Copy & paste, why not just give the link?

Why do some members start threads that are purely copy and pasted articles with absolutely no comment or observations from themselves?

What's the point?
To bump up their post count?

 

Naw I could care less about the post count . I post information that I think others would be interested in. Sometimes I comment and sometimes I dont. Sometimes I think the articles speaks for itself.

 

You have probably hit the nail, bang on the Head there WW.

ALthough I have found my self reading more of the information when it is posted directly here and not so much as when there is a link.

 

To be frank I prefer a link or more on the same subject, and a comment by the poster with his opinion on the whys and wherefores, and on how big the pinch of salt required.

 

That's the foot in each boat approach

Problem is when the boats decide to diverge

 

For people with a terribly slow Internet (like me), having the information in the thread means I don't have to wait 5 minutes for the link to load up.

 

I'm also uninterested in a post count. Personally, I tend to start a thread with the title of the article and then post a link to the actual thing. I can't be bothered cutting and pasting.
I don't usually venture my own opinion unless it's something that really amuses/annoys me, I prefer to let people let their own minds up.

 

I like to see a comment or a brief link scope description in order to have an idea on whether it will really be worth the trouble. My connection is not that fast either so I prefer to avoid Wild Geese chases, no offense to the Irish

 

Just out of interest Otto some forums have rules about full articles being pasted due to copyright issue, what these forums allow is a few lines with a link or link only. Just wondering where you stand on this one Otto?

 

On another site I and others use this statemnt,

"**Copyright Message**
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is being distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational or criticism purposes only. Not withstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work including such use by reproduction in copies or phono records 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. "

 

I try to post an excerpt that deals with the topic (ie, http://www.ww2f.com/military-history/23351-helicopter-retires-after-service.html#post282762) and post the link for further reading.

Personally, I prefer the copy and paste.

 

I also make an effort to post the source and credit the author too. And used the " ' " sign as much as possible. LOL

 

So what should be done? Personally, I'm not interested in getting a high number of posts. Nor do I want to step on the senior people's toes. The point is to share info and learn something new.
It's been my experience that sometimes the links posted no longer work so it's safer to post the work and include the link.
Again, I repeat the question: what is preferred in this Forum? Is copying and pasting a no no as WW implies?

 

The rules in the US are stated below, and I suppose it will be pretty much standardised along the world per the GATT agreement.

U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law of the United States

It seems obvious to me that - providing the site owner does not publish a copyright warning or a (c) sign - being the Internet such an open medium, then it will be material will be available to copy and be given fair use.

Section 401 says:

Oh, and just including a copyright notice in any form may mean absolutely nothing, the work HAS to be registered as such. U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law: Chapter 4

So the owner may shout from the hilltops his work is copyrighted 'coz he sez so, but is it? Is it registered? That is, did he pay the registration fee? No? Then it's not copyrighted. U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law: Chapter 4

Mind you, I'm not Jack the Ripper. When I built a couple of websites sometime ago I did copy entire pages from other websites, BUT I did previously request permission in very polite terms (which was granted) so I copied and translated the pages AND provided a link to the source as agreeed. All went very smoothly in a very courteous manner.

In any case in this forum's context if the owner does not like his work being copied, the offending part can be erased and that's it.

I have to go now, but I'd like to discuss the issues of fair use later.

Here it is! U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law: Chapter 1

To me it looks like this leaves leeway enough for our purposes.

 

Not that it matters much to what we are dealing here, but this is an extract from an email I got from a Brit in Moscow.

He has a website with his published revised redaction of a wargame rules set (Firefly, from Table Top Games). The rules themselves are public, but if you want the tables and characteristics you have to pay him. I asked him whether that was not a breach of copyright.

Pretty, eh?

 

I'm finding all these copy & past thread are getting a bit lame zzzzzzzzz

Look to me that people are just upping there post count