Hi, this is going to sound frivolous, but I am trying to settle an argument. Me against a whole bunch of others.
I am a member of a small on-line chess site. 10,000-ish members, maybe 3000 active. It is owned by one person resident in the US and is supported by subscription, donation and advertising. It is registered in the US where its servers are also located.
Although the primary purpose of the site is to play chess we have chatrooms and forums. These are not moderated. A few individuals regularly paste chunks of text in to the main public chat room that they have copied from other on-line sources, usually from news sources and periodicals. They rarely attribute the original author nor the original publication. There is no attempt to pass off the text as their own, and rarely any commentary or critique. Essentially they just post what they consider as interesting information on current affairs and such for others to read. The implication is that the text has been authored by others in reputable publications. The chatroom is quite busy so the text is rarely visible for longer than 24 hours.
The practice has been raised as a forum topic. There are two objections. Primarily that it is like spamming, but also that it breaches copyright law.
I have argued, somewhat pedantically maybe, that even though in the scale of things we are small beer and unlikely to be pursued it is still a technical infringement of copyright and as such should not be tolerated. I am in a minority of one. Others variously argue that it isn't an infringement because 1) the original author isn't mentioned 2) the poster isn't seeking financial gain 3) the original author probably wants it more widely read 4) it is okay to copy and paste so long as the original author and publication are credited 5) the original is obviously already in the public domain 6) it is only fleetingly available on our site, and 7) our site is too small to be accused of infringing copyright.
I have objected to all of those, whether US, European, Australian or Canadian legislation is considered (I haven't looked at others). I have argued that original authors and publications need to give authorisation, you can't just assume you know what they want, that in the main the original material is on sites supported by advertising so more likely they want it read there and not on some unrelated site, that we do not qualify under any of the 'get outs' in legislation for fair use, public interest etc, and that it matters not what the posters intentions are, the site owner as publisher is responsible for what is posted, and that 'public domain' does not mean 'available to the public'.
So am I right (even if pedantic) or am I wrong? Thanks for taking the time to read this far.
Rich

