Road Cycling · Public discussion

Tainted Records Review

Started by B. Lafferty · · Last activity · 12 posts · 771 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Road Cycling
Published
4 November 2005
Last activity
6 November 2005
Original author
B. Lafferty
Posts
12
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
771
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–12 of 12
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. This is an interesting article that raises the issues and the problems
    involved in revoking past records absent a positive test result.

    November 4, 2005
    Germans Seek to Cleanse a Long-Lasting Stain
    By CHRISTOPHER CLAREY
    International Herald Tribune
    The energy and optimism in Anne Jakob's voice are palpable as she talks
    about the quest to rewrite some of the sporting wrongs of the past century.

    But Jakob, head of legal affairs at the German athletics federation, knows
    she will need more than enthusiasm and the conviction that her cause is
    just. She will need proof and confessions if the committee for which she is
    the workhorse is going to wipe out national German track and field records
    tainted by doping and give the current generation of athletes a fresh start.

    "The final legal finding will be so difficult," Jakob said in an interview
    by telephone from the federation's office in Darmstadt. "Maybe it will not
    be difficult to get all the information and review it and review the court
    cases. But it will be difficult to make the connections that we will
    require.

    "Still, we want to give a sign that we are dealing with this issue of doping
    and that times have changed now. Most of our athletes don't want to talk
    about it anymore. They say, 'Leave me alone with all that stuff.' But we
    want to show that we are not the kind of federation that is content as time
    goes by and everything is hidden under a certain number of years. We want to
    show we are doing something actively against the system that existed before
    and against this really big problem."

    It is too early to say if sports are entering a heavy rewriting phase, but
    there are certainly welcome signs that there will be an earnest push in that
    direction. In Europe, Jakob and the Germans are scrutinizing records, many
    of them set by athletes from the former East Germany, whose regime used its
    phenomenal, steroid-fueled sports success for propaganda purposes. In the
    United States, lawmakers are preparing legislation recommending that sports
    leagues strike down records tainted by performance-enhancing drugs, too.

    Major League Baseball's case is particularly tricky, because some of the
    records that might be questioned, including Barry Bonds's single-season home
    run mark of 73 in 2001, were set when steroids were not banned in baseball.
    That ban did not come until 2002, and the sport began testing only in 2003.

    It has yet to create credible penalties, with first-time offenders receiving
    mere 10-day suspensions, which is why Senators John McCain and Jim Bunning,
    a Hall of Fame pitcher, are planning to reintroduce legislation that would
    standardize drug testing and sanctions for professional team sports in the
    United States and follow the World Anti-Doping Agency norm of two-year bans
    for first offenses.

    That proposal, which would bring the United States in line with the Olympic
    movement, would seem to have a fine chance of eventually passing muster. But
    revising record books, however noble-minded, remains a long shot, for both
    legal and practical reasons.

    The best example of success in recent years was in weightlifting, which
    changed all its weight classes and started afresh in a response to
    credibility concerns brought on by doping. In 1999, Helmut Digel, a former
    German athletics federation president who is one of the architects of
    Germany's current record review, proposed that track and field allay its
    doping concerns by starting fresh with its world records in 2000, but his
    proposal was soundly rejected by the IAAF.

    The International Olympic Committee has also rebuffed attempts to amend

    'We want to give a sign that we are dealing with this issue of doping.'

    Olympic results from the 1970s and 1980s based on new doping evidence. In
    1998, it rejected an appeal by the British Olympic Committee on behalf of
    swimmer Sharron Davies that sought acknowledgment in the Olympic record book
    that Petra Schneider had admitted being involved in East Germany's doping
    program. Schneider defeated Davies by a huge margin for the gold in the
    women's 400-meter individual medley in 1980.

    IOC officials expressed concern about the ramifications of opening the door
    to such amendments. It now has a three-year statute of limitations for
    protests involving Olympic results, although the World Anti-Doping Agency's
    statute of limitations is eight years.

    Many of the records at issue in Germany's investigation go back more than 10
    years. Without a positive drug-test result, it is exceedingly difficult to
    prove that somebody cheated on a given day, and nobody has yet been able to
    prove, for example, that Marita Koch of East Germany was cheating on Oct. 6,
    1985, in Canberra, when she ran 400 meters in 47.60 seconds during the World
    Cup, a world record that no one has come close to threatening in the two
    decades since.

    On that same day and track, four of Koch's compatriots - Silke Gladisch,
    Sabine Rieger, Ingrid Auerswald and Marlies Göhr - set a world record of
    41.37 seconds in the 4x100-meter women's relay that still stands the test of
    time but not suspicion.

    German trials since reunification have proved that East Germany engaged in
    systematic, state-sponsored doping: administering steroids to thousands of
    athletes, including some preteens, often without their knowledge. That often
    resulted in serious health problems later in their lives. Such athletes
    should be perceived as victims, not frauds, but that doesn't mean that their
    drug-enhanced marks should stand.

    Ines Geipel agrees. She was one of those youngsters, and it was her request
    this year that her name be removed from the German record book that
    persuaded the German athletics federation to undertake a re-examination of
    every record.

    Geipel, under her maiden name of Ines Schmidt, was part of a 4x100 relay
    team that set a national club record of 42.20 seconds in 1984. Now a
    successful author, she wants to play no more part in a sham. So far, she is
    the only former track star to make such a request.

    Koch continues to deny any impropriety, although reports in Germany, based
    on examination of files of the Stasi secret police, assert that there are
    records that she was administered steroids on a regular basis.

    The Stasi files will be a big part of the German federation's investigation,
    but Jakob takes pains to emphasize that this is not exclusively an
    investigation of the former East, even though 22 of the national records in
    question were set by East German athletes before unification in 1990.

    "Most people or journalists only talk about the East Germans, and they were
    part of the system, and it was automatic that if you were in the top 10 or
    20, you got those substances," Jakob said. "But it's not that the problem
    just existed in the East. People in the Western part were doped as well, but
    the difference was there was no system behind them, so you have no papers,
    no files, no proof, because they did it individually."

    Perhaps the biggest problem with ripping up the record book decades later is
    that there is no certainty that those who are benefiting were clean
    themselves. Drug testing was not nearly as sophisticated or comprehensive in
    the 1970s and 1980s. But erasing a bogus benchmark does have one undeniable
    benefit. It gives hope to the next generation of runners or swimmers or home
    run hitters, and that should give Jakob and her committee strength as they
    investigate curiously low numbers like Koch's 47.60 seconds in the long
    months ahead.

  2. Wrong , Sherlock.
    http://www.nytimes.com/iht/2005/11/04/sports/IHT-04arena.html?pagewanted=print

    "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    And for those who would prefer to visit the website from which the article
    was illegally copied and posted into this group, in violation of several
    international copyright laws, the URL is as follows:

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/03/sports/arena.php#

    On 11/04/2005 03:22 PM, in article
    [email hidden], "B. Lafferty"

    Quoted message said:

    This is an interesting article that raises the issues and the problems
    involved in revoking past records absent a positive test result.

    November 4, 2005
    Germans Seek to Cleanse a Long-Lasting Stain
    By CHRISTOPHER CLAREY
    International Herald Tribune
    The energy and optimism in Anne Jakob's voice are palpable as she talks
    about the quest to rewrite some of the sporting wrongs of the past
    century.

    But Jakob, head of legal affairs at the German athletics federation,
    knows
    she will need more than enthusiasm and the conviction that her cause is
    just. She will need proof and confessions if the committee for which she
    is
    the workhorse is going to wipe out national German track and field
    records
    tainted by doping and give the current generation of athletes a fresh
    start.

    "The final legal finding will be so difficult," Jakob said in an
    interview
    by telephone from the federation's office in Darmstadt. "Maybe it will
    not
    be difficult to get all the information and review it and review the
    court
    cases. But it will be difficult to make the connections that we will
    require.

    "Still, we want to give a sign that we are dealing with this issue of
    doping
    and that times have changed now. Most of our athletes don't want to talk
    about it anymore. They say, 'Leave me alone with all that stuff.' But we
    want to show that we are not the kind of federation that is content as
    time
    goes by and everything is hidden under a certain number of years. We want
    to
    show we are doing something actively against the system that existed
    before
    and against this really big problem."

    It is too early to say if sports are entering a heavy rewriting phase,
    but
    there are certainly welcome signs that there will be an earnest push in
    that
    direction. In Europe, Jakob and the Germans are scrutinizing records,
    many
    of them set by athletes from the former East Germany, whose regime used
    its
    phenomenal, steroid-fueled sports success for propaganda purposes. In the
    United States, lawmakers are preparing legislation recommending that
    sports
    leagues strike down records tainted by performance-enhancing drugs, too.

    Major League Baseball's case is particularly tricky, because some of the
    records that might be questioned, including Barry Bonds's single-season
    home
    run mark of 73 in 2001, were set when steroids were not banned in
    baseball.
    That ban did not come until 2002, and the sport began testing only in
    2003.

    It has yet to create credible penalties, with first-time offenders
    receiving
    mere 10-day suspensions, which is why Senators John McCain and Jim
    Bunning,
    a Hall of Fame pitcher, are planning to reintroduce legislation that
    would
    standardize drug testing and sanctions for professional team sports in
    the
    United States and follow the World Anti-Doping Agency norm of two-year
    bans
    for first offenses.

    That proposal, which would bring the United States in line with the
    Olympic
    movement, would seem to have a fine chance of eventually passing muster.
    But
    revising record books, however noble-minded, remains a long shot, for
    both
    legal and practical reasons.

    The best example of success in recent years was in weightlifting, which
    changed all its weight classes and started afresh in a response to
    credibility concerns brought on by doping. In 1999, Helmut Digel, a
    former
    German athletics federation president who is one of the architects of
    Germany's current record review, proposed that track and field allay its
    doping concerns by starting fresh with its world records in 2000, but his
    proposal was soundly rejected by the IAAF.

    The International Olympic Committee has also rebuffed attempts to amend

    'We want to give a sign that we are dealing with this issue of doping.'

    Olympic results from the 1970s and 1980s based on new doping evidence. In
    1998, it rejected an appeal by the British Olympic Committee on behalf of
    swimmer Sharron Davies that sought acknowledgment in the Olympic record
    book
    that Petra Schneider had admitted being involved in East Germany's doping
    program. Schneider defeated Davies by a huge margin for the gold in the
    women's 400-meter individual medley in 1980.

    IOC officials expressed concern about the ramifications of opening the
    door
    to such amendments. It now has a three-year statute of limitations for
    protests involving Olympic results, although the World Anti-Doping
    Agency's
    statute of limitations is eight years.

    Many of the records at issue in Germany's investigation go back more than
    10
    years. Without a positive drug-test result, it is exceedingly difficult
    to
    prove that somebody cheated on a given day, and nobody has yet been able
    to
    prove, for example, that Marita Koch of East Germany was cheating on Oct.
    6,
    1985, in Canberra, when she ran 400 meters in 47.60 seconds during the
    World
    Cup, a world record that no one has come close to threatening in the two
    decades since.

    On that same day and track, four of Koch's compatriots - Silke Gladisch,
    Sabine Rieger, Ingrid Auerswald and Marlies Göhr - set a world record of
    41.37 seconds in the 4x100-meter women's relay that still stands the test
    of
    time but not suspicion.

    German trials since reunification have proved that East Germany engaged
    in
    systematic, state-sponsored doping: administering steroids to thousands
    of
    athletes, including some preteens, often without their knowledge. That
    often
    resulted in serious health problems later in their lives. Such athletes
    should be perceived as victims, not frauds, but that doesn't mean that
    their
    drug-enhanced marks should stand.

    Ines Geipel agrees. She was one of those youngsters, and it was her
    request
    this year that her name be removed from the German record book that
    persuaded the German athletics federation to undertake a re-examination
    of
    every record.

    Geipel, under her maiden name of Ines Schmidt, was part of a 4x100 relay
    team that set a national club record of 42.20 seconds in 1984. Now a
    successful author, she wants to play no more part in a sham. So far, she
    is
    the only former track star to make such a request.

    Koch continues to deny any impropriety, although reports in Germany,
    based
    on examination of files of the Stasi secret police, assert that there are
    records that she was administered steroids on a regular basis.

    The Stasi files will be a big part of the German federation's
    investigation,
    but Jakob takes pains to emphasize that this is not exclusively an
    investigation of the former East, even though 22 of the national records
    in
    question were set by East German athletes before unification in 1990.

    "Most people or journalists only talk about the East Germans, and they
    were
    part of the system, and it was automatic that if you were in the top 10
    or
    20, you got those substances," Jakob said. "But it's not that the problem
    just existed in the East. People in the Western part were doped as well,
    but
    the difference was there was no system behind them, so you have no
    papers,
    no files, no proof, because they did it individually."

    Perhaps the biggest problem with ripping up the record book decades later
    is
    that there is no certainty that those who are benefiting were clean
    themselves. Drug testing was not nearly as sophisticated or comprehensive
    in
    the 1970s and 1980s. But erasing a bogus benchmark does have one
    undeniable
    benefit. It gives hope to the next generation of runners or swimmers or
    home
    run hitters, and that should give Jakob and her committee strength as
    they
    investigate curiously low numbers like Koch's 47.60 seconds in the long
    months ahead.

    --
    Steven L. Sheffield
    stevens at veloworks dot com
    bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
    ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
    aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
    double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [foreword] slash

  3. On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 23:53:16 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:


    Wrong , Sherlock.

    Still illegal.

    JT

    ****************************
    Remove "remove" to reply
    Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    ****************************

  4. On 11/04/2005 04:53 PM, in article
    [email hidden], "B. Lafferty"

    Quoted message said:


    Wrong , Sherlock.
    http://www.nytimes.com/iht/2005/11/04/sports/IHT-04arena.html?pagewanted=print

    Poor Laughingstock misses the point again ...

    A. The article was still posted here in violation of international copyright
    laws. As a lawyer, you should know this, and should be disbarred for
    willfully violating the law. If you did not know this, you should be
    disbarred for incompetence.

    B. You posted the URL to a syndicated version which appeared in today's New
    York Times. I posted the URL to the original article, which appeared in the
    International Herald Tribune.

    Quoted message said:

    "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    And for those who would prefer to visit the website from which the article
    was illegally copied and posted into this group, in violation of several
    international copyright laws, the URL is as follows:

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/03/sports/arena.php#

    On 11/04/2005 03:22 PM, in article
    [email hidden], "B. Lafferty"

    Quoted message said:

    This is an interesting article that raises the issues and the problems
    involved in revoking past records absent a positive test result.

    November 4, 2005
    Germans Seek to Cleanse a Long-Lasting Stain
    By CHRISTOPHER CLAREY
    International Herald Tribune
    The energy and optimism in Anne Jakob's voice are palpable as she talks
    about the quest to rewrite some of the sporting wrongs of the past
    century.

    But Jakob, head of legal affairs at the German athletics federation,
    knows
    she will need more than enthusiasm and the conviction that her cause is
    just. She will need proof and confessions if the committee for which she
    is
    the workhorse is going to wipe out national German track and field
    records
    tainted by doping and give the current generation of athletes a fresh
    start.

    "The final legal finding will be so difficult," Jakob said in an
    interview
    by telephone from the federation's office in Darmstadt. "Maybe it will
    not
    be difficult to get all the information and review it and review the
    court
    cases. But it will be difficult to make the connections that we will
    require.

    "Still, we want to give a sign that we are dealing with this issue of
    doping
    and that times have changed now. Most of our athletes don't want to talk
    about it anymore. They say, 'Leave me alone with all that stuff.' But we
    want to show that we are not the kind of federation that is content as
    time
    goes by and everything is hidden under a certain number of years. We want
    to
    show we are doing something actively against the system that existed
    before
    and against this really big problem."

    It is too early to say if sports are entering a heavy rewriting phase,
    but
    there are certainly welcome signs that there will be an earnest push in
    that
    direction. In Europe, Jakob and the Germans are scrutinizing records,
    many
    of them set by athletes from the former East Germany, whose regime used
    its
    phenomenal, steroid-fueled sports success for propaganda purposes. In the
    United States, lawmakers are preparing legislation recommending that
    sports
    leagues strike down records tainted by performance-enhancing drugs, too.

    Major League Baseball's case is particularly tricky, because some of the
    records that might be questioned, including Barry Bonds's single-season
    home
    run mark of 73 in 2001, were set when steroids were not banned in
    baseball.
    That ban did not come until 2002, and the sport began testing only in
    2003.

    It has yet to create credible penalties, with first-time offenders
    receiving
    mere 10-day suspensions, which is why Senators John McCain and Jim
    Bunning,
    a Hall of Fame pitcher, are planning to reintroduce legislation that
    would
    standardize drug testing and sanctions for professional team sports in
    the
    United States and follow the World Anti-Doping Agency norm of two-year
    bans
    for first offenses.

    That proposal, which would bring the United States in line with the
    Olympic
    movement, would seem to have a fine chance of eventually passing muster.
    But
    revising record books, however noble-minded, remains a long shot, for
    both
    legal and practical reasons.

    The best example of success in recent years was in weightlifting, which
    changed all its weight classes and started afresh in a response to
    credibility concerns brought on by doping. In 1999, Helmut Digel, a
    former
    German athletics federation president who is one of the architects of
    Germany's current record review, proposed that track and field allay its
    doping concerns by starting fresh with its world records in 2000, but his
    proposal was soundly rejected by the IAAF.

    The International Olympic Committee has also rebuffed attempts to amend

    'We want to give a sign that we are dealing with this issue of doping.'

    Olympic results from the 1970s and 1980s based on new doping evidence. In
    1998, it rejected an appeal by the British Olympic Committee on behalf of
    swimmer Sharron Davies that sought acknowledgment in the Olympic record
    book
    that Petra Schneider had admitted being involved in East Germany's doping
    program. Schneider defeated Davies by a huge margin for the gold in the
    women's 400-meter individual medley in 1980.

    IOC officials expressed concern about the ramifications of opening the
    door
    to such amendments. It now has a three-year statute of limitations for
    protests involving Olympic results, although the World Anti-Doping
    Agency's
    statute of limitations is eight years.

    Many of the records at issue in Germany's investigation go back more than
    10
    years. Without a positive drug-test result, it is exceedingly difficult
    to
    prove that somebody cheated on a given day, and nobody has yet been able
    to
    prove, for example, that Marita Koch of East Germany was cheating on Oct.
    6,
    1985, in Canberra, when she ran 400 meters in 47.60 seconds during the
    World
    Cup, a world record that no one has come close to threatening in the two
    decades since.

    On that same day and track, four of Koch's compatriots - Silke Gladisch,
    Sabine Rieger, Ingrid Auerswald and Marlies Göhr - set a world record of
    41.37 seconds in the 4x100-meter women's relay that still stands the test
    of
    time but not suspicion.

    German trials since reunification have proved that East Germany engaged
    in
    systematic, state-sponsored doping: administering steroids to thousands
    of
    athletes, including some preteens, often without their knowledge. That
    often
    resulted in serious health problems later in their lives. Such athletes
    should be perceived as victims, not frauds, but that doesn't mean that
    their
    drug-enhanced marks should stand.

    Ines Geipel agrees. She was one of those youngsters, and it was her
    request
    this year that her name be removed from the German record book that
    persuaded the German athletics federation to undertake a re-examination
    of
    every record.

    Geipel, under her maiden name of Ines Schmidt, was part of a 4x100 relay
    team that set a national club record of 42.20 seconds in 1984. Now a
    successful author, she wants to play no more part in a sham. So far, she
    is
    the only former track star to make such a request.

    Koch continues to deny any impropriety, although reports in Germany,
    based
    on examination of files of the Stasi secret police, assert that there are
    records that she was administered steroids on a regular basis.

    The Stasi files will be a big part of the German federation's
    investigation,
    but Jakob takes pains to emphasize that this is not exclusively an
    investigation of the former East, even though 22 of the national records
    in
    question were set by East German athletes before unification in 1990.

    "Most people or journalists only talk about the East Germans, and they
    were
    part of the system, and it was automatic that if you were in the top 10
    or
    20, you got those substances," Jakob said. "But it's not that the problem
    just existed in the East. People in the Western part were doped as well,
    but
    the difference was there was no system behind them, so you have no
    papers,
    no files, no proof, because they did it individually."

    Perhaps the biggest problem with ripping up the record book decades later
    is
    that there is no certainty that those who are benefiting were clean
    themselves. Drug testing was not nearly as sophisticated or comprehensive
    in
    the 1970s and 1980s. But erasing a bogus benchmark does have one
    undeniable
    benefit. It gives hope to the next generation of runners or swimmers or
    home
    run hitters, and that should give Jakob and her committee strength as
    they
    investigate curiously low numbers like Koch's 47.60 seconds in the long
    months ahead.

    --
    Steven L. Sheffield
    stevens at veloworks dot com
    bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
    ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
    aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
    double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [foreword] slash

    --
    Steven L. Sheffield
    stevens at veloworks dot com
    bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
    ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
    aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
    double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [foreword] slash

  5. "John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 23:53:16 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:


    Wrong , Sherlock.

    Still illegal.

    JT

    Fair use.

  6. "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On 11/04/2005 04:53 PM, in article
    [email hidden], "B. Lafferty"

    Quoted message said:


    Wrong , Sherlock.
    http://www.nytimes.com/iht/2005/11/04/sports/IHT-04arena.html?pagewanted=print

    Poor Laughingstock misses the point again ...

    A. The article was still posted here in violation of international
    copyright
    laws. As a lawyer, you should know this, and should be disbarred for
    willfully violating the law. If you did not know this, you should be
    disbarred for incompetence.


    Fair use.

    Quoted message said:

    B. You posted the URL to a syndicated version which appeared in today's
    New
    York Times. I posted the URL to the original article, which appeared in
    the
    International Herald Tribune.

    Good job stating the obvious.

  7. On 11/05/2005 04:34 AM, in article
    [email hidden], "B. Lafferty"

    Quoted message said:


    "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On 11/04/2005 04:53 PM, in article
    [email hidden], "B. Lafferty"

    Quoted message said:


    Wrong , Sherlock.
    http://www.nytimes.com/iht/2005/11/04/sports/IHT-04arena.html?pagewanted=pri
    nt

    Poor Laughingstock misses the point again ...

    A. The article was still posted here in violation of international
    copyright
    laws. As a lawyer, you should know this, and should be disbarred for
    willfully violating the law. If you did not know this, you should be
    disbarred for incompetence.


    Fair use.

    Laughingstock --

    You might want to spend more time researching what does and does not
    constitute "fair use".

    Fair use does not allow you to quote an entire article; only a portion of
    it, to illustrate a point in commentary about the article or the news
    contained therein, for a limited or "transformative" purpose. You might
    want to refer to 17 USC 1, S. 107 which states that:

    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.

    Source: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/

    Pay particular note to items (3) and (4) above.

    From
    http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.htm
    l#3:

    3. The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken

    The less you take, the more likely that your copying will be excused
    as a fair use. However, even if you take a small portion of a work,
    your copying will not be a fair use if the portion taken is the "heart"
    of the work. In other words, you are more likely to run into problems
    if you take the most memorable aspect of a work.

    Refer also to "Religious Technology Center v. Lerma, 40 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1569
    (E.D. Va. 1996)." and " Religious Technology Center v. Pagliarina, 908 F.
    Supp 1353 (E.D. Va. 1995).)"

    You posted the entire article. You did not cite the source or include the
    article's copyright information. You potentially deprived both the New York
    Times and the International Herald Tribune of income they would have derived
    from people clicking on a link you could have provided which would have
    allowed the publications to display advertisements.

    In your case, what would truly constitute "fair use" would have been a short
    "transformative" commentary about the article, an excerpt from the article
    (but not the entire article), and a link to the article, as I did above.

    I've found the Stanford University Libraries Copyright and Fair Use website
    to be a valuble resource. Perhaps you should spend some time there boning
    up on current case law and commentary.

    http://fairuse.stanford.edu/index.html

    I also find it quite interesting that someone with no legal training
    whatsoever seems to have a better comprehension of legal concepts such as
    "fair use" than someone who has a Juris Doctorate, which once again
    illustrates my point that you should be disbarred for incompetence.

    --
    Steven L. Sheffield
    stevens at veloworks dot com
    bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
    ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
    aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
    double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [foreword] slash

  8. "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On 11/05/2005 04:34 AM, in article
    [email hidden], "B. Lafferty"

    Quoted message said:


    "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On 11/04/2005 04:53 PM, in article
    [email hidden], "B. Lafferty"
    <[email hidden]> wrote:

    >
    > Wrong , Sherlock.
    > http://www.nytimes.com/iht/2005/11/04/sports/IHT-04arena.html?pagewanted=pri
    > nt

    Poor Laughingstock misses the point again ...

    A. The article was still posted here in violation of international
    copyright
    laws. As a lawyer, you should know this, and should be disbarred for
    willfully violating the law. If you did not know this, you should be
    disbarred for incompetence.


    Fair use.

    Laughingstock --

    You might want to spend more time researching what does and does not
    constitute "fair use".

    Fair use does not allow you to quote an entire article; only a portion of
    it, to illustrate a point in commentary about the article or the news
    contained therein, for a limited or "transformative" purpose. You might
    want to refer to 17 USC 1, S. 107 which states that:

    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.

    Source: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/

    Pay particular note to items (3) and (4) above.

    From
    http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.htm
    l#3:

    3. The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken

    The less you take, the more likely that your copying will be excused
    as a fair use. However, even if you take a small portion of a work,
    your copying will not be a fair use if the portion taken is the "heart"
    of the work. In other words, you are more likely to run into problems
    if you take the most memorable aspect of a work.

    Refer also to "Religious Technology Center v. Lerma, 40 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1569
    (E.D. Va. 1996)." and " Religious Technology Center v. Pagliarina, 908 F.
    Supp 1353 (E.D. Va. 1995).)"

    You posted the entire article. You did not cite the source or include the
    article's copyright information. You potentially deprived both the New
    York
    Times and the International Herald Tribune of income they would have
    derived
    from people clicking on a link you could have provided which would have
    allowed the publications to display advertisements.

    In your case, what would truly constitute "fair use" would have been a
    short
    "transformative" commentary about the article, an excerpt from the article
    (but not the entire article), and a link to the article, as I did above.

    I've found the Stanford University Libraries Copyright and Fair Use
    website
    to be a valuble resource. Perhaps you should spend some time there boning
    up on current case law and commentary.

    http://fairuse.stanford.edu/index.html

    I also find it quite interesting that someone with no legal training
    whatsoever seems to have a better comprehension of legal concepts such as
    "fair use" than someone who has a Juris Doctorate, which once again
    illustrates my point that you should be disbarred for incompetence.

    You might want to read further than you did. As to what you did read, focus
    on numbers 1,2 and 4.

    You might also consider what one commentator has to say regarding usenet;
    "Note that most inclusion of text in Usenet followups is for commentary and
    reply, and it doesn't damage the commercial value of the original posting
    (if it has any) and as such it is fair use. Fair use isn't an exact
    doctrine, either. The court decides if the right to comment overrides the
    copyright on an individual basis in each case. There have been cases that go
    beyond the bounds of what I say above, but in general they don't apply to
    the typical net misclaim of fair use."

    If you bother to do any in depth research, you will see that this is an
    evolving issue in intellectual property law that has not been resolved. And
    that's why you're not a lawyer, because lawyers know that the world is
    rarely black or white.

  9. The thing is, you don't provide commentary. You just post the text.
    It's one of your more annoying habits.

    I'd find your posts a lot more useful if you'd post pertinent passages
    and give your impressions. When you just post a complete article with
    no commentary, it's as if you're insulting us by saying that, 1) we'd
    never find it ourselves, and 2) if you can't figure out what it means,
    well then...

  10. "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]> wrote ...

    Quoted message said:


    Laughingstock --

    You might want to spend more time researching what does and does not
    constitute "fair use".

    I see I'm not missing anything..

    JF

  11. Yea, he is right. I would have bought the newspaper if it were not quoted in
    its entirety here.
    "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On 11/05/2005 04:34 AM, in article
    [email hidden], "B. Lafferty"

    Quoted message said:


    "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On 11/04/2005 04:53 PM, in article
    [email hidden], "B. Lafferty"
    <[email hidden]> wrote:

    >
    > Wrong , Sherlock.
    >


    http://www.nytimes.com/iht/2005/11/04/sports/IHT-04arena.html?pagewanted=pri

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > nt

    Poor Laughingstock misses the point again ...

    A. The article was still posted here in violation of international
    copyright
    laws. As a lawyer, you should know this, and should be disbarred for
    willfully violating the law. If you did not know this, you should be
    disbarred for incompetence.


    Fair use.

    Laughingstock --

    You might want to spend more time researching what does and does not
    constitute "fair use".

    Fair use does not allow you to quote an entire article; only a portion of
    it, to illustrate a point in commentary about the article or the news
    contained therein, for a limited or "transformative" purpose. You might
    want to refer to 17 USC 1, S. 107 which states that:

    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;

    Quoted message said:

    (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.

    Source: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/

    Pay particular note to items (3) and (4) above.

    From


    http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.htm

    Quoted message said:

    l#3:

    3. The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken

    The less you take, the more likely that your copying will be excused
    as a fair use. However, even if you take a small portion of a work,
    your copying will not be a fair use if the portion taken is the


    "heart"

    Quoted message said:

    of the work. In other words, you are more likely to run into problems
    if you take the most memorable aspect of a work.

    Refer also to "Religious Technology Center v. Lerma, 40 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1569
    (E.D. Va. 1996)." and " Religious Technology Center v. Pagliarina, 908 F.
    Supp 1353 (E.D. Va. 1995).)"

    You posted the entire article. You did not cite the source or include the
    article's copyright information. You potentially deprived both the New


    York

    Quoted message said:

    Times and the International Herald Tribune of income they would have


    derived

    Quoted message said:

    from people clicking on a link you could have provided which would have
    allowed the publications to display advertisements.

    In your case, what would truly constitute "fair use" would have been a


    short

    Quoted message said:

    "transformative" commentary about the article, an excerpt from the article
    (but not the entire article), and a link to the article, as I did above.

    I've found the Stanford University Libraries Copyright and Fair Use


    website

    Quoted message said:

    to be a valuble resource. Perhaps you should spend some time there boning
    up on current case law and commentary.

    http://fairuse.stanford.edu/index.html

    I also find it quite interesting that someone with no legal training
    whatsoever seems to have a better comprehension of legal concepts such as
    "fair use" than someone who has a Juris Doctorate, which once again
    illustrates my point that you should be disbarred for incompetence.

    --
    Steven L. Sheffield
    stevens at veloworks dot com
    bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
    ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
    aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
    double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [foreword] slash

  12. In article <[email hidden]>,

    B. Lafferty said:

    You might want to read further than you did. As to what you did read, focus
    on numbers 1,2 and 4.

    You might also consider what one commentator has to say regarding usenet;
    "Note that most inclusion of text in Usenet followups is for commentary and
    reply, and it doesn't damage the commercial value of the original posting
    (if it has any) and as such it is fair use. Fair use isn't an exact
    doctrine, either. The court decides if the right to comment overrides the
    copyright on an individual basis in each case. There have been cases that go
    beyond the bounds of what I say above, but in general they don't apply to
    the typical net misclaim of fair use."

    If you bother to do any in depth research, you will see that this is an
    evolving issue in intellectual property law that has not been resolved. And
    that's why you're not a lawyer, because lawyers know that the world is
    rarely black or white.

    Brian, the precedent as I've seen it applied is that use of an article for
    the purpose of review or to further the author's (of an article that is making
    use of a quoted piece) point is acceptable when portions of an article are used.
    To simply copy an entire article and have no commentary that is based around the
    article is not really following this precedent. I believe that the use of an
    entire article is generally limited to article that are a few lines in length,
    but in those instances, the article being used is part of a bigger piece by the
    person quoting it. You quote someone who states that "The court decides if the
    right to comment overrides the copyright on an individual basis in each case."
    This may be true, however, you quote sans commenting on a very regular basis, so
    I don't think that really applies here.

    It is true that quotation of articles on the net is an evolving issue. But
    there is a fairly well established precedent that is followed, in general. The
    one group who seem to stray from that on a very regular basis and quote entire
    articles are the Freepers. I sure hope that you aren't using *them* as a role
    model, Brian.

    The point is that you could very easily quote a portion of an article, add a
    link to it, and type a few lines of your own, and that would be much more in the
    spirit of "fair use".

    --
    tanx,
    Howard

    The sheriff is near...

    remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.