Can Copyright Law Be Used to Suppress Conspiracy Theories?

reply to post by TheKeyMaster


several times I have intended to quote information but it was copyright. It doesn't suppress it, I just had to provide the link instead of using bits of it in a post.

I think subscription/money is a real issue though, if you are not a subscriber or a permitted user, then you cannot access a wealth of information, for eg: www.jstor.org...

I also find a worry that information that is 'out of print' or 'not in demand' falls by the wayside and there is so much literature that is gone. I was doing some research and a crucial part of an ideology relied upon this document/account and when I requested a copy from the library, it was not available. Not even found archived.

Did it even exist? A group of my friends at the time had lengthy discussions about it and one of them, noted the similarities of the communist and propaganda agendas.

Originally posted by iwilliam

I will point out that a book which references ONLY one work, and which is based entirely on that one other work is pretty rare. I can't think of one, though it's possible it exists. The reason for this, I think is simple. Aside from toeing right up to the boundaries of copyright law, if the entirety of the book you want to write can be pulled from another work, then why even bother writing one? It's already written. Is it money? I don't get it.

Think about it though.. why wouldn't this be done CONSTANTLY? IF it could be done EVERYONE would be doing it.. there should be countless examples.. why wouldn't people do it? They could make money just by copying others work.. they could sell it cheaper if necessary.. then you would a reverse bidding war...

There may be examples.. but how would we even know? I have looked for articles related to this but haven't found any...

You will find countless articles relating to fair use that discuss quoting.. but it's nearly impossible to find some thing that talks about rewording most of someone else's book.. maybe because it's considered unethical?

In my case I am unconcerned about copyright ethics.. I am concerned with people realizing all this information is out there...

Originally posted by Thurisaz
reply to post by TheKeyMaster

 

several times I have intended to quote information but it was copyright. It doesn't suppress it, I just had to provide the link instead of using bits of it in a post.

Think about it though.. only small portions of books are online... If they use too much couldn't the websites be sued? Even if it is reworded?

That is definitely true about subscription stuff though. I remember some article in the New York Times disappeared from their archives mysteriously.. forget what that was in relation to now though.. It was something controversial that seemed like a cover-up.

Here is a perfect illustration of my problem...

Do I Need to Copyright My Nonfiction Book?
Copyrighting is an interesting concept, and it isn't very difficult to understand. However, many new authors of nonfiction works often become preoccupied with two questions:

How much of someone else's work may I safely use?
How can I protect my work from plagiarists?
The following should be helpful in answering these questions.

Most nonfiction is simply a reformulation of existing ideas and facts. Nonfiction is written from research. Copyright covers an author's presentation or expression - a sequence or pattern of words. It does not protect ideas. If you read and blend the ideas of other authors and put the collective thought into your own words, that is perfectly legal. This is how most nonfiction books are written.

For each element of my discovery there is only one person that has written about this.. one person that discovered this..


Also.. repeating a line from above...

"How much of someone else's work may I safely use?"

It doesn't say quote.. it says use..

Does it mean "use" or does it mean quote?

This is the problem I have found.. there is so little explaining the copyright issue of non fiction online without QUOTING... it's maddening..

If anyone can find easy to understand explanations please let me know..

Originally posted by TheKeyMaster
reply to post by schuyler

 

I think you are missing my point though.. it isn't anywhere near as simple as what you are saying as I see it..

Then you are making it more complicated than it needs to be. There are plenty of "unauthorized" biographies out there. Or perhaps you are confusing copyright with some sort of violation of a national secrets act.

The facts are as I have already stated them. You asked the question, so presumably you don't know yet you seem to want a different answer. There isn't one. Believe me or don't. I'm not going to argue with you. I stand by my statements which come from a background dealing with these issues.

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by TheKeyMaster
reply to post by schuyler

 

I think you are missing my point though.. it isn't anywhere near as simple as what you are saying as I see it..

Then you are making it more complicated than it needs to be. There are plenty of "unauthorized" biographies out there. Or perhaps you are confusing copyright with some sort of violation of a national secrets act.

The facts are as I have already stated them. You asked the question, so presumably you don't know yet you seem to want a different answer. There isn't one. Believe me or don't. I'm not going to argue with you. I stand by my statements which come from a background dealing with these issues.

edit on 11/26/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)

All I want is someone to show me some examples and/or specific descriptions of how you can just reword others work and not get sued...

People keep saying this is obvious and answered yet not one person here has pointed to some specific examples shown online.. I showed you examples where I asked lawyers and they said you need a lawyer... I showed you an example of someone wanting to reword someone else's book..

Just show me some in depth explanation of this and I would be more than satisfied..

People seem to be acting like this is obvious and I am over complicating it.. yet again.. not one example shown.. I have scoured the internet... why aren't there other books written about these books videos and webpages I need to use? All of them are isolated and there are no other sources for them..

I showed an example of that as well where someone said if you take from several sources then you are ok.. there are no other sources for these examples... and it's because this is cutting edge info.

I think you all may be talking about info that ISN'T cutting edge.. You are talking about info that isn't isolated to one individual that discovered something.. which allows you to take from many sources...

If this is so simple and uncomplicated then why does this person say the opposite here - they say the exact same thing I am saying.. and I don't think it is possible to do what he says as a solution in my case..

Do I Need to Copyright My Nonfiction Book?
Copyrighting is an interesting concept, and it isn't very difficult to understand. However, many new authors of nonfiction works often become preoccupied with two questions:

How much of someone else's work may I safely use?
How can I protect my work from plagiarists?
The following should be helpful in answering these questions.

Most nonfiction is simply a reformulation of existing ideas and facts. Nonfiction is written from research. Copyright covers an author's presentation or expression - a sequence or pattern of words. It does not protect ideas. If you read and blend the ideas of other authors and put the collective thought into your own words, that is perfectly legal. This is how most nonfiction books are written.

And this is why it is useful specifically for containing conspiracies IMO.. because if you have a group of people get a monopoly on key information you control that.... and you can suppress it.

I think people are missing this because most information doesn't fall into this realm.. most information is not so unique.. this is why I think people aren't understanding how it can be done and imo how it was done..

reply to post by TheKeyMaster


IANAL but I have knowledge about copyright law...

I take the chance to reply to you but cover most posts.

writing non-fiction books or is it in fact possible to use copyright law to suppress the discovery of information related to conspiracy theories

No factual data can't be copyrighted what you can't reproduce is creative material, you can duplicate information just not the exact way that the information is presented in any copyright work. You should also consider all work to be under copyright ownership unless specifically stated. You may copy small parts of original text but not in bulk, a phrase alone shouldn't be considered copyrightable but a paragraph may have sufficient intellectual property to be copyrightable.

Plagiarisms is not equal to copyright infringement, plagiarisms covers any type of content not generated by yourself that you claim authorship over.

Imagine the government assigns many disinfo agents to pose as legitimate researchers who have discovered key information regarding well known conspiracies. These researchers all document their discoveries and theories in individual books websites and videos that are all pieces of the puzzle yet they mix in a bit of disinfo to take people off the actual trail.

See my first reply in any case you make no real sense in your argument since then there wouldn't be any need for governmental control over media like there is. Note that all US government content is public domain, unless specifically stated.

be on the lookout for the term "Fair Use."

Fair use is a slippery slope, you should avoid fair use unless you are certain that the use of the infringement of copyright is allowed, I think satiric and criticism use if possible but avoid exact duplication in quality and be certain to provide acknowledgments to the source. The use of Fair use for commercial gain should be doubly avoided as you will be a primary target to be sued, most non commercial and free use of fair use benefit from the fact that they are not directed to provide monetary gains from the right over works infringed.

I could try to contact these people and ask to use material.. but guess what... if you do that and they say no then you will get in more trouble than if you didn't ask at all from my understanding.

This rule does not apply to copyright and will only applies circumstantially to patents but that is another issue in intellectual property law.

From my understanding if I try to reproduce these same elements in the same order I could be screwed.

You understanding is in error, unless you infringe in a specific patent for commercial purposes/mass production you can reproduce the work of others and document the findings.

TheKeyMaster is correct on his assertions.

Like a book report you did for school.

School and Universities most of the time retain the rights over the work of their students, if you produce any intellectual property that you intend sell or offer freely be certain to check out how the institution works (what you signed over to them). A similar situation occurs if you are employed if you produce creative work while at work (or even at home), check your contract and if you do intend to produce and control any work especially if in line with the work you were contracted to do by your employer to have an exclusion included in your employment contract, or at least that guarantees you some advantage by doing it (a percentage of earnings for example).

Originally posted by Panic2k11

Imagine the government assigns many disinfo agents to pose as legitimate researchers who have discovered key information regarding well known conspiracies. These researchers all document their discoveries and theories in individual books websites and videos that are all pieces of the puzzle yet they mix in a bit of disinfo to take people off the actual trail.

See my first reply in any case you make no real sense in your argument since then there wouldn't be any need for governmental control over media like there is. Note that all US government content is public domain, unless specifically stated.

I am not saying this is the only method of control.. I am just saying this is a part of the over all scheme... Imagine they need to try to suppress something that they can't contain using government controls..

I also think they flood the media as well.. so you have all these books with disinfo about conspiracy theories.. and then make the publishing world incredibly complex and litigious...

For example.. to find all the information I have by acquiring books was very difficult.. especially because you don't know what books are legit or not.

I can't be the only one who wishes information that is owned by these copyright holders was freely available online to people so others didn't have to buy and read a book or get a video?

IF all the info I need to relate to people was freely available on the internet I wouldn't have as much of a problem...

Sorry if I sound like I am ranting but people don't seem to be addressing anything I am saying... here is another thread where I see the same debate.. once again this shows I am not alone and how complex the issue is..

www.absolutewrite.com...

In most situations where info is not that unique then it probably isn't as difficult.. but those are likely not the important issues anyway...

I think this is what is causing the disconnect..

reply to post by TheKeyMaster

I am just saying this is a part of the over all scheme

I don't see how, copyright is to protect creative rights (creation and representation) not facts. As for the rest...

Imagine they need to try to suppress something that they can't contain using government controls.. ...they flood the media as well.. so you have all these ... disinfo ... conspiracy theories.. ... the publishing world incredibly complex...

I agree with the above quoted content (not the full original). Information overload is a useful technique to hide information. As well the creation of misinformation especially if it is partly correct, it permits to attack it and expose it as false in its completeness making defending the bits that are valid even more difficult.

Disinfo agents can also be great infiltrators, if deep enough they will have primary access to information before it is public, it even becomes more interesting if the agent itself does not know he is a disinformation agent and truly believes his role. This is also a good way to discredit people, supply them with half truths and attack to permit an easier target.

For example.. to find all the information I have by acquiring books was very difficult.. especially because you don't know what books are legit or not.

My policy in this regard is not to reward directly the production of possible false content, I have no issue in paying for a conference etc but will never spend a dime in any conspiracy or ufology content, I already do that as a tax payer, I would better support any attack to the government for not doing their job on these areas...

I can't be the only one who wishes information that is owned by these copyright holders was freely available online to people so others didn't have to buy and read a book or get a video?

If the system if wrong why do you continue to live by its rules. In this day and age most content is freely available in on form or another, it may even not require breaking any laws, you can in fact generate the free content yourself. Be a producer not a consumer. Check out Wikibooks, Wikiuniversity, Wikinews, Wikisource etc there are a lot of projects that will not only be interesting to use but to contribute to.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by TheKeyMaster

 

I am just saying this is a part of the over all scheme

I don't see how, copyright is to protect creative rights (creation and representation) not facts. As for the rest...

So do you think it would be legal to reword someone's entire non fiction book then? Can you show me any examples of this? Surely if it's legal many must do it... why wouldn't they?

You also didn't address the thread I posted above where others had the same issues... this was said to be a common concern by writers..

IF it is a concern isn't that enough to aid suppression?


It is also still very strange to me that people say this is so obvious yet there is no info online that supports this...

reply to post by TheKeyMaster

would be legal to reword someone's entire non fiction book then

It is not something that is unheard off, for instance regarding court cases, there are books about the same event from victim, perpetrator or family. How many books exist describing the events of 9/11 ?

Note that simple reword will not suffice if the similitude is extremely high, there are structure format and even the presentation that contribute to a literary work.

I myself have done rewording of works, even if I normally use PD or open license works as base, and also release them as free work...

There is very limited interest in doing work in duplicating similar content for profit. The best examples would probably be movies how many ripoffs of Aliens do you know ?

Planet of the Vampires (1965)


I can name a few movies that derived from this one to various degrees (note that derivation is even closely related to the source since it copies the creative idea behind it in non factual creations)

Note that simple reword will not suffice if the similitude is extremely high, there are structure format and even the presentation that contribute to a literary work.

This is precisely the kind of information I am looking for.. that line you just posted is about all I have found..

This is my entire issue.. why isn't this documented more online? Especially if it is so common?

There should be countless websites relating info from books on conspiracies we discuss here all the time.. this tells me that it is not as easy as many pretend..

So if it is difficult then doesn't that completely support my point?

reply to post by TheKeyMaster


Ha. Now I'm understanding better what you thinking...

The issue regarding the area of conspiracies (and similar subjects like ufology, bigfoot etc) is that:

a) there are not many people interested in it as that (in comparison to other main stream areas), this is also causes that there aren't too many authors interested in the subject;

b) the complexity of investigation is extremely high, many will not dedicate (or have) the required time to do the investigation (in this case the work of "rewording" a work);

c) in fact many conspiracies live off this inability of those involved to do a critical analysis of the facts (that is not to say that some conspiracies aren't very real), just that those that are deeply involved in them are from two distinct poles. Those that are extremely interested in a specific subject (even because of personal motivations, being profiting from the subject a main reason) and those that a believers/followers that will eat up anything that supports their world view without any critical thinking (that is why the areas are very prone of hoaxes and exploitation)

Let's put it another way.. let's say you wrote it as a book review and you reworded most of the book.. even putting it out of order.. I would think if you went beyond a small part of the book you could easily get sued for this.. this completely contradicts what people are saying here.. am I wrong?

Many of these conspiracy books are incredibly popular too.. this is why I think if this was REMOTELY acceptable the internet would be littered with this stuff... once again.. how can this not aid suppression?

Also.. if they include disinfo it dramatically HELPS them spread the disinfo.. because someone can't use the actual info they did and include the correcting info.. especially if they use powerful publishers to help them promote their book over others...