Fair use

[Drew R. Smith]

So is it safe to say that fair use is acceptable but discouraged? (Remember William Strunk: Omit needless words!)

[Hayford Peirce]

It's probably not so much actively discouraged as it is a set of guidelines that is practically impossible for the average person to fully understand.  So people like me look at the guidelines, shake their heads, and walk away.  There are, however, and fortunately, many, many people more intelligent than I....

[Arne Eickenberg]

It's safe to say that fair use is absolutely necessary to produce a scientifically valuable expert encyclopedia. To "discourage" fair use would be the wrong signal.

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

It's safe to say that fair use is absolutely necessary to produce a scientifically valuable expert encyclopedia. To "discourage" fair use would be the wrong signal.

I agree, Arne: unless one is prepared to spend a lot of energy getting individual permissions from each copyright holder, fair use for images is needed. For text, fair use is an inherent part of the academic tradition, and absolutely central.

Hayford: this is not about intelligence, at all. Comprehension of legal issues is about "thinking within boxes" and how the boxes and their contents intersect: in a way, it is the antithesis of intelligence. The only part of the debate which is creative intelligence, is struggling to find loopholes and ways around the powerful structures put in place to protect copyright. (I agree that this sort of conceptual commentary is more intellectual, but lawyers rarely do what I am doing  )

[Daniel Mietchen]

At least some lawyers think in the same direction:

(found via
http://friendfeed.com/the-life-scientists/1e70bce9/here-certificate-of-entitlement-that-you-can ).

I think although he refers to science, the questioning of the appropriateness is equally valid for other academic fields and particularly for CZ's core activity, education.

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

Harvard has a good law school; it is not typical.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

It's safe to say that fair use is absolutely necessary to produce a scientifically valuable expert encyclopedia. To "discourage" fair use would be the wrong signal.

I agree, Arne: unless one is prepared to spend a lot of energy getting individual permissions from each copyright holder, fair use for images is needed. For text, fair use is an inherent part of the academic tradition, and absolutely central.

Hayford: this is not about intelligence, at all. Comprehension of legal issues is about "thinking within boxes" and how the boxes and their contents intersect: in a way, it is the antithesis of intelligence. The only part of the debate which is creative intelligence, is struggling to find loopholes and ways around the powerful structures put in place to protect copyright. (I agree that this sort of conceptual commentary is more intellectual, but lawyers rarely do what I am doing  )

You make an interesting point about intelligences. Many years ago, I was part of the computer support group for a special study at the Securities and Exchange Commission, dealing with the effects of institutional investors on the stock market. The subject matter experts were principally economists and lawyers.

From the technical support standpoint, we hated the economists and loved the lawyers. While the lawyers would ask many questions, they would follow instructions precisely. The economists, most of whom had taken one programming course and thought they were Grace Hopper, constantly tried to "improve" on the procedures they were given, often producing chaos -- but it was outside the box thinking. Unfortunately, the box in question was an unforgiving IBM 360/50 mainframe.

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

It's safe to say that fair use is absolutely necessary to produce a scientifically valuable expert encyclopedia. To "discourage" fair use would be the wrong signal.

I agree, Arne: unless one is prepared to spend a lot of energy getting individual permissions from each copyright holder, fair use for images is needed. For text, fair use is an inherent part of the academic tradition, and absolutely central.

Hayford: this is not about intelligence, at all. Comprehension of legal issues is about "thinking within boxes" and how the boxes and their contents intersect: in a way, it is the antithesis of intelligence. The only part of the debate which is creative intelligence, is struggling to find loopholes and ways around the powerful structures put in place to protect copyright. (I agree that this sort of conceptual commentary is more intellectual, but lawyers rarely do what I am doing  )

You make an interesting point about intelligences. Many years ago, I was part of the computer support group for a special study at the Securities and Exchange Commission, dealing with the effects of institutional investors on the stock market. The subject matter experts were principally economists and lawyers.

From the technical support standpoint, we hated the economists and loved the lawyers. While the lawyers would ask many questions, they would follow instructions precisely. The economists, most of whom had taken one programming course and thought they were Grace Hopper, constantly tried to "improve" on the procedures they were given, often producing chaos -- but it was outside the box thinking. Unfortunately, the box in question was an unforgiving IBM 360/50 mainframe.

Hahaha, sounds like social scientists  The trick is to understand when to think in boxes, and when not to do so. Now that is real intelligence...

[Joe Quick]

It's safe to say that fair use is absolutely necessary to produce a scientifically valuable expert encyclopedia. To "discourage" fair use would be the wrong signal.

I agree, Arne: unless one is prepared to spend a lot of energy getting individual permissions from each copyright holder, fair use for images is needed. For text, fair use is an inherent part of the academic tradition, and absolutely central.

Hayford: this is not about intelligence, at all. Comprehension of legal issues is about "thinking within boxes" and how the boxes and their contents intersect: in a way, it is the antithesis of intelligence. The only part of the debate which is creative intelligence, is struggling to find loopholes and ways around the powerful structures put in place to protect copyright. (I agree that this sort of conceptual commentary is more intellectual, but lawyers rarely do what I am doing  )

You make an interesting point about intelligences. Many years ago, I was part of the computer support group for a special study at the Securities and Exchange Commission, dealing with the effects of institutional investors on the stock market. The subject matter experts were principally economists and lawyers.

From the technical support standpoint, we hated the economists and loved the lawyers. While the lawyers would ask many questions, they would follow instructions precisely. The economists, most of whom had taken one programming course and thought they were Grace Hopper, constantly tried to "improve" on the procedures they were given, often producing chaos -- but it was outside the box thinking. Unfortunately, the box in question was an unforgiving IBM 360/50 mainframe.

Hahaha, sounds like social scientists  The trick is to understand when to think in boxes, and when not to do so. Now that is real intelligence...

I think I'm in a box right now! 

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

Hahaha, sounds like social scientists  The trick is to understand when to think in boxes, and when not to do so. Now that is real intelligence...

39 years later, I still cringe at the economist who sorted the executable code of the FORTRAN compiler, "to make it run faster."