2004-05 men's hockey media guide

[q]I think it's safe to assume that the media guide is copyrighted, but there might be a pretty good fair use claim here, since there doesn't seem to be any economic benefit to the person who combined the PDFs or harm to Cornell. [/q]Wouldn't repackaging the entire document invalidate the fair use argument? I thought fair use allowed you reprint portions for commentary, criticism, review, etc. but not posting the entire thing. But I'm not a lawyer...

Fair Use means you can reproduce an excerpt of the book to show the author was brilliant or deranged, and the author can't stop you even if you're his worst enemy. One paragraph excerpted in a 1,000-word review, no problem. Reproducing and commenting on the entire text, you got a problem. Even criticism (negative) tends to help sell the work.

But concatenating the seven separate PDFs into the complete guide, that's going to be on the far edge of what's permissible unless Cornell *really* wants you to pass it around. I suspect Cornell wants the guide to be downloaded off its site so it can track visitors and get the eyeballs looking at the adjacent ads, including that annoying Zamboni that runs across the screen.

Before JerseyGirl or someone else who's worked (recently) for the SID speaks up, I'm not saying people in sports information aren't horribly overworked or poorly paid or it hasn't been problematic with no SID for a while. It's something simpler: For whatever reason, the job isn't getting done in the way that benefits the media, meaning: a media guide comes out before the season, not a third of the way in ... media guides for minor Cornell sports should not appear before guides for the one where Cornell is a national contender ... it's available in one piece as well as in the current bite-size chunks ...

(This is sort of the Web version of 360-degree feedback, which I liken to being in the middle of a circular firing squad, except the bullets never hit anybody else except the guy in the middle. It's supposed to feel better being shot at by your peers.)

I'm not sure what the job of sports information is now because of the Web's ability to disntermediate (cut out) the media. Before you mailed a press release to the Syracuse Post-Standard and maybe it appeared five days later in the Kollege Korner column; now thousands can read the unabridged words online at cornellbigred.com. A hockey media guide that might go out to 250 sportswriters now is available to thousands of writers and to fans themselves. That's certainly progress.

You are correct. To get section six of the 2004-05 guide, click on the link that's there and then edit the address bar to add in the missing h on http:// This takes you to section six

[www.collegesports.com]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:
Fair Use means you can reproduce an excerpt of the book to show the author was brilliant or deranged, and the author can't stop you even if you're his worst enemy. One paragraph excerpted in a 1,000-word review, no problem. Reproducing and commenting on the entire text, you got a problem. Even criticism (negative) tends to help sell the work.

But concatenating the seven separate PDFs into the complete guide, that's going to be on the far edge of what's permissible unless Cornell *really* wants you to pass it around. I suspect Cornell wants the guide to be downloaded off its site so it can track visitors and get the eyeballs looking at the adjacent ads, including that annoying Zamboni that runs across the screen. [/q]Fair use means more than just that. It also means that 2 Live Crew can sample "Oh, Pretty Woman", Alice Randall can write a scathing parody of "Gone With The Wind", and we can all buy VCRs.

The fact that criticism might help sell a work has nothing to do with it. You can also excerpt a book to give it an awful review and absolutely kill its sales and that's still fair use.

The fact that you'd be using the entire guide rather than only parts of it does weigh against a finding of fair use, though.

[Q]Fair use ... also means that 2 Live Crew can sample "Oh, Pretty Woman", Alice Randall can write a scathing parody of "Gone With The Wind", and we can all buy VCRs.
[/q]

Rap music "sampling" - lifting someone else's music - I did not know was considered fair use. I thought that was still being litigated and the traditional musicians - the Roy Orbisons and Paul Simons whose work was being taken - did not consider it fair use and never would consider it fair use. Were you using that as a for-instance or are you saying that law has settled and rappers are having their way? I had the thought the opposite was happening, that not only were rappers liable for using recognizable snippets, but more recently a Circuit Court held that nearly unrecognizable snippets - though snippets where you could trace back and determine that it was taken from someone else - also were in violation.

One amazing quirk about music rights and piracy is that the music itself is being pirated left and right as file-shared MP3s, but not the lyrics. You can go online and see lyrics at fan sites, but never or almost never do you see lyrics attached to an MP3, and never when you buy it legally as a 99-cent download.

To me, lifting a 3- or 30-second clip of music to incorporate into your song, you owe the original singer/songwriter, even if you speed it up or slow it down or rap over it. Even if everyone's doing it.

On the VCR, the law there is clearer, crystal clear, in fact: The VCR has a legitmate use, recording of video including making tapes of your own camcorder efforts. The fact that it could be used for unlawful pursuits, such as making tapes of copyrighted materials and then those pirated tapes are sold on street corners, doesn't allow Hollywood to ban the VCR because of the possibility a legal device might also have some unlawful applications. If Hollywood had its way, every PC blank CD would have a 25-cent or $1 artist royalty attached in case we might, in addition to backing up our Lotus Notes NSF files and Word DOC files, make an archival copy of a Paul Simon CD.

The danger as I see it: The more money Hollywood gets, the more money they have to spend on drugs. I want to keep Hollywood no more drug-addled than the rest of America, which still gives them considerable leeway.

Drug use is down in the last thirty years, and so is the quality of movies. The solution is clearly not less drugs but more drugs for Hollywood.

[Q]Greg Berge Wrote:

Drug use is down in the last thirty years, and so is the quality of movies. The solution is clearly not less drugs but more drugs for Hollywood.[/q]

George, the clarity of your vision on that one, I gotta admit, I stepped right into it. A good point: If it takes a truckload of cocaine to keep Hollywood creative, so be it. Maybe they die young, but there must be some glorious sex (mostly off camera) before they check out of the Hotel California.

I guess you can think of Hollywood, like say the NFL, as gladiators who perform for lots of money, at the risk of major and permanent damage to their bodies. So long as your kids don't get involved, okay.

Easy Rider, however, loses some zest thirty five years on.