Outstanding globe article on magic

[billski]

Volunteers pics turn around. Pics of painting and glades clearing

 

[farlep99]

cool article. i hope they hit 300 this year!

 

[SIKSKIER]

Is there a Iink?I'm not seeing one.

 

[farlep99]

Sorry- thought it was already posted. Here it is...

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2011/11/15/vermont_ski_area_getting_second_life/

 

[AdironRider]

That was a well done article.

 

[gmcunni]

the copyright police will not be happy with billski

 

[Black Phantom]

the copyright police will not be happy with billski

Are they 'little people'? 8)

 

[TheBEast]

great coverage!

 

[Nick]

the copyright police will not be happy with billski

Yarr, might want to just take a few excerpts out of it ....

 

[billski]

17 U.S.C. § 107
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 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:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
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The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[1]

[1] "US CODE: Title 17,107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use". .law.cornell.edu. 2009-05-20. Retrieved 2011-11-15.

 

[gmcunni]

as this is a commercial site, Nick gets ad revenue, i suspect you've violated the law, boston globe's TOS and in general broke internet etiquette protocols. guess we'll be seeing "banned" on your profile shortly.

but personally i don't care. i run my business on pirated software obtained illegally overseas (china), if i had to pay for the stuff i use i'd never make a profit.

 

[Nick]

I dunno. I was reading that USC earlier as well. I honestly am not a copyright expert and am not sure on what the rules are. I know I personally normally run "safe than sorry" thing, at least myself. Other than that, I don't mind waiting for the hammer to fall and then removing stuff if it's a fairly gray area.

 

[billski]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

 

[billski]

as this is a commercial site, Nick gets ad revenue, i suspect you've violated the law, boston globe's TOS and in general broke internet etiquette protocols. guess we'll be seeing "banned" on your profile shortly.

but personally i don't care. i run my business on pirated software obtained illegally overseas (china), if i had to pay for the stuff i use i'd never make a profit.

I may have violated the TOS, but most definitely not the the commercial use; that is covered.

Regarding internet protocol, I think not, at least in the conversational aspect. There are hundreds, if not thousands of copies of copyrighted and trademarked images absconded.

This is just an interesting discussion, I don't take anything said here personally. Just don't dis my skis!

 

[gmcunni]

I may have violated the TOS, but most definitely not the the commercial use; that is covered.

Regarding internet protocol, I think not, at least in the conversational aspect. There are hundreds, if not thousands of copies of copyrighted and trademarked images absconded.

This is just an interesting discussion, I don't take anything said here personally. Just don't dis my skis!

just because thousands of copies of copyright images are absconded doesn't make it right. if the globe wanted everyone to read the article they wouldn't have required a login to see it.

 

[marcski]

I think its bogus that news sources charge for content. Personally, I won't pay for content..and will merely go elsewhere.

 

[gmcunni]

I think its bogus that news sources charge for content. Personally, I won't pay for content..and will merely go elsewhere.

disagree with point a. agree with point b

 

[millerm277]

I think its bogus that news sources charge for content. Personally, I won't pay for content..and will merely go elsewhere.

NYT's latest system, is pretty reasonable. You get to read a decent number of articles per month, making stuff like linking to it on a forum thread no big deal. But if you want to read it often, you have to pay. (well.....or know a thing or two about computers...). This makes sense and is a reasonable business model.


Continuing on, the article was excellent and seems to be pretty well researched.

 

[billski]

just because thousands of copies of copyright images are absconded doesn't make it right. if the globe wanted everyone to read the article they wouldn't have required a login to see it.

I'm not talking about legality or ethics. I'm speaking of "internet etiquette". "Internet etiquette is fading away, just as etiquette in society has.

 

[billski]

NYT's latest system, is pretty reasonable. You get to read a decent number of articles per month, making stuff like linking to it on a forum thread no big deal. But if you want to read it often, you have to pay. (well.....or know a thing or two about computers...). This makes sense and is a reasonable business model.
Continuing on, the article was excellent and seems to be pretty well researched.

The article is quite congruent with what Betsy and Eric have told me. Their business model was constructed by Betsy. There had been a couple of earlier attempts which she rejected. I am looking forward to seeing her again this winter. Phew, I'm glad I got my room reserved before this article came out.

Come join us!