Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: Indeed. And yet ... posted by SpotcheckBilly12345 on March 18, 2017 at 15:06:00
>How rude of you! Certainly an embarrassing set of responses from you. In
>your position you should be far more civil.
First, the original poster wrote comments that had he done the slightest
amount of research, he would have known were either incorrect or more
nuanced than he was representing.
Second he infringed our copyright in a blatant manner. I have lost all
patience with people who do that. Instead of asking The Bored to delete
the offending material, which I do on a regular basis with other forums,
because it was indeed relevant to his argument, I thought instead I would
make fun of him. So, embarrassing? Hardly.
Your outrage over "copyright infringement"is really moving...
Again, I remind you, of fair use:
#Uses That Are Generally Fair Uses#
#Criticism and comment -- for example, quoting or excerpting a work in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment#
The only thing I forgot to do was provide a link. Which I then did at your request.
No, you were looking to get the thread deep sixed with name calling. You have done this numerous times before.
Again, Andreas Koch, and the growing momentum that exposes MQA is bad for consumers and technically a farce, that solves problems that don't exist is topic at hand. Your lack of any critical reporting is another. Own it.
> Again, I remind you, of fair use:
> #Uses That Are Generally Fair Uses#
#Criticism and comment -- for example, quoting or excerpting a work in a
> review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment#
Please note that under US copyright law, Fair Use is not a right but a
defense in a potential suit over infringement. Whether that defense would
be successful depends on how much of the original copyrighted work has
been quoted. If someone quotes 30 words of a 3000-word article, a Fair Use
defense would certainly succeed. If someone quotes all 3000 words, a Fair
Use defense would certainly fail. The question of where the dividing line
lies tends to be decided on a case-by-case basis, but generally favoring
the copyright owner, as far as I am aware.
In your case, while you didn't republish the entire work, you did quote
a relatively large proportion of the work, without either permission,
attribution, or a link to the original.
> The only thing I forgot to do was provide a link. Which I then did at
> your request.
And the attribution, which you also "forgot." It would have cost you
nothing either to ask for permission (which I would have given) or to
add attribution and link, yet you did neither.
> No, you were looking to get the thread deep sixed with name calling. You
> have done this numerous times before.
Really? Could you provide links to the "numerous" examples, please, Dick.
Provide links? Disingenuous. Provide links to threads you sabotaged that have been taken down? Right.
I can understand your being flustered. Luminaries with far more credibility and brain power than you and your crew are exposing MQA for what it is, and you don't like it. You would rather hitch your horse to a charlatan like Stuart.
This is the third time you resorted to name calling in this thread.
> Provide links? Disingenuous. Provide links to threads you sabotaged that
> have been taken down? Right.
There are no threads that I forced to be taken down, Dick.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: