How is quoting a pop song "stealing" it? If I quote "All you need is love" I can be sure that nearly everyone who reads my story will know that's a quote, and who it came from.
True. But I think Stella was taking issue with the comparison of using song lyrics--usually though not always used in stories with credit to the creator (aka: "All you need is love..." the Beatles sang from the Radio....), as being the same as stealing a story off Lit.Happily, I don't have to answer that or come up with a justification of it. It's stealing if done without permission under copyright law--and the song industry is the most litigious in terms of copyright infringement. Doesn't really matter what either you or I think about it.
Your reasoning might give you comfort, but it means squat in law, and it falls in exactly the same realm of not posting below 18 stories on this site (which you just pointed out on another thread as a "just is").
True. But I think Stella was taking issue with the comparison of using song lyrics--usually though not always used in stories with credit to the creator (aka: "All you need is love..." the Beatles sang from the Radio....), as being the same as stealing a story off Lit.
Her argument is that you really can't say this is a double-standard on our part because we usually give credit to the song writer, where as thieves of our work take credit for writing the story themselves.
This doesn't mean that we can't be sued for quoting song lyrics, just that the two aren't necessarily equal and we shouldn't be taken to task on doing to others what we don't like being done to us.
Just sayin'
Are you saying that we, who don't like our work stolen-- are, in fact, stealing from other amateur writers? Or maybe plagiarising Steinbeck hoping that no one will notice?
Are you saying that we, who don't like our work stolen-- are, in fact, stealing from other amateur writers? Or maybe plagiarising Steinbeck hoping that no one will notice?
Oh, please.
You know, I know, we all know, we are talking about song lyrics in this thread. There has been nothing but talk about lyrics. It's been remarkably hijack-free.
And 3113 has the right of it. Whatever it is that you can't comprehend in my posts-- just ask her for the translation.
When you put it that way...Oh, Stella....go on and fight with him. It's obviously what he wants, and he's long overdue for a wank, since I've been leaving him alone.
Are you saying that we, who don't like our work stolen-- are, in fact, stealing from other amateur writers? Or maybe plagiarising Steinbeck hoping that no one will notice?
Oh, please.
You know, I know, we all know, we are talking about song lyrics in this thread. There has been nothing but talk about lyrics. It's been remarkably hijack-free.
And 3113 has the right of it. Whatever it is that you can't comprehend in my posts-- just ask her for the translation.
Oh, Stella....go on and fight with him. It's obviously what he wants, and he's long overdue for a wank, since I've been leaving him alone.
(classic passive-aggressive personality. I could use him as an example in textbooks)
Oh, you're equating forum conversations with story submissions, gotcha.
Okay.
I see.
yes, I know what you are talking about. And I quite agree with you, as it happens.Umm, no. I was talking about copyright infringement, which is the same under law for song lyrics, prose, forum postings, story submissions, images reposted in the body of postings or as avatars without permission (interesting where this goes, eh?), etc. Copyright infringement. I was talking about the principle of copyright infringement.
Getting a little dense around here? Ostriches up the line in your lienage, perhaps? Running obtuseness into the ground maybe? Litte strange, as Starrkers noted, that writers wouldn't "get it." Ah, but we're not all writers here, are we? Some just came to chat in the presence of writers.
You are interested in legalisms, which are, certainly, interesting.Perhaps not. But then my posts have all been in relationship to what folks don't seem to want to latch into what I posted. You've been dinking on and obfuscating about what I posted. If I've not responded to whatever else you are discussing, it's because you weren't saying anything I was interested in discussing (although I know you to be a fascinating person and often I just shine in the light of what you have to say) beyond trying to twist or be obtuse about what I posted.
So perhaps the two ships passing in the night can just keep on passing. That would be hunky dorey with me.
speak of a significant ignorance* of human nature and internet culture. The legality would, indeed, come down against the usages displayed here. But in the times that I know of where someone has objected-- I've had a run in with Warner Brothers in my past-- the request is simply to delete the posts, because, the convention is that these are ephemeral data.
I could tell you were filtering everything I'd said according to your own presuppositions. That's why I posted a more specific and carefully spelled out version.
