Roberts plays a dangerous game.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Roberts appeals to the idea that a court should read an ambiguous law in a way that renders it compatible with the Constitution. But he hasn’t read the law in this case so much as rewritten it. He claims that it leaves people free to make the “lawful choice” to forgo health insurance. In effect, then, he has ruled that the mandate isn’t a mandate at all.

Roberts performs the same maneuver elsewhere in the opinion. Like the four justices who think the law should be struck down (and like two liberal justices), Roberts believes that the law unconstitutionally coerces the states by threatening to cut off all federal Medicaid funding if they don’t expand the program. Instead of striking down the law, however, he again rewrites it, so that only a portion of federal Medicaid funding is withheld from balky states.

The resulting law may be a better one than Congress wrote. It is not, however, the law that Congress wrote. Roberts may think he has threaded a needle. He has avoided affirming an expansive reading of the Commerce Clause, which conservatives loathe, while refusing to give liberals the ammunition to call him a partisan for dismantling their cherished law. He acted cleverly. He also acted less like a judge than like a politician, and a slippery one.

(Ramesh Ponnuru is a Bloomberg View columnist and a senior editor at National Review. The opinions expressed are his own.)

Roberts has decided to uphold a badly written, power grabbing and Unconstitutional law over that of doing his sworn duty. Integrity be damned, he wrongly sees it his duty to maintain the law instead of voting strictly on its legality based upon our Constitution. Such maneuvering clearly points to a decision to place CURRENT political importance over that of Constitutional validity IMHO. A damn shame that Justice Scalia can not now write and publish an article specificly about Roberts's decision and Roberts's newfound faith in placing political considerations over that of carrying out his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution! -Tyr

[Abbey Marie]

Tyr, we need a link to the source. Thanks.

[Gaffer]

I get the same feeling. He's playing politics with something that is a cut and dry constitutional issue.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr, we need a link to the source. Thanks.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-26/supreme-court-case-won-t-end-republican-obamacare-attacks.html

Ok, there is the link..^^^^^^^^
Why the need for the link, I cited the author and only used a small portion of the author's article?-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I get the same feeling. He's playing politics with something that is a cut and dry constitutional issue.

He used just the opposite reasoning to rule in the Arizonia law case. With the obama healthcare law tried to justify his playing politics when that is certainly not any part of his job and sworn duty. His duty was to decide if its Constitutional not give the government a way out of its commerce clause claim and not to rewrite the law by basing it upon the right to tax. It was not voted on as a damn tax law, therfore the vote was fraudulent if Roberts's contention of it being a tax law is correct. Rather than just rule on the law as written and voted on, as Constitutional or NOT Roberts decide to rewrite it after the people's vote which is not his right according to his sworn duty. He was supposed to rule as did Scalia and let Congress fix its own folly by resubmitting the law and having another vote on it. He chose to be an ACTIVIST JUDGE and to seal his legacy . Too bad that history will record both his folly and his lack of integrity as well it should! FFF-HIM , HE HAS NO HONOR!--Tyr

[OCA]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-26/supreme-court-case-won-t-end-republican-obamacare-attacks.html

Ok, there is the link..^^^^^^^^
Why the need for the link, I cited the author and only used a small portion of the author's article?-Tyr

Copyright laws..................every messageboard requires a link.

[CockySOB]

Copyright laws..................every messageboard requires a link.

Not exactly, but it does make it easier to defend fair use. The fact is that it is up to the copyright holder to provide the link to their original works as part of a DMCA take-down notice for infringing material. By posting a link with our quotes from their source, we demonstrate good faith as posters to give the original content creator their due.

Plus, it's just so gosh-darn nice to be able to give credit where it is due!

...and it improves our cross-site linkages which improve page ranks in the major search engines and increase traffic for everyone involved...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Not exactly, but it does make it easier to defend fair use. The fact is that it is up to the copyright holder to provide the link to their original works as part of a DMCA take-down notice for infringing material. By posting a link with our quotes from their source, we demonstrate good faith as posters to give the original content creator their due.

Plus, it's just so gosh-darn nice to be able to give credit where it is due!

...and it improves our cross-site linkages which improve page ranks in the major search engines and increase traffic for everyone involved...

I credited the author and a bit more , look at the last quoted sentence in the thread opening post.. Unless you guys think my name is Ramesh Ponnuru and I am a Bloomberg View columnist and a senior editor at National Review.
(Ramesh Ponnuru is Bloomberg View columnist and a senior editor at National Review. The opinions expressed are his own.)

At other sites when quoting 20% or less of another's commentary citing the author was enough , posting a link was not required. I did so for years with nary a problem. So here it is different , I will post links but my understanding is that its not a legal requirement under the circumstances of posting 20% or less of an article when coupled with citing the article's authorship.
I clearly showed who the author was and where he could be found Bloomberg View and senior editor at National Review..--Tyr

[jimnyc]

Typical format is to include the first 2-3 paragraphs and then link to the rest of the article for those interested in reading the rest. It's just easier for us all to always post a link to ensure the author is always getting full credit.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Typical format is to include the first 2-3 paragraphs and then link to the rest of the article for those interested in reading the rest. It's just easier for us all to always post a link to ensure the author is always getting full credit.


I have no problem with that . Just wanted it noted that I did post the author and more. Also wanted it to be known that a link is not always a legal requirement as was put forth by a member.
I had no reason to post two or three paragraphs and often find what I want to discuss in less words. To be more specific I often quote less and have done so for may years at many sites, while always giving credit to the author for his/her works.
I will link here but still disagree that it is a legal requirement when only using a cited very small portion of an article posted by another .-Tyr

[ConHog]

Typical format is to include the first 2-3 paragraphs and then link to the rest of the article for those interested in reading the rest. It's just easier for us all to always post a link to ensure the author is always getting full credit.

This brings up something I wanted to ask you about, but had forgotten. Where do you stand on citing Wiki when used as a source? On another board I ate a ban for posting a portion of a wiki article without citation than arguing that Wiki themselves don't require a cite because they acknowledge that their website is in the public domain. I've seen some post here with and without citations. Just wonder where the board stands.

[jimnyc]

I have no problem with that . Just wanted it noted that I did post the author and more. Also wanted it to be known that a link is not always a legal requirement as was put forth by a member.
I had no reason to post two or three paragraphs and often find what I want to discuss in less words. To be more specific I often quote less and have done so for may years at many sites, while always giving credit to the author for his/her works.
I will link here but still disagree that it is a legal requirement when only using a cited very small portion of an article posted by another .-Tyr

It's generally accepted to post a link from where articles are copied/pasted from. Copyright is a very complex creature and changes daily and changes more and more with internet publishing. The use of work can also change from site to site and from author to author. So we just feel it's easiest to minimize how much of an article is posted and link to where we are getting them from. And since it's all based on the "Fair use Act", I think it's just fair to link to the authors work as well.

Here's a good read: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

[jimnyc]

This brings up something I wanted to ask you about, but had forgotten. Where do you stand on citing Wiki when used as a source? On another board I ate a ban for posting a portion of a wiki article without citation than arguing that Wiki themselves don't require a cite because they acknowledge that their website is in the public domain. I've seen some post here with and without citations. Just wonder where the board stands.

Still must be cited. Explicit rights would need to be granted, from each author. Even Wiki themselves collect the info and link to their sources at the bottom of their pages.

[OCA]

I have no problem with that . Just wanted it noted that I did post the author and more. Also wanted it to be known that a link is not always a legal requirement as was put forth by a member.
I had no reason to post two or three paragraphs and often find what I want to discuss in less words. To be more specific I often quote less and have done so for may years at many sites, while always giving credit to the author for his/her works.
I will link here but still disagree that it is a legal requirement when only using a cited very small portion of an article posted by another .-Tyr

Copyright is a complicated matter and I think if someone wanted to push it and their copyrighted work was reproduced somewhere else without explicit permission and/or link to original provided you would be on the losing end of that.

So yes it is in fact it is LEGALLY REQUIRED.

[ConHog]

Still must be cited. Explicit rights would need to be granted, from each author. Even Wiki themselves collect the info and link to their sources at the bottom of their pages.

Good enough.

[CockySOB]

Typical format is to include the first 2-3 paragraphs and then link to the rest of the article for those interested in reading the rest. It's just easier for us all to always post a link to ensure the author is always getting full credit.

... or to allow others a chance to peruse the same source material to see just what was cherry-picked to support the poster's argument.

[jimnyc]

... or to allow others a chance to peruse the same source material to see just what was cherry-picked to support the poster's argument.

That's true too! It only makes sense that if someone reads a portion of an article, they might want to read the remaining portion, which wouldn't be quite as easy without a link.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

... or to allow others a chance to peruse the same source material to see just what was cherry-picked to support the poster's argument.

Or times when that is the only part of the commentary that deals with the subject matter the person quoting is currently addressing. Also it is not a person's obligation ,duty or job to help prove the case for the opposition.
If you are arguing against child molestors do you look for material defending them? Dont be silly. People often quote parts of commentaries, quite often because the quoted material is too long and/or most of it is irelevant to the subject being discussed but you go right ahead and pretend that it's all done as cherry picking. Its up to the person researching to decide what is and what isnt relevant to the subject at hand IMHO.. Nothing wrong with that and just about everyboidy does it. --Tyr

[jimnyc]

Or times when that is the only part of the commentary that deals with the subject matter the person quoting is currently addressing. Also it is not a person's obligation ,duty or job to help prove the case for the opposition.
If you are arguing against child molestors do you look for material defending them? Dont be silly. People often quote parts of commentaries, quite often because the quoted material is too long and/or most of it is irelevant to the subject being discussed but you go right ahead and pretend that it's all done as cherry picking. Its up to the person researching to decide what is and what isnt relevant to the subject at hand IMHO.. Nothing wrong with that and just about everyboidy does it. --Tyr

I don't think he meant it in an accusatory manner, that this is what you do, only playing devils advocate and pointing out that others may feel that way if they see "someone" doing so. Linking assures everyone is privy to the same material, but more importantly, gives me added protection from the small chance of a lawsuit! Even if the facts are on my side, I'd need some $$ to defend myself. Just better to be on the safe side. I know if there were an actual lawsuit on this very topic, it can be found that links aren't always necessary, or that we can sometimes post entire articles, and at other times the entire thing is free to re-post. I'm not doubting you at all. Just a bum protecting his cardboard box is all! :beer:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I don't think he meant it in an accusatory manner, that this is what you do, only playing devils advocate and pointing out that others may feel that way if they see "someone" doing so. Linking assures everyone is privy to the same material, but more importantly, gives me added protection from the small chance of a lawsuit! Even if the facts are on my side, I'd need some $$ to defend myself. Just better to be on the safe side. I know if there were an actual lawsuit on this very topic, it can be found that links aren't always necessary, or that we can sometimes post entire articles, and at other times the entire thing is free to re-post. I'm not doubting you at all. Just a bum protecting his cardboard box is all! :beer:

Maybe so but his post was stating that as a single possibility without even bothering to list those other very real possibilities that I did. So in essence his post could be viewed as a sort of cherry picking by his own standards.
Since this topic came from my post I view his comment as an accusation myself. Devil's advocate or not ..
-Tyr

[CockySOB]

Copyright is a complicated matter and I think if someone wanted to push it and their copyrighted work was reproduced somewhere else without explicit permission and/or link to original provided you would be on the losing end of that.

So yes it is in fact it is LEGALLY REQUIRED.

Feel like backing that up with more than your say-so? Maybe you can cite either the appropriate legislation or case law which supports your proposition?

[CockySOB]

Or times when that is the only part of the commentary that deals with the subject matter the person quoting is currently addressing. Also it is not a person's obligation ,duty or job to help prove the case for the opposition.
If you are arguing against child molestors do you look for material defending them? Dont be silly. People often quote parts of commentaries, quite often because the quoted material is too long and/or most of it is irelevant to the subject being discussed but you go right ahead and pretend that it's all done as cherry picking. Its up to the person researching to decide what is and what isnt relevant to the subject at hand IMHO.. Nothing wrong with that and just about everyboidy does it. --Tyr

Not meant to be taken as an attack, merely pointing out that most people like to only present evidence which supports their arguments. By including a link to the original source material readers can visit those sources and either find more evidence supporting the quoted material, or find evidence that the quote is taken out of context and thus be more readily able to counter the cherry-picked "facts."

Take another gander at my posts wherein I cite sources for my quotes. I may select portions of the original content to quote, yet by presenting the full link back to the original source material, readers can look over then entire document (maybe others by the same source as well) to try to counter my arguments. I'm not at all afraid of having other people read over my sources, check on their backgrounds and reputations, etc., and possibly coming back and showing me that I perhaps made an error in my reading.

And no, not everybody does it. Even if they did, does that make it right?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Not meant to be taken as an attack, merely pointing out that most people like to only present evidence which supports their arguments. By including a link to the original source material readers can visit those sources and either find more evidence supporting the quoted material, or find evidence that the quote is taken out of context and thus be more readily able to counter the cherry-picked "facts."

Take another gander at my posts wherein I cite sources for my quotes. I may select portions of the original content to quote, yet by presenting the full link back to the original source material, readers can look over then entire document (maybe others by the same source as well) to try to counter my arguments. I'm not at all afraid of having other people read over my sources, check on their backgrounds and reputations, etc., and possibly coming back and showing me that I perhaps made an error in my reading.

And no, not everybody does it. Even if they did, does that make it right?

I have no problem with that line of thinking. I recently had to admit my defeat in a thread because I found my opposition, Drummond, was correct in his judgement of Thatcher being Churchill's equal or better as a great leader. I came to that conclusion by researching and finding the truth about Thatcher . I do not simply ignore TRUTH because it does not suit my needs or positions. I did after finding the TRUTH make up my mind that he was right , decide that I could and would no longer defend my original position on Churchill. Was the Churchill /Thatcher thread a comparison of two great Brit leaders. Go ahead check my words.
I do not post short comments to avoid truth on any subject. Looks like to me that we both pretty much agree on integrity being more important than winning a debate.-:beer:-Tyr

[OCA]

Feel like backing that up with more than your say-so? Maybe you can cite either the appropriate legislation or case law which supports your proposition?

Seriously?

[Abbey Marie]

I see there is no rule that will go unquestioned around here. I haven't seen this many legal "experts" in a long time.

Look, Jim and many other internet sites want truncated material and links. If you use others' material, add a link.

If you require more in-depth legal analysis, audit an intellectual property course at your local law school.

[OCA]

I see there is no rule that will go unquestioned around here. I haven't seen this many legal "experts" in a long time.

Look, Jim and many other internet sites want truncated material and links. If you use others' material, add a link.

If you require more in-depth legal analysis, audit an intellectual property course at your local law school.

Unbelievable, its like trying to reign in a romper room episode.

[Kathianne]

It's generally accepted to post a link from where articles are copied/pasted from. Copyright is a very complex creature and changes daily and changes more and more with internet publishing. The use of work can also change from site to site and from author to author. So we just feel it's easiest to minimize how much of an article is posted and link to where we are getting them from. And since it's all based on the "Fair use Act", I think it's just fair to link to the authors work as well.

Here's a good read: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Personally, whether one is posting a small bit, a synopsis, or more, a link gives the others a chance to go to the original source to read 'context' and get more information. Most of my own links include pieces that have multiple links if one tracks the link I posted.

How often one clicks a link to find the person posting hadn't a real clue to what the sited was about.

[SassyLady]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-26/supreme-court-case-won-t-end-republican-obamacare-attacks.html

Ok, there is the link..^^^^^^^^
Why the need for the link, I cited the author and only used a small portion of the author's article?-Tyr

Personally, I like links so I can read the entire article, not just the parts that are posted here. But, that's just me.

[CockySOB]

Seriously?

Seriously. You claim that a link is legally required, back it up. There is nothing of the like in the DMCA, nor in any of the federal case law I've read which requires hyperlinks for an application of fair use.

[red states rule]

Seriously. You claim that a link is legally required, back it up. There is nothing of the like in the DMCA, nor in any of the federal case law I've read which requires hyperlinks for an application of fair use.

From the boards Rules

Copyright Infringement - When posting something as fact, it's always best to supply a link to your source if possible. While we encourage the use of linking to sources, please refrain from posting articles in their entirety. The first paragraph or 2 would be fine with a link to the rest of the article. This is acceptable under the fair use doctrine but copying of entire articles will likely result in copyright infringement, and your post may be removed and/or edited to protect the community.


Just post a link to your source and all be be fine

[CockySOB]

From the boards Rules

Copyright Infringement - When posting something as fact, it's always best to supply a link to your source if possible. While we encourage the use of linking to sources, please refrain from posting articles in their entirety. The first paragraph or 2 would be fine with a link to the rest of the article. This is acceptable under the fair use doctrine but copying of entire articles will likely result in copyright infringement, and your post may be removed and/or edited to protect the community.

Just post a link to your source and all be be fine

Which is why I had an early post indicating that as board policy, or as just basic good behavior providing a hyperlink is a good practice. But OCA claims it is legally required, so let him back up his statement. I'm quite certain if such were true that he would have no trouble finding relevant legislation or case law to support his statement.

17 U.S.C. § 107 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html) Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use (find those legally required hyperlinks yet, OCA?)
Righthaven v. Democratic Underground, 2012 (http://ia600509.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.75386/gov.uscourts.nvd.75386.179.0.pdf). United States District Court of the District of Nevada.


That the act of posting this five-sentence excerpt of a fifty sentence news article on a political discussion forum is a fair use pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 107, and that the fair use doctrine provides a complete defense to the claim of copyright infringement from which this suit arose.

Democratic Underground's Motion for Summary Judgement (https://www.eff.org/node/67807) is available for more details in the case. Notice that while they have the same policies as what Jim has here, the ruling ignored the hyperlink component entirely.

I'm no lawyer, but that seems to indicate Mike's assertion about hyperlinks being legally required is pure bullshit. I stand ready to be proven wrong though.

[red states rule]

Which is why I had an early post indicating that as board policy, or as just basic good behavior providing a hyperlink is a good practice. But OCA claims it is legally required, so let him back up his statement. I'm quite certain if such were true that he would have no trouble finding relevant legislation or case law to support his statement.

17 U.S.C. § 107 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html) Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use (find those legally required hyperlinks yet, OCA?)
Righthaven v. Democratic Underground, 2012 (http://ia600509.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.75386/gov.uscourts.nvd.75386.179.0.pdf). United States District Court of the District of Nevada.



Democratic Underground's Motion for Summary Judgement (https://www.eff.org/node/67807) is available for more details in the case. Notice that while they have the same policies as what Jim has here, the ruling ignored the hyperlink component entirely.

I'm no lawyer, but that seems to indicate Mike's assertion about hyperlinks being legally required is pure bullshit. I stand ready to be proven wrong though.

Please ignore what OCA posts about the rules. He claimes he know them up and down; back and forth - but as more bans then PB

I do recall Jim (or it could have been someone else) talking about some lawyers prowling message boards looking to sue to copyrite violations so to make Jim's life easier just post a link and forget what other know it alls claim to have knowledge of

[CockySOB]

Please ignore what OCA posts about the rules. He claimes he know them up and down; back and forth - but as more bans then PB

I do recall Jim (or it could have been someone else) talking about some lawyers prowling message boards looking to sue to copyrite violations so to make Jim's life easier just post a link and forget what other know it alls claim to have knowledge of

You and I have been here a long time, RSR. OCA is wrong on this issue and I'm calling him out on it. You can like that or not, it doesn't matter to me. He made the claim that hyperlinks are legally required.

[jimnyc]

You and I have been here a long time, RSR. OCA is wrong on this issue and I'm calling him out on it. You can like that or not, it doesn't matter to me. He made the claim that hyperlinks are legally required.

Cocky is correct by the definition of the law. There are limitations as to how much you can 'borrow'. Some can be expressly waived by the author. But I don't think the link is actual law, but it's been pretty much board rules wherever I've posted at, and certainly on the boards I have run.

But I have been dogged before by writers or website owners. I was once contacted by the writer of an article coming out of the Dallas Star News (I think that was the name). We discussed the issue politely and agreed one paragraph on the site and a link to her article was fair. Whether legal or not isn't always the issue, but if she or the paper actually sued, I'd be screwed as I can't afford to defend myself over someone else forgetting to link, or posting too much... It's just FAIR play and common courtesy to acknowledge the original author and link to where the work was copied from.

Keep in mind, the online world is new and changing quickly. Most of the Fair Use Act wasn't written around the internet, but I'm guessing it will be evolving as time goes by. Here's another good read for those interested:

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

[CockySOB]

Thanks for clarifying, Jim. As I pointed out very early on, linking to source material is an industry standard best practice when implemented as website policy (and even as an individual's personal policy.) I highly recommend anyone concerned with copyright and fair use in the current internet era to read over the links I provided regarding the Righthaven v. Democratic Underground case. It is particularly informative since the case involves a political discussion board similar in form and function to DebatePolicy, and posts which include excerpts of copyrighted materials.

That case is also interesting in that it addresses DMCA "safe harbor" provisions existing despite a lack of formal DMCA dispute process or DMCA agent. (BTW Jim, it might be a good idea to place DMCA dispute contact information as a header link to further protect yourself from potential litigation.)