[Ti] Apple's Future/Copyright

[Michael Bigley]

>By subscribing to the online version of the WSJ (which includes 
>Barron's), I have the right and ability to send any article on their 
>Web site(s) to friends all over the world, and do so regularly. 
>Unfortunately, when I referred to the most recent article initially 
>(and brought it to everyone's attention), I gave a link that is only 
>available to subscribers.  Hence, I provided the non-subscriber link 
>as well, which the journal provides to its subscribers.

There is nothing wrong with sending the non-subscriber link as you 
did; providing a link is doing a service for WSJ in that you are 
driving traffic to their site and increasing the value of their 
advertising. What started the copyright thread was the comments you 
added with the link -- and that you continue to add -- which infer 
you are really right and those of us who take issue with you posting 
an article in its entirety are "petty".

Once again, this is directly from YOUR subscriber agreement with WSJ.com:

  c.     You agree not to create abstracts from, scrape or display 
headlines from our content for use on another web site or service. 
You agree not to post any content from WSJ.com to newsgroups, mail 
lists or electronic bulletin boards, without our written consent.

Whether you read it or not, you are still bound to it. As Woz said, 
copyright is not petty, and just because it is easier to steal 
information in this electronic era, doesn't make it okay.

Entire WSJ subscriber agreement: 
<http://online.wsj.com/public/subscriber_agreement>

What is amazing is that this is the second time this information has 
been posted to this list and you continue to infer that you are right 
and those of us defending copyright are a**holes.
-- 
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Mike Bigley                Maineville, Ohio
       http://www.norbertrunning.com
Please support an American Indian Elder &
Medicine Man by visiting the above link.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>