SPR Library is now On-Line

[SteveGrenard]

http://www.spr.ac.uk/index.php3?page=onlinelibrary



* * * * * * * * * *

SPR ONLINE LIBRARY

"You can now view and search the full text of all of
the Journals and Proceedings published by the Society
for Psychical Research. This service is available free
of charge to all members. "

There is more information on this at the above website.

[TLN]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
These volumes span 120 years and represent some 60,000
pages of material.

And in all that Steve, have they generated one replicateable experiment?

Can I see it please?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by TLN


And in all that Steve, have they generated one replicateable experiment?

Can I see it please?

It would help if you weren't a lazy researcher. :)

Why not jus go and look for yourself? SteveG isn't (at least not in this thread) making the claim that there is such experiments.

[TLN]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
It would help if you weren't a lazy researcher. :)

Nonsense. How on Earth do you know what I've researched? Psychic?

My diligence in research isn't going to produce the experiment. It's either there, or it isn't.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Why not jus go and look for yourself?

I have, a great deal in fact. It's not there. Can you point it out, yes or no? May I see it please?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
SteveG isn't (at least not in this thread) making the claim that there is such experiments.

If it's not scientific evidence, who cares? Why post anything unless it supports all the things Steve would love to be true?

Just show me the science that supports the claims, any of the claims. I'm tired of all the useless talk and cut-and-paste posts people don't even understand.

If you asked me for proof that the Earth is round I could provide you with a simple experiment to run using only simple tools. You could prove it to yourself and anyone else you wanted to that the Earth was in fact round.

I just want to see the experiments that prove the paranormal claims people would like to be true, any of the claims. Anything else is a waste of time. Talking about John Edward's show or NDA or seminars is all a complete waste of time (yes, one I acknowledge I participate in). Until he's in a lab performing replicating experiments we'll never know for sure, period. It could go either way.

Show me the money or quit wasting my time on Edward, psi, NDEs, precognition, the loch ness monster, or any of this other nonsense.

Just show me.

[Lord Kenneth]

Don't waste your time on Whodini. He's just a useless troll.

[T'ai Chi]

It's not there. Can you point it out, yes or no? May I see it please?


I never said I could.

It's not there, ok, fine. Then why are you asking to see something that is not there? That's fun-E!


Why post anything unless it supports all the things Steve would love to be true?


I don't know. I'd say ask Steve and see what he says.


Just show me the science that supports the claims, any of the claims. I'm tired of all the useless talk and cut-and-paste posts people don't even understand.


What claims? Could you be more specific? List maybe 10 of their supposed claims?


I just want to see the experiments that prove the paranormal claims people would like to be true, any of the claims.


How about random number generator experiments?


Until he's in a lab performing replicating experiments we'll never know for sure, period.


I agree.


Show me the money or quit wasting my time on Edward, psi, NDEs, precognition, the loch ness monster, or any of this other nonsense.

Just show me.

Glad people are in it just to show you. :rolleyes:

[Lord Kenneth]

Is Whodini really an idiot, or is he trolling for kicks? I can't believe anyone could be that dense.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
He's just a useless troll.

Yeah, it is better to post one-liner glib comments. You're doing good so far.

Anyway, Lord Kenneth, come over to the 'math/stat questions for T'ai Chi' thread in the Science section. It is fun, and we don't troll over there. :)

[Lord Kenneth]

I would engage you if you weren't an idiot and a troll to boot.

But, alas all you deserve is scorn. If you were a begger on the street I would spit in your donation cup.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
I would engage you if you weren't an idiot and a troll to boot.

But, alas all you deserve is scorn. If you were a begger on the street I would spit in your donation cup.

Is there a reason why you are being rude to me?

Just put me on ignore.

I'll keep reporting your posts as harassment. No problem there.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by TLN

Just show me the science that supports the claims, any of the claims. I'm tired of all the useless talk and cut-and-paste posts people don't even understand.


Um, could you demonstrate for us all how what Steve posted has anything to do with making a claim? That would be great.

Simply associating Steve's non-claim posts with any claims he posted in the past is not good enough (not good at all, really).

[Ersby]

You can now view and search the full text of all of
the Journals and Proceedings published by the Society
for Psychical Research.



Best news I've had all day (even if it is only 8.40 here). Thanks for the heads up, Steve.

[hal bidlack]

This thread has been reported, and so I have read it. The complaint is that LK is harassing TC. I find that this thread contains silly squabbling back and forth, but no harassment.

Just stop it, you guys, this is getting old, and I'm tired of these reports.

[Clancie]

Thanks for the resource, Steve. I'm looking forward to seeing what they have available about Mrs. Piper.

Re: Lord Kenneth
Posted by Lord Kenneth to T'ai Chi

1st post: "Don't waste your time on Whodini. He's just a useless troll."

2nd post: "Is Whodini really an idiot, or is he trolling for kicks? I can't believe anyone could be that dense.

3rd post: "I would engage you if you weren't an idiot and a troll to boot.

But, alas all you deserve is scorn. If you were a begger on the street I would spit in your donation cup."

All this, plus starting a totally pointless thread (unless, of course, the point is just baiting someone) about the same thing yesterday.

These comments--with absolutely nothing to do with the topic whatsoever--are, at best, extremely immature, Kenneth.
Posted by hal bidlack

Just stop it, you guys, this is getting old, and I'm tired of these reports.
Well, I don't see what T'ai Chi has done except try to ignore Kenneth's repeated baiting. :confused:

And, Kenneth, Hal is being very very kind to you to let you continue with this barage of unprovoked insults here and other threads, imo.

edited to add: I don't see any difference between what you're doing with T'ai Chi (and have done to me in the past), and what nFactor got suspended for for doing to you, frankly.

[Clancie]

Okay, last thing OT, but re: Lord Kenneth and T'ai Chi....since its already inappropriately on this thread.

Why was LK's thread to Tai Chi that he started here yesterday (" Why does Whodini (Tai Chi) feel the need to plug in his supposed education?") moved to "Flame Wars" without the usual administrative annotation?

There's a pattern of behavior on LK's part that shouldn't just be hidden when other people are held accountable for doing the exact same thing.

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

If you don't approve of squabbling, then you should refrain from deranging this thread yourself.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

quote: ( TLN )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why post anything unless it supports all the things Steve would love to be true?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't know. I'd say ask Steve and see what he says.


:rolleyes:



That was what he had done, when you decided to jump in.. And answer for him.. :rolleyes:

[TLN]

Originally posted by Diogenes
That was what he had done, when you decided to jump in.. And answer for him.. :rolleyes:

Exactly. TC, stick to the conversations you started, but won't finish.

[SteveGrenard]

Well in general terms I think we would all "LOVE" for a lot of things paranormal to be true but in reality they are not. I hope that answers that assertion.

Some of you give short shrift to the SPR without ever having become familiar with their work, their journal, their library and their proceedings. They are open to publication, peer reviewed, of any study involving the paranormal regardless of whether or not the conclusion proves or disproves the claims or hypotheses offered. Thus there are many authors who have done experiments which didnt prove anything or which disproved other things; these include such persons as Richard Wiseman and Susan Blackmore.
Even a letter James Randi wrote about Matthew Manning was featured in an issue recently. There is no agenda that everything published in this journal has to be overwhelmingly in favor of a particular paranormal hypothesis. I am sure if Randi and a collaborator were one day to decide to write up his experiments vis a vis the Challenge in a manner consistent with a scientific paper they would be more than happy to publish such a contribution as well. In fact a whole slew of these tests might even merit a separate Proceedings volume. Of course I am not holding my breath.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
This thread has been reported, and so I have read it. The complaint is that LK is harassing TC. I find that this thread contains silly squabbling back and forth, but no harassment.

Just stop it, you guys, this is getting old, and I'm tired of these reports.


So calling someone out on trolling is harassment? LOL.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


It would help if you weren't a lazy researcher. :)

Why not jus go and look for yourself? SteveG isn't (at least not in this thread) making the claim that there is such experiments.


Ta'i Chi, you big troll. Since no one else did, I'll call you out on this.

You are nothing but an anti-skeptic troll. You yourself have asked other people to provide evidence, in fact MORESO than other people have done, after they have made fairly-established claims.

You asked me to provide evidence that police have done to psychics before. Of course, a simple google search turned up things. So, YOU are the lazy researcher now?

We both know you are a kook with an anti-skeptic agenda. Truth isn't your goal, trying to humiliate and give skeptics a hard time is. You are a failure, intellectually, and also a failure as a troll.

But of course, I don't expect you to respond to this or any other intellectually honest post. Unless, of course, it's another little sniveling troll post of yours.

Not to mention you yourself know damn well that no matter how hard he looks (and doesn't find it) Steve can just claim that he just didn't come across it or ignored it.

You know us skeptics say that since he makes the claim, he needs to provide the evidence. Your credulous ways make you want to resist that notion. You don't understand the reasons for why that is, but since skeptics say it you feel the need to oppose it.

[Clancie]

Kenneth,

Do you have anything at all to contribute to the topic of this thread?

Once again, the topic of this thread is....the Society of Psychical Research reference materials which are now available online.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

Ta'i Chi, you big troll. Since no one else did, I'll call you out on this.


I'll address your thoughts LK, if you'd like, but only in a PM. I agree with Hal: there is no need for us to clutter up this thread. PM me if you'd like.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I'll address your thoughts LK, if you'd like, but only in a PM. I agree with Hal: there is no need for us to clutter up this thread. PM me if you'd like. [/B]

You know that's what hal's not asking, and I will never PM you. Why can't you reply to my post here?

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Clancie
Kenneth,

Do you have anything at all to contribute to the topic of this thread?

Once again, the topic of this thread is....the Society of Psychical Research reference materials which are now available online.


That's very interesting, Clancie.

You see, by replying to me in this manner (not over PM or anything) you commit the exact same crime.

A crime you have commited in the past as well. Many times you have gone into my topics just to oppose or criticize me...

[Rayn]

The SPR is fantastic. Despite TLNs requests for a conclusive study (which, there obviously isn't as of yet) there are quite a few studies done, which skeptics reply to and fault with. The back and forth among members of the SPR are really fascinating, and I personally enjoy reading about it and learning more.

By the way Steve, how do you access the journal? It seems that you have to register with Chi-litbase, but they don't offer a link there. Thanks for the info, appreciate it.

[SteveGrenard]

I believe you have to be a member first off and register your e-mail address with the society so its recognized when you log on to the database. I also tried the following link and did not include it because it was not working for me earlier (havent tried it again lately):

To enter the library directly, go to

http://www.c-far.net/litbase/litbase.jsp

It is not clear to me at this point whether they will allow one to browse the citations without beinbg a member and the full text of a document requiring that you are.

There is a membership info link on the original URL I posted.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The information below was taken from the SPR website at

http://www.spr.ac.uk/index.php3?page=onlinelibrary

...

Steve,

This post is another cut & paste job that violates the authors' copyright. Could you please pare it down to something that conforms with both JREF rules and copyright law?

[hal bidlack]

This thread has been reported, again, for copyright violation. I have read the original post.

The original post is not an article, but rather the entire contents of a page at the SPR on what materials are available on that website. Therefore, it does not qualify for editing under the 'article rule' in terms of citations and such.

However, I visited the page, and did not find any blanket permission to exactly reproduce the contents.

Therefore, Steve, I must ask that you do one of two things: remove the contents of the first post, and provide a link and your own words of explanation, or obtain from the SPR explicit permission to reproduce the contents of their pages.

You may not, as I have been instructed, reproduce the content of a website without permission. There is an implicit copyright for such material.

I find the original post to be a violation, but not a terrible one, and am willing to let Steve have a bit of time to fix it.

hal bidlack
administrator

[De_Bunk]

I have to agree...

But it's still an excellent link....

Sorry Steve, but you of all people...should have known better...( and probably did)

DB

[SteveGrenard]

The contents of this website which are institutional blurb of a non-profit organization have been widely circulated as you see above on listservs However, I understand your rules here and have no problem removing that material and just leaving the link and the brief paragraph of what its about. Anybody needing more is welcome to click on it to get that information.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The contents of this website which are institutional blurb of a non-profit organization have been widely circulated as you see above on listservs However, I understand your rules here and have no problem removing that material and just leaving the link and the brief paragraph of what its about. Anybody needing more is welcome to click on it to get that information.
Steve,

The fact that others may have violated copyrights is immaterial. JREF rules are also immaterial in this instance. International copyright law give implicit copyright to any author. Implicit. Copyright filings are not necessary. Neither are copyright notices. What is necessary to permit the kind of cutting and pasting you had done was for the author to give up some of his copyrights. SPR has not done so.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Steve,

The fact that others may have violated copyrights is immaterial. JREF rules are also immaterial in this instance. International copyright law give implicit copyright to any author. Implicit. Copyright filings are not necessary. Neither are copyright notices. What is necessary to permit the kind of cutting and pasting you had done was for the author to give up some of his copyrights. SPR has not done so.

As usual, cry baby Billy is wrong. "Waah! Waah! Make the nasty data go away, mommy / Hal." :rolleyes: Billy, the JREF is a non-profit, educational, electronic forum, and as such the FU of whole articles is acceptable in law. It is just not acceptable to pseudo-skeptics when it contains information which validates scientific advances and the progression of knowledge. But we know that, that's why Liarson censored the PEAR PRP paper here and that's why you are trying to censor the SPR.

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Billy, the JREF is a non-profit, educational, electronic forum, and as such the FU of whole articles is acceptable in law.

Do you have a reference for this? I'm amazed that non-profit status - a declaration regarding taxation that's specific to a given country - has any impact on international copyright law. I also don't understand what educational or electronic has to do with it. Does this mean that schools are exempt from copyright law?

In any case the policy of JREF is clear. No full articles without clear permission.

It is just not acceptable to pseudo-skeptics when it contains information which validates scientific advances and the progression of knowledge. But we know that, that's why Liarson censored the PEAR PRP paper here and that's why you are trying to censor the SPR.

So it's not being applied uniformly? Can you point me to the threads where 'pseudo-skeptics' have posted full articles that were not required to be edited?

How can you equate this with censorship anyway? If the aim of the moderators was to censor, then they would just delete this thread, delete your account and a few others, and poof. Do you find it at all ironic (or is that psironic) that you are claiming JREF is censoring information about SPR in a thread on JREF which announces and points to SPR?? Yep, JREF sure is clamping down on that unfortunate information, yesiree... :rolleyes:

[gnome]

Some strange definition of the term "censorship" which means leaving the content still available, I guess.

I too have seen boards that genuinely censor--remove the thread, remove the account--even when the only "offense" is questioning politely how a previous post violated the rules.. That's how you can tell censorship.

[SteveGrenard]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The contents of this website which are institutional blurb of a non-profit organization have been widely circulated as you see above on listservs However, I understand your rules here and have no problem removing that material and just leaving the link and the brief paragraph of what its about. Anybody needing more is welcome to click on it to get that information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hoyt writes:-
Steve,

The fact that others may have violated copyrights is immaterial. JREF rules are also immaterial in this instance. International copyright law give implicit copyright to any author. Implicit. Copyright filings are not necessary. Neither are copyright notices. What is necessary to permit the kind of cutting and pasting you had done was for the author to give up some of his copyrights. SPR has not done so.

What I truly fail to see is any relevance between what Hoyt decided to do to badger me and the content of my message that precedes it. JREF rules are not immaterial here. Within moments of getting Hal's message I complied with his request, no questions asked. The site at issue is not copywritten. None of it. It is freely copied and circulated because it is the intent of the Society to make its new and very welcome on-line library widely available. For most of the SPR's existence one would either have to go to London to see most of this material as well as wait interminably long periods for journals to reach members abroad. In addition, back issues had to be purchased as hard copies when they were even available. This is a marvelous advance over the prior dissemination of this organization's materials . Its like one annual membership will provide a key to up all 120 years of the society's literature. This type of program is being embraced by other publishers and organizations as well who publish scholarly journals.

It is also irrelevant whether the work of this society (which features material by James Randi, and CSICOP executive members such as Richard Wiseman and Susan Blackmore, as well as a wide range of both super skeptics and those who are inclined to be more openminded about the need for research on the paranormal) runs counter intuitive to the objectives of this forum unless this forum is closed to free and open inquiry from
any source . I sort of think this is not true. There are no agendas favoring one side or the other at the SPR and insofar as I can see there are no such agendas here either except as spit out by a miniroity involving a handful of people.

Luci: I have spoken to Hal about this in Private Message mode. Any attempt to censor here is made by certain individuals such as Larsen (now on permanent ignore so he does not have to bother addressing questions to me anymore), Hoyt, TLN, and well, you know who they are. I do not accept that the majority of people here are in any way guilty of this nor are the moderators or the sponsor. Hal has thanked me for acting quickly and responsibly to revise/edit my original post to meet the JREF rules, which are material. I thank Bill Hoyt for allowing me to open up this thread again for further discussion and explanation.

[FutileJester]

Thanks for the link Steve, that's a good resource.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The site at issue is not copywritten. None of it. It is freely copied and circulated because it is the intent of the Society to make its new and very welcome on-line library widely available.

In practice I'm sure there's no problem here since they obviously want this material to be distributed. I believe the issue of implied copyrights is real, however, and that a less reasonable organization in a similar situation could make it an issue. Are you touch with any of those responsible for the site? Perhaps you could suggest they place an explicit 'may be freely copied'-type message on selected portions of the site.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
What I truly fail to see is any relevance between what Hoyt decided to do to badger me and the content of my message that precedes it. JREF rules are not immaterial here. Within moments of getting Hal's message I complied with his request, no questions asked. The site at issue is not copywritten. None of it. It is freely copied and circulated because it is the intent of the Society to make its new and very welcome on-line library widely available.
...
Luci: I have spoken to Hal about this in Private Message mode. Any attempt to censor here is made by certain individuals such as Larsen (now on permanent ignore so he does not have to bother addressing questions to me anymore), Hoyt, TLN, and well, you know who they are. I do not accept that the majority of people here are in any way guilty of this nor are the moderators or the sponsor. Hal has thanked me for acting quickly and responsibly to revise/edit my original post to meet the JREF rules, which are material. I thank Bill Hoyt for allowing me to open up this thread again for further discussion and explanation.


Steve,

There is no attempt to censor here. The JREF rules are immaterial. They are superceded by international copyright law. If JREF rules said nothing about not posting copyrighted material, your post would still have been in violation of copyright law. We have already had at least one discussion about this. Look it up, sir.

The SPR site has nothing I have yet found granting permission to copy its material. International copyright law presumes all material is copyrighted unless the author explicitly, and in writing, gives some or all of those rights up. That is the law, sir. Look it up.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Luci: I have spoken to Hal about this in Private Message mode. Any attempt to censor here is made by certain individuals such as Larsen (now on permanent ignore so he does not have to bother addressing questions to me anymore), Hoyt, TLN, and well, you know who they are.

What are you talking about? You are not "censored" just because you cannot post whole articles here. It's just another unsubstantiated accusation from you, one that you won't allow me to defend myself against, since you have me on ignore.

You've played the censorship card before, and it always works against you, Steve - as do any other card in your limited pack.

I can't understand why you never learn...

[Jeff Corey]

Censorship?
This is from the guy who banned me and 26 others from his defunct "Survival Science" board for daring to ask questions.
What a maroon.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Billy, the JREF is a non-profit, educational, electronic forum, and as such the FU of whole articles is acceptable in law.
Ah, goody. Another specious Luci claim.

Luci,

Please provide evidence of the law permitting non-profits to infringe an author's copyrights. Cite the specific laws.

[Dogwood]

I just logged in to check things out. This is sweet. It includes proceedings all the way back to 1884. Thanks for the link Steve.

Edited to add:

oops. Proceedings since 1882. The journal since 1884.

[SteveGrenard]

Corey -- talk about maroons. WHy dont you learn to read. Ditto for Larsen who I just had to see what silly thing he said. I said there was no censorship. I was chiding Luci for suggesting there was. Why dont you guys learn to read? And better yet ........comprehend what you read. I know you find it difficult
to accept the fact that I said this but then don't turn it around and misinterpret to suit your mind sets.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Corey -- talk about maroons. WHy dont you learn to read. Ditto for Larsen who I just had to see what silly thing he said. I said there was no censorship. I was chiding Luci for suggesting there was. Why dont you guys learn to read? And better yet ........comprehend what you read. I know you find it difficult
to accept the fact that I said this but then don't turn it around and misinterpret to suit your mind sets.

Rrrrrrrrrrrright.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
"Any attempt to censor here is made by certain individuals such as Larsen.."

Rrrrrrrrrrrright.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I said there was no censorship.

Any attempt to censor here is made by certain individuals such as Larsen (now on permanent ignore so he does not have to bother addressing questions to me anymore), Hoyt, TLN, and well, you know who they are.

Fallacy of self-contradiction.

[SteveGrenard]

Official censorship. The tactics of yourself Hoyt, as well as Larsen have been well revealed and those who agree with them are part of your flock. Individuals attempt to cesnor by using devices such as redundant questioning, misattributing misquoting, reversing object and subject, and other time worn and patently obvious cons of their own to attempt to stifle debate and impose a form of censorship. So again, read my statement carefully unless of course you feel that you, Larsen, TLN etc "are the Board" in which case I wish you well.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Official censorship. The tactics of yourself Hoyt, as well as Larsen have been well revealed and those who agree with them are part of your flock. Individuals attempt to cesnor by using devices such as redundant questioning, misattributing misquoting, reversing object and subject, and other time worn and patently obvious cons of their own to attempt to stifle debate and impose a form of censorship. So again, read my statement carefully unless of course you feel that you, Larsen, TLN etc "are the Board" in which case I wish you well.

Steve,

These are attempts to cesnor? Sorry, I can't stop laughing...

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Ah, goody. Another specious Luci claim.

Luci,

Please provide evidence of the law permitting non-profits to infringe an author's copyrights. Cite the specific laws.

Fair Use Provision of the Copyright Act - The Statutory Decree §107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair Use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Factor 1 -
Purpose and Character of Use This first factor looks at the new work takes into account the following three sub-factors.

Commercial nature or non-profit educational purposes.
Preamble Purposes
Criticism
Comment
News reporting
Teaching
Scholarship
Research
Degree of Transformation
The first sub-factor (1) simply looks at the new work and determines whether it was created primarily as a for profit venture or was created for a non-profit educational purpose. While not at all determinative, this test indicates that preference will be granted to works that were created for non-profit educational purposes (like this Web page!).

The second sub-factor (2) looks to see if the new work is for one of the purposes that are mentioned in the preamble of the fair use provision. It should be noted that this list is not restrictive. However, the burden of showing fair use is somewhat easier if the work is for one of these purposes.

The third sub-factor (3) looks at the degree of transformation accomplished by the new work. In other words, this sub-factor seeks to determine whether the new work merely supplants the original, or whether it adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, thereby altering the first with new expression, meaning or message.

Factor 2 -
Nature of Copyrighted Work This second factor acknowledges that fact that some works are simply more deserving of copyright protection than others. Consequently, this portion of the test looks at the original work and attempts to determine where that work is in the spectrum of worthiness of copyright protection.

Factor 3 -
Relative Amount The third factor looks at the amount and substantiality of the copying in relation to the work as a whole. However, the critical determination is whether the quality and value of the materials used are reasonable in relation to the purpose of copying. This is not a pure ratio test in that using a whole work may be fair use in some circumstances, whereas using a tiny fraction of a work not qualify for fair use in other circumstances.

Therefore, the quantity, as well as the quality and importance, of the copied material must be considered. Some Justices have looked to see that "no more was taken than was necessary" to achieve the purpose for which the materials were copied.

Factor 4 -
Effect upon Potential Market

The fourth factor considers the extent of harm to the market or potential market of the original work caused by the infringement. This test takes into account harm to the original, as well as harm to derivative works.

Source
17 U.S.C. § 107 (1988 ed. and Supp. IV).

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Fair Use Provision of the Copyright Act - The Statutory Decree §107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair Use





Luci,

There is nothing there that says wholesale cut & paste constitutes fair use. Notice that the fair use factors enumerated there call for a derivative work, such as commentary or criticism. Excerpts are permitted under such fair use. There is no blanket copyright exemption granted to non-profits.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard


Luci: I have spoken to Hal about this in Private Message mode. Any attempt to censor here is made by certain individuals such as Larsen (now on permanent ignore so he does not have to bother addressing questions to me anymore), Hoyt, TLN, and well, you know who they are. I do not accept that the majority of people here are in any way guilty of this nor are the moderators or the sponsor.



I am not claiming that the mods or the sponsor are censoring. It is evident, otoh, that Hoyt, Liarson etc, try to do so. As FU of such articles is permitted in law in non-profit educational formats, the requirement to remove the PEAR PRP paper or the SPR info does not exist in law. It does not appear to be a resource issue for the JREF board either. There was no legal infingement and given the bandwidth given to non-educational matters on the JREF forum, then there appears to be no valid resource issue either. So I am skeptical as to the reasons why they were asked to be removed,

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


I am not claiming that the mods or the sponsor are censoring. It is evident, otoh, that Hoyt, Liarson etc, try to do so. As FU of such articles is permitted in law in non-profit educational formats, the requirement to remove the PEAR PRP paper or the SPR info does not exist in law. It does not appear to be a resource issue for the JREF board either. There was no legal infingement and given the bandwidth given to non-educational matters on the JREF forum, then there appears to be no valid resource issue either. So I am skeptical as to the reasons why they were asked to be removed,

<marquee>Attention Wal-Mart JREF Shoppers!</marquee>

Luci hath decreed all non-profits exempt from copyright rules. Starting this evening at 5:00pm, JREF will feature free smash hit films. Go to "Free Movies" on the JREF home page. All articles ever published are now being compiled in the "JREF FREE library" section. We will begin with "A" titles this week, and work as swiftly as we can to post every book ever published! Free art by all masters, past and present, can be found in the "Gallerie Randie". Renoir will be the first featured artist. The entire contents of all scientific periodicals will be found in "Hey we can too do this, we're non-profit."

They're no longer laughing with you, Luci. They are past laughing at you, Luci. They are just shaking their heads wondering what drugs you're on.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Official censorship. The tactics of yourself Hoyt, as well as Larsen have been well revealed and those who agree with them are part of your flock. Individuals attempt to cesnor by using devices such as redundant questioning, misattributing misquoting, reversing object and subject, and other time worn and patently obvious cons of their own to attempt to stifle debate and impose a form of censorship. So again, read my statement carefully unless of course you feel that you, Larsen, TLN etc "are the Board" in which case I wish you well.

Steve,

Oh, Steve. Please. You are such a ridiculous character.

There has not been anything "revealed", because I have been very very open about your constant violation of forum - and copyright - rules.

It is not censorship, it is following the law. I challenge you to present your evidence that I misattribute, misquote, or reverse object and subject (whatever the heck that means!).

Do you consider trying to get people to answer questions "censorship"? You sure did on your own defunct SurvivalScience board, where I was told that asking for evidence was considered harrassment.

If you have complaints about my "censoring", then I urge you to file a complaint with the moderators.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I am not claiming that the mods or the sponsor are censoring. It is evident, otoh, that Hoyt, Liarson etc, try to do so. As FU of such articles is permitted in law in non-profit educational formats, the requirement to remove the PEAR PRP paper or the SPR info does not exist in law. It does not appear to be a resource issue for the JREF board either. There was no legal infingement and given the bandwidth given to non-educational matters on the JREF forum, then there appears to be no valid resource issue either. So I am skeptical as to the reasons why they were asked to be removed,

You have absolutely no grasp of copyright law (or anything else either). Go on, complain. You are simply ludicrous.

The "Questions for Lucianarchy" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21701) stay.

[CFLarsen]

How could I forget? It's late here... :)

Steve, asking for evidence is not censorship. Banning 27 people on SurvivalScience for simply being on JREF is.

[Clancie]

Posted by Steve Grenard

Individuals attempt to cesnor by using devices such as redundant questioning, misattributing misquoting, reversing object and subject, and other time worn and patently obvious cons of their own to attempt to stifle debate and impose a form of censorship.
I don't know if I'd exactly call this censorship, but you've certainly summed up something I've experienced and witnessed in debate with each of the people you mention. I suppose their intent is, as you say, to stifle debate, although unfortunately its so difficult to prove "intent". Nevertheless, I'm convinced that is the desired effect--and, of course, to discredit one's opponents by using these tactics rather than engaging in fair and accurate debate.

Just my two cents, but the tactics you describe certainly ring true to me, even if they may not techincally be actual censorship. But, yes, the outcome is often the same--to shut down opposition to what one thinks, and to stifle the free exchange of ideas.

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
As FU of such articles is permitted in law in non-profit educational formats, the requirement to remove the PEAR PRP paper or the SPR info does not exist in law. It does not appear to be a resource issue for the JREF board either. There was no legal infingement and given the bandwidth given to non-educational matters on the JREF forum, then there appears to be no valid resource issue either. So I am skeptical as to the reasons why they were asked to be removed,

The rule is being applied without bias. The PEAR paper was posted in violation of the rules, whereas other posters have simply respected the rules and not posted full articles. Hmm, maybe the reason that only PEAR and SPR articles have been cut down to links is that everyone else has had to courtesy not to break the rules? Can you show a single example of a full article posted by anyone that was not edited down to a link?

As to the legal post, it was indeed interesting. It seems that some factors argue for and some against, so I don't see how this is clear evidence that what we're talking about here falls under fair use. The non-profit issue is called 'non-determinative', the presumed purpose of research or criticism is weak since it was posted intact without comment, and the relative amount factor is maxed out (entire article). Something not mentioned is the impact of this being an Internet publication, which means it potentially has a much wider audience than print, and also might factor against fair use (the entire world is not a classroom discussing a paper after all).

Big uncertainties at best. Considering that JREF is located in the most litigious country in the world, the rule is more than reasonable. Now I doubt there would be a real problem with SPR, and Hal said as much as well, but in the absence of explicit permission the rule must be applied uniformly.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
I don't know if I'd exactly call this censorship, but you've certainly summed up something I've experienced and witnessed in debate with each of the people you mention. I suppose their intent is, as you say, to stifle debate, although unfortunately its so difficult to prove "intent". Nevertheless, I'm convinced that is the desired effect--and, of course, to discredit one's opponents by using these tactics rather than engaging in fair and accurate debate.

Just my two cents, but the tactics you describe certainly ring true to me, even if they may not techincally be actual censorship. But, yes, the outcome is often the same--to shut down opposition to what one thinks, and to stifle the free exchange of ideas.

You want a "fair and accurate debate"? Then try to answer some of the very relevant questions that derive from your claims, Clancie, instead of just ignoring them. You demand answers from others, but you dodge any tough ones yourself.

You have made it very clear what your tactic is: Ignore the tough questions in the threads they arise, then complain when they pop up in a collated Q4Clancie-thread that they are taken out of context. Along with the various accusations, which you have - so far - not been able to back up.

You even have gone so far as to put me on ignore (I have lost count of how many times this has happened!), and yet, you still complain about the questions. It must really bug you to be unable to remove that thread which documents your tactics. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23764)

If you have complaints, direct them to the moderators.

[renata]

Hmmm....Why is this thread degenerating into personal attacks?

Is this the quality of debate one seeks? If one does not want to debate in a certain style, one should debate only with people one finds desirable. Really, these personal attacks are getting tiresome.

It seems to me before accusations of misattribiting and such are thrown around, one needs to substantiate them.


I seem to recall Steve making such accusations against me- without merit. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24321&perpage=40&pagenumber=3)

Against Stumpy- without merit (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26590&perpage=40&pagenumber=4)

Against Brown- without merit. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25017)

I seem to recall him mocking another poster on not knowing the difference between testes and testees- when he himself was incorrect. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23922&perpage=40&highlight=testees&pagenumber=20)

So here is an idea:

If you find a poster so objectionable- put him on permanent ignore. Enough with the attacks and the comments! Just ignore them. If you can't ignore them, then do them the courtesy of answering the questions. It is simply unfair to take potshots and not answer questions. It is unfair to steer threads on paranormal into personal attacks- and I hate it when it is done on both sides. When someone plays dirty, point it out and provide proof- kind of like I did above. Stop with accusations without proof, because that just detracts from credibility- from all parties. I cringe equally when a believer calls a skeptic a bully and when a skeptic calls a believer a liar.

So, enough. Frankly, I am fed up with this subforum. It has gone the way of politics- old grudges, old accusations clouding good discussions. One thread mirroring a dozen previous ones.

[SteveGrenard]

So here's a rhetrorical question (you needn't answer) renata since you bring up previous debates that are irrelevant to the substance of this one. Why?

So many people can't get past the past, and so many people do not want to discuss what's relevant, putting them on ignore is a very good idea. These are the folks who labor under the very real misconception that they "are this Board." Nobody can legitimately
fit that description. It is a community made of of all kinds including these ignorable types and, well, I guess now you've proven to be one of those yourself -- I mean eligible for somebody's ignore list.

It is indeed tiresome and worse but don't neglect to consider those who cast the first stone ... and I mean in this debate. They
are trolls and baiters by definition.

Thanks Mark. You're right. The new SPR site is great and will make a whole lot of difference when discussing the research and observations that have been published in these journals and proceedings these past 100+ years.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
So here's a rhetrorical question (you needn't answer) renata since you bring up previous debates that are irrelevant to the substance of this one. Why?

So many people can't get past the past, and so many people do not want to discuss what's relevant, putting them on ignore is a very good idea. These are the folks who labor under the very real misconception that they "are this Board." Nobody can legitimately
fit that description. It is a community made of of all kinds including these ignorable types and, well, I guess now you've proven to be one of those yourself -- I mean eligible for somebody's ignore list.

It is indeed tiresome and worse but don't neglect to consider those who cast the first stone ... and I mean in this debate. They
are trolls and baiters by definition.

Thanks Mark. You're right. The new SPR site is great and will make a whole lot of difference when discussing the research and observations that have been published in these journals and proceedings these past 100+ years.

Thanks, Steve, for putting renata on "ignore". The reason why you do it? Because she outed you as a hypocrite.

[thaiboxerken]

I wonder if the SPR site is as objectionable and scientific as the "Answers in Genesis" site. LOL.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I wonder if the SPR site is as objectionable and scientific as the "Answers in Genesis" site. LOL.

Why imagine what it could or couldn't be... ?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
Just my two cents, but the tactics you describe certainly ring true to me, even if they may not techincally be actual censorship. But, yes, the outcome is often the same--to shut down opposition to what one thinks, and to stifle the free exchange of ideas.

Since when is theft of intellectual property "the free exchange of ideas"? Since when is pointing out such theft and requesting that it cease a tactic to censor debate?