[LINK] Misconceiving Copyright

[Adam Todd]

> >"By clicking here, I indicate that I will respect the copyright on
> >"Samizdat." I will not redistribute or republish it, or make it available
> >for viewing, in part or whole, to any other individual or institution."
>
>Now. This is a deliberate misconstruction of copyright: if I obtain a
>physical book in the ordinary fashion, there is neither a legal or moral
>restriction preventing me from giving that book to another individual. The
>AdTI is not, as it pretends, asking me to request its copyright, but is
>instead imposing ultra-copyright restrictions in the form of a license.
>
>IMO, the reference to copyright is deliberately misleading...

Nope.  Two sentences.  Two laws:

> >"By clicking here, I indicate that I will respect the copyright on
> >"Samizdat."

This is the copyright agreement.  You know about fair use :)

> > I will not redistribute or republish it, or make it available
> >for viewing, in part or whole, to any other individual or institution."

Do you need to do this?  Why do you want to do this?  Isn't it more 
important, in the battle you are commenting on anyway, which has a heavy 
issue of copyright in it, to use their own document against them?

They don't indicate how you can use the document, they don't indicate you 
can't quote from it, or refer to page, paragraph and line numbers, so the 
key here is to provide a reference to their document, quote only "fair use" 
levels and make everyone go to and agree to their document, making a point 
about the "lack of openness" to access the document and provide it to 
interested people.

They might as well include:

"You will not tell anyone where the document can be found and you are 
PROHIBITED from using the URL."