Timeline for We should not be pasting definitions from online dictionaries into answers when their terms of service prohibit such use
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 27 at 6:38 | comment | added | Toby Speight | AFAIK, "fair use" is a wart of US copyright law: does it apply to all of us because SE is a US organisation, or does it only apply to those posting from that country? | |
| Apr 14 at 11:18 | comment | added | TimR | @Cerberus-ReinstateMonica Saying it's fair use doesn't make it so. | |
| Apr 14 at 2:41 | comment | added | Cerberus - Reinstate Monica | @TimR: Did you not see people's comments about fair use? As I said, I think everything has already been said here. My suggestion would be to step away and reconsider, based on all that. | |
| Apr 13 at 12:55 | comment | added | TimR | @Cerberus-ReinstateMonica If your position is that it's a David vs Goliath thing, and copyright law be damned, I guess there's no reason to discuss anything further. | |
| Apr 13 at 2:02 | comment | added | Cerberus - Reinstate Monica | @TimR: I can't imagine why you would represent the interests of big companies against users. And I disagree with your arguments. I don't think there is anything we haven't already said, is there? | |
| Apr 12 at 16:02 | comment | added | TimR | @Cerberus-ReinstateMonica I am not assuming you are clueless about the law. You are making that clear. Your continued use of the site is an acceptance of their terms of use when those terms are clear and accessible. You can pretend they're at fault for sending you content. But that is wishful thinking. And it is not a PING. It is a HTTP REQUEST. Your analogy with with cinema is ridiculous. They have every right to expect you to pay the entrance fee, and to not film the movie and repost it on YouTube. | |
| Apr 12 at 15:10 | comment | added | Cerberus - Reinstate Monica | @TimR: There is no need to assume and state that one's interlocutor does not understand something. The first half is exactly what I said: the website chooses to send you data when you send it data. It does not need to do that: it chooses to do so, and what to send. I do not care for metaphors in this case. Pinging a site again to send you data does not in any way mean, let alone affirm, that you accept any contract whatsoever. Again: if you watch a video in a cinema saying "by continuing to view this video you agree to send us €100 in an envelope", you do not incur an obligation: you laugh. | |
| Apr 10 at 10:11 | comment | added | TimR | @Cerberus-ReinstateMonica You misunderstand how websites work. They do not proactively send you pages. Your browser initiates a request and receives a response from the website. You visit the website, to refer metaphorically to what happens. The site doesn't visit you. Your continued use of the site is an affirmation that you accept the site's terms of use (provided the terms are not hidden away somewhere or obscured in some other way). | |
| Apr 10 at 2:46 | comment | added | Cerberus - Reinstate Monica | @TimR: It was exactly your argument why a site would be able to force you to abide by its rules if you merely continued to look at it. | |
| Apr 2 at 11:11 | comment | added | TimR | @Cerberus-ReinstateMonica "abide by" and "continue to look" and "watch a video" have nothing whatsoever to do with the act of reposting content from a site whose terms prohibit doing so. | |
| Apr 2 at 4:13 | comment | added | Cerberus - Reinstate Monica | @TimR: The people behind the site would like you to abide by some document, but you incur no obligation to do by by simply receiving the content of a page that they send to you, nor if you receive a second or even third page. Requesting or receiving page content is not a legal act binding you to obey their command, no more so than looking at a sign in the street, not even if you continue to look. If you watch a video in a cinema saying "by continuing to view this video you agree to send us €100 in an envelope", you do not incur an obligation: you laugh. | |
| Mar 25 at 11:49 | comment | added | TimR | @Cerberus-ReinstateMonica You seem not to understand the implications of the word continuing. You cannot continue to use something you have never used. The clearly entailed meaning is that if you've visited the site at least once, and want to use it again, you must abide by the terms. It's possible you've just downloaded the Terms and are reading them offline, but for most people they're reading the words while visiting. | |
| Mar 25 at 2:20 | comment | added | Cerberus - Reinstate Monica | @TimR: Yes, absolutely! Imagine if some website could make you 'accept' any terms it liked, just by sending the page content to your computer. | |
| Mar 23 at 11:50 | comment | added | TimR | Some terms of service have words to this effect: By continuing to use this website you are agreeing to these terms. Are you certain those words are legally vapid? | |
| Mar 22 at 21:46 | comment | added | Cerberus - Reinstate Monica | @TimR: "Terms of service" are not binding on anyone who hasn't signed them. Visiting a website is not signing a contract. The problem is link rot: if you only link and not quote, your answer will become useless once the site changes its structure, which the commercial sites always do. | |
| Mar 22 at 19:04 | comment | added | TimR | @AndrewLeach It was addressed to anyone and everyone here who thinks pasting dictionary entries verbatim, even from dictionaries whose terms expressly forbid it, is something this forum should be requiring of people when they are answering certain kinds of questions. | |
| Mar 22 at 18:56 | comment | added | Andrew Leach Mod | @TimR I was directly addressing your comment "I'm advising against it," which I didn't think was addressed to SE. | |
| Mar 22 at 18:49 | comment | added | TimR | Side note: since SE is a commercial enterprise, it cannot IMO claim "nonprofit scholarly/educational" status. But let's leave that as a side note since the line between higher education and for-profit corporation is becoming blurred, and I'd rather not go down that rabbit hole. The main gist of my post is to advise against having a rule that requires cutting and pasting of dictionary entries. | |
| Mar 22 at 18:48 | comment | added | TimR | @AndrewLeach I'm not giving SE advice. I'm addressing the forum members, in whose forum a "rule" has been devised that certain kinds of answers must cut and paste a dictionary entry (not simply link to it) or risk having the answer be deleted. | |
| Mar 22 at 18:46 | comment | added | Andrew Leach Mod | @TimR But it's not up to you to give advice, and your question should be a question along the lines of "Should we...?" You can then give your opinion in an answer. | |
| Mar 22 at 16:34 | comment | added | TimR | I am not asking for it to be removed. That's up to SE. I'm advising against it (people can do want they want) but I'm certainly against REQUIRING answers to do it. copyrightlaws.com/sharing-republishing-online-content | |
| Mar 22 at 16:31 | comment | added | Laurel Mod | @TimR And that's exactly why the lawyers SE are paying should be the ones to determine what looks like fair use and what should be removed—not you or me. On the other hand, my understanding of SE policy is exactly what staff have been telling us for over a decade. | |
| Mar 22 at 16:30 | comment | added | TimR | I am not asking moderators to take any action. I am advising against doing it, and my followup would be certainly not to REQUIRE such copying. | |
| Mar 22 at 16:25 | comment | added | TimR | Your understanding of fair use is yours. There are other opinions: findlaw.com/smallbusiness/business-operations/… or guides.nyu.edu/fairuse | |
| Mar 22 at 16:20 | history | answered | LaurelMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |