Expressjet was bigger..?), and we also have the largest losses ($10 billion in 5 years). Not all of that can be contributed to mainline pilot wages---like everyone would think. Sending RJs up against Airtran and Jetblue was not smart.(also the DFW RJ hub against AA)


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[FDJ2]

Lifting a published article and not giving credit by whom it was written is a copyright law infringment.

I guess you didn't read "Boyd" next to the title of the article.

Ready, shoot, aim.

 

[FDJ2]

....now back to my original "Jab"...so FDJ2 you're (got to be careful here)"plagiarizing" Your hero's thoughts as if they were your own!!!! Oh how original it is of the both of you ! /QUOTE]

Spin, you're an idiot. First you claim copy right infringement then try to spin yourself out of it. You finally admit your an idiot on copy right law, but now you claim plagiarism. Typical. I never claimed this was my work, the author's name is displayed at the top of the article. I guess you'd just rather attack me then deal with the issues set forth in the article.