Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (10/26/89)
Really-From: IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu
To: Love-Hounds
From: Andrew Marvick (IED)
Subject: Interview-transcribing
IED would like to make sure that no more than one Love-Hound
will be transcribing a given interview. He is _extremely_ appreciative
of the efforts being made by Neil Calton (whose latest contribution
to the group was the _You_ Magazine interview) and Steve Wallis
(for whom we are all indebted for the ongoing transcription of the
very long Radio 1 interview); as well as others who have been sending
in various reviews of the new album.
IED, who recently posted the _NME_ interview, hereby pledges
to transcribe the quite long _Q_ Magazine interview, which he just
obtained today. It will not appear in Love-Hounds for a couple of
days, because it will take several hours to copy out, and it really
is better read at one sitting. (It's an _excellent_ interview.)
After he has posted the _Q_ interview, IED will tackle Steve
Sutherland's recent _Melody_Maker_ interview (recently described in
glowing colours by Ed Suranyi, not without some reason, though IED's
reaction was a bit more cynical, as might have been predicted), unless
someone else has already done so by that time.
Altogether, Love-Hounds is becoming the ultimate center for KT
news, interviews, reviews, and original Bushological ideas. We are
presently outshining all other KT-related organs in all these areas.
So tell your friends, tell your local DJ, tell your neighbours, tell your
local record-store owners: Love-Hounds is where the aKTion is!
-- Andrew Marvick
("Can't we see?")sharon@asylum.SF.CA.US (Sharon Fisher) (10/29/89)
In article <8910252358.AA13557@GAFFA.MIT.EDU> Love-Hounds@GAFFA.MIT.EDU writes: > IED would like to make sure that no more than one Love-Hound >will be transcribing a given interview. He is _extremely_ appreciative >of the efforts being made by Neil Calton (whose latest contribution >to the group was the _You_ Magazine interview) and Steve Wallis >(for whom we are all indebted for the ongoing transcription of the >very long Radio 1 interview); as well as others who have been sending >in various reviews of the new album. > IED, who recently posted the _NME_ interview, hereby pledges >to transcribe the quite long _Q_ Magazine interview, which he just > After he has posted the _Q_ interview, IED will tackle Steve >Sutherland's recent _Melody_Maker_ interview (recently described in Perhaps it's because I'm a writer by trade, but I find this wholesale copying of published material disturbing. It's illegal. It's unethical. You guys are setting yourself up for some nasty copyright violation suits.
ed@das.llnl.gov (Edward Suranyi) (10/29/89)
In article <8060@asylum.SF.CA.US> sharon@asylum.UUCP (Sharon Fisher) writes: > >Perhaps it's because I'm a writer by trade, but I find this wholesale >copying of published material disturbing. It's illegal. It's >unethical. You guys are setting yourself up for some nasty copyright >violation suits. First of all, I don't believe _New Music Express_ is going to come after us because some computer nerds copied a couple of articles out of a whole year's worth of magazines. Second, this is the only way most of the people on the newsgroup can read these articles, because most of the articles come from magazines that do not have nationwide, let alone worldwide, distribution. It is the equivalent of photocopying an article and passing around among friends. While technically illegal, I've never heard of anyone being sued for this. People get sued when they try to sell copied articles. There is no doubt that making the articles available for all who want to read it is more important than technical legalities. (Don't say a word, Tim Maroney!) Ed (Edward Suranyi) |"Kate Bush: Needs more exposure in the United Dept. of Applied Science | States, but a magnificent talent." UC Davis/Livermore | -- Robert Hilburn, ed@das.llnl.gov | _Los Angeles Times_
ray@radlein.UUCP (Ray Radlein) (11/01/89)
In a message of <29 Oct 89 02:50:44 GMT>, Sharon Fisher writes: > Perhaps it's because I'm a writer by trade, but I find this wholesale > copying of published material disturbing. It's illegal. It's unethical. > You guys are setting yourself up for some nasty copyright violation > suits. I should think that this falls fairly solidly under the heading of "Fair Use"; Love-Hounds is, after all, an organization dedicated to the scholarly and critical analysis of Kate Bush, her music, and its interaction with society. Therefore, the non-profit reproduction and distribution of this material within the confines of rec.music.gaffa and the love-hounds mailing list is (in my opinion, at least) protected under Fair Use statutes. -Ray R. +========================================================================+ UUCP:{uunet!ncrlnk, gatech!hubcap}!ncrcae!secola!smoak!avcom!radlein!ray FIDO:1:376/14.96, 12.3; UUCP #2: [sdcsvax nosc]!crash!pro-carolina!rayr; ARPA:crash!pro-carolina!rayr@nosc.mil; or INET:rayr@pro-carolina.cts.com "It's not the bullet that kills you -- it's the hole" -- Laurie Anderson DISCLAIMER: "We Only Know in Theory What We Are Doing" +========================================================================+
sharon@asylum.SF.CA.US (Sharon Fisher) (11/03/89)
In article <1851.AA1851@radlein> ray@radlein.UUCP (Ray Radlein) writes: > >In a message of <29 Oct 89 02:50:44 GMT>, Sharon Fisher writes: > >> Perhaps it's because I'm a writer by trade, but I find this wholesale >> copying of published material disturbing. It's illegal. It's unethical. >> You guys are setting yourself up for some nasty copyright violation >> suits. > >I should think that this falls fairly solidly under the heading of "Fair >Use"; Love-Hounds is, after all, an organization dedicated to the scholarly >and critical analysis of Kate Bush, her music, and its interaction with >society. Therefore, the non-profit reproduction and distribution of this >material within the confines of rec.music.gaffa and the love-hounds mailing >list is (in my opinion, at least) protected under Fair Use statutes. That is not what fair use means. It means that you can quote a couple of lines of something and the owner of the copyright won't get upset about it. It has little to do with the actual purpose of the quotation.
ray@radlein.UUCP (Ray Radlein) (11/05/89)
In a message of <3 Nov 89 07:31:34 GMT>, Sharon Fisher writes: > >> Perhaps it's because I'm a writer by trade, but I find this wholesale > >> copying of published material disturbing. It's illegal. It's > >> unethical. You guys are setting yourself up for some nasty copyright > >> violation suits. > > > >I should think that this falls fairly solidly under the heading of "Fair > >Use"; Love-Hounds is, after all, an organization dedicated to the > >scholarly and critical analysis of Kate Bush, her music, and its > >interaction with society. Therefore, the non-profit reproduction and > >distribution of this material within the confines of rec.music.gaffa and > >the love-hounds mailing list is (in my opinion, at least) protected > >under Fair Use statutes. > > That is not what fair use means. It means that you can quote a couple of > lines of something and the owner of the copyright won't get upset about > it. It has little to do with the actual purpose of the quotation. Fair Use has *everything* to do with the actual purpose of the quotation, and very little to do with the length of the quotation. I have seen Fair Use cover chapters-long excerpts on several occasions, and I have seen it cover the reproduction or quoting of *entire* works even more often. As long as the *purpose* of the citation is academic or critical, and no profit is being made on the transcription itself, then Fair Use is in force. An example: A professor wishes to include a question on a Final Exam about self-responsibility, as reflected in Poe's "The Imp of the Perverse." Since the story is not in the class textbook (or perhaps the professor doesn't want an open-book exam), he photocopies the story from out of another book, and passes it out with the exam. This is perfectly covered by Fair Use. Similarly, if I were to go over to rec.arts.poetry and post, as part of a discussion on "Language and Meaning," Mark Strand's "Eating Poetry," my action would, beyond the shadow of a doubt, be covered by Fair Use. -Ray R. +========================================================================+ UUCP:{uunet!ncrlnk, gatech!hubcap}!ncrcae!secola!smoak!avcom!radlein!ray FIDO:1:376/14.96, 12.3; UUCP #2: [sdcsvax nosc]!crash!pro-carolina!rayr; ARPA:crash!pro-carolina!rayr@nosc.mil; or INET:rayr@pro-carolina.cts.com "It's not the bullet that kills you -- it's the hole" -- Laurie Anderson DISCLAIMER: "We Only Know in Theory What We Are Doing" +========================================================================+
sharon@asylum.SF.CA.US (Sharon Fisher) (11/06/89)
In article <1883.AA1883@radlein> ray@radlein.UUCP (Ray Radlein) writes: >Fair Use has *everything* to do with the actual purpose of the quotation, >and very little to do with the length of the quotation. I have seen Fair >Use cover chapters-long excerpts on several occasions, and I have seen it >cover the reproduction or quoting of *entire* works even more often. As >long as the *purpose* of the citation is academic or critical, and no >profit is being made on the transcription itself, then Fair Use is in >force. > >An example: A professor wishes to include a question on a Final Exam about >self-responsibility, as reflected in Poe's "The Imp of the Perverse." Since >the story is not in the class textbook (or perhaps the professor doesn't >want an open-book exam), he photocopies the story from out of another book, >and passes it out with the exam. This is perfectly covered by Fair Use. I'm not at all sure that your analogy is appropriate. Rec.music.gaffa isn't professors and students in a classroom; I think people are even stretching it to call it an academic organization. I know that other groups on the net have gotten in trouble for copying publications, so certainly the net as a whole isn't immune.
ray@radlein.UUCP (Ray Radlein) (11/07/89)
In a message of <5 Nov 89 18:01:10 GMT>, Sharon Fisher writes: > >Fair Use has *everything* to do with the actual purpose of the > >quotation, and very little to do with the length of the quotation. I > >have seen Fair Use cover chapters-long excerpts on several occasions, > >and I have seen it cover the reproduction or quoting of *entire* works > >even more often. As long as the *purpose* of the citation is academic or > >critical, and no profit is being made on the transcription itself, then > >Fair Use is in force. > > > >An example: A professor wishes to include a question on a Final Exam > >about self-responsibility, as reflected in Poe's "The Imp of the > >Perverse." Since the story is not in the class textbook (or perhaps the > >professor doesn't want an open-book exam), he photocopies the story from > >out of another book, and passes it out with the exam. This is perfectly > >covered by Fair Use. > > I'm not at all sure that your analogy is appropriate. Rec.music.gaffa > isn't professors and students in a classroom; I think people are even > stretching it to call it an academic organization. I know that other > groups on the net have gotten in trouble for copying publications, so > certainly the net as a whole isn't immune. Fair Use does not protect academic organizations; it protects academic (or critical) *usage*. It would be bizarre indeed to argue that only academic organizations can produce academic study, just as it would be patently absurd to argue that only professional critics can engage in critical analysis. If the first example does not exactly parallel the situation on rec.music.gaffa, then the second example I gave clearly does bear significant similarities. In the end, Fair Use comes down to a question of purpose. Does, say, Andrew Marvick (just to pick a name at random) post a transcription of some interview so that we can all save money by not having to buy an issue of R.A.W. Magazine (whatever and wherever *that* is), or does he do it in the cause of furthering an understanding of Kate and her work? I submit that the latter is clearly and demonstrably the case. I submit further that, within the bounds of the charter of rec.music.gaffa as a forum for critical discussion and analysis of the works of Kate Bush, such actions are, therefore, clearly protected examples of Fair Use. -Ray R. +========================================================================+ UUCP:{uunet!ncrlnk, gatech!hubcap}!ncrcae!secola!smoak!avcom!radlein!ray FIDO:1:376/14.96, 12.3; UUCP #2: [sdcsvax nosc]!crash!pro-carolina!rayr; ARPA:crash!pro-carolina!rayr@nosc.mil; or INET:rayr@pro-carolina.cts.com "It's not the bullet that kills you -- it's the hole" -- Laurie Anderson DISCLAIMER: "We Only Know in Theory What We Are Doing" +========================================================================+