1 2 3 4
From http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms / : "Use of BBCi You may not copy, ... I would infer the use to be personal and non-commercial.

I'm not familiar with the terms used in UK copyright law, but in the US I'd expect such a notice to have said "private" rather than "personal".

I dunno, but I'm sure that that's what they mean by "personal". Suppose one instead posted, each day, the entire contents of a newspaper to a newsgroup. It's no different.
I'm not familiar with the terms used in UK copyright ... such a notice to have said "private" rather than "personal".

I dunno, but I'm sure that that's what they mean by "personal". Suppose one instead posted, each day, the entire contents of a newspaper to a newsgroup. It's no different.

If quoting an extract is permissible (as has been suggested) and quoting an article is not, what exactly is the cutoff point?
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Thus spake MC: Don't exaggerate.

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms / : "Use of BBCi You may not copy, reproduce, republish, download, post, broadcast, transmit or otherwise use BBCi content in any way except for your own personal, non-commercial use." Personally, I would infer the use to be personal and non-commercial.

It's definitely non-commercial. Do they mean "personal AND non-commercial" or "personal XOR non-commercial", is the question. I think the comma is an AND. This isn't personal. This is AUE.
It wouldn't hurt you to be a tad less persnickety, plus, the matter is clearly none of your business.

I'm not so sure. A powerful entity like the BBC might attempt to take action against ISPs and the like who provide people with access to AUE. The BBC is so entangled with the UK state (even though it's not part of that state) that the Crown itself might try to stamp out AUE. Suddenly you'd have John Dean facing conflicts of interest he'd never dreamt of.

I mean, we're not talking a Mark Israel here.
BTW, there's actually some issue of whether posting a mere link, a URL, to something constitutes a copyright violation.
If quoting an extract is permissible (as has been suggested) and quoting an article is not, what exactly is the cutoff point?

There isn't an "exactly". You're getting into the area of "fair use", and you'd need an attorney conversant with the area to cite precedent, but the statute says (17 USC 107)
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.htmlIf the article is considered the "copyrighted work as a whole", point three is working against you if you quote the whole thing. If the copyrighted work as a whole is the newspaper or web site, you're safer. I believe (but I Am Not A Lawyer) that in such cases, the article is usually considered the work, and so the fact that it was both big (amount) and that you quoted all of it (substantiality in raltion to the work as a whole) would tend toward a finding of "not fair use".

Point four could also argue against it being fair use, since you could have provided an excerpt and linked to the work, by not doing so it could be argued that people who would otherwise have been intrested enough to go to the source will now not do so.

On the other hand, the fact that such quoting of news sources is routine on Usenet might (mind you I said "might") be construed as making it arguable that the "character of the use", beyond being non-commercial, is presumptively fair use.

Evan Kirshenbaum + HP Laboratories >A handgun is like a Lawyer. You
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 >don't want it lying around wherePalo Alto, CA 94304 >the children might be exposed to
I dunno, but I'm sure that that's what they mean ... contents of a newspaper to a newsgroup. It's no different.

If quoting an extract is permissible (as has been suggested) and quoting an article is not, what exactly is the cutoff point?

Like, is quoting 119 words OK, but 120 words is not? It doesn't work that way.
Try this article, particularly the part about "fair use" and the links:
10 Big Myths about copyright explainedBy Brad Templeton
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Best Donna Richoux
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
I dunno, but I'm sure that that's what they mean ... contents of a newspaper to a newsgroup. It's no different.

If quoting an extract is permissible (as has been suggested) and quoting an article is not, what exactly is the cutoff point?

I'd say you're in trouble if your excerpt is more than half of the original article.
Like, is quoting 119 words OK, but 120 words is not? It doesn't work that way. Try this article, particularly the part about "fair use" and the links: 10 Big Myths about copyright explained By Brad Templeton http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

This guy has a very strong anti-fair-use bias, note.
BTW, there's actually some issue of whether posting a mere link, a URL, to something constitutes a copyright violation.

Is there? How? I can see it being a breach of confidentiality or possibly violate the terms of a license under which it was disclosed to you, and I could see how you could be considered an incitement to harrassment, but I don't see how it could be a copyright violation.

The arguments I remember had to do with whether it was a copyright violation for your page to refer by URL if such referral could be expected to cause your client's browser to transparently include the referred content as if it were part of your document. I'm not sure if that was ever actually litigated, but the consensus in the community was that such use wasn't fair use.
But a link posted *as* a link would seem to be fair game.

Evan Kirshenbaum + HP Laboratories >It is a popular delusion that the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 >government wastes vast amounts ofPalo Alto, CA 94304 >money through inefficiency and sloth.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Try this article, particularly the part about "fair use" and the links: 10 Big Myths about copyright explained By Brad Templeton http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

This guy has a very strong anti-fair-use bias, note.

Did you get that from what he wrote on the page or from elsewhere? I didn't get that from his discussion there. Granted, he didn't go into some of the areas that don't touch Usenet postings (e.g., reproducing materials for a class, recording broadcasts for later private viewing, private performance, making copies for backup), but it seemed pretty balanced as a short discussion of fair use with respect to quoting a copyrighted work in a public forum.

Evan Kirshenbaum + HP Laboratories >A handgun is like a Lawyer. You
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 >don't want it lying around wherePalo Alto, CA 94304 >the children might be exposed to
Show more