Re: Helmet efficacy test

On 4/22/2025 3:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 4/22/2025 2:11 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 01:03:27 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 12:44:18 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:

(...)
>

John, you really need to cite references - This is from a Emo
Phillips comedy routine in the 1980s

>
Why? Do I have to list the reference in order to post the quotation?

>
I like to see attributions and sources because I prefer to read things
as close to the source as possible.  That avoids most interpretation,
distortion, political bias, "improvements" that change the meaning,
etc.  I often lookup the source and their bias in:
<https://www.allsides.com/media-bias>
Incidentally, there are many types of bias besides political:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias>
<https://codlrc.org/evaluating/facts>
Also, fact checking.
>
To add some gasoline to the flames, I don't really care what anyone
thinks.  It's a free country and you can theoretical believe whatever
you want.  However, that doesn't extend to freely distributing (or
redistributing) fake news, distorted information, mangled quotes, etc.
Therefore, what interests me is what logic, thinking and sources were
used to arrive at someone's claims, logic or conclusions.  That means
(to me) that any 2nd hand information without sources is highly
suspect and likely to be wrong or has been adjusted to conform to
someone's agenda.  When someone posts an obvious quotation, using
UTF-8 encoded characters, and fails to provide the source of the
quotation, they are probably hiding something.  They are also not
making it any easier for the reader to research the topic or analyze
the content.
>

After all I didn't claim it for my (or any one's) invention.

>
I hate to give you the bad news, but quoting someone's creative work
and probably copyrighted work is considered plagiarism and possibly a
copyright violation.  I try to provide the sources of all my quotes.
When it's difficult or I can't remember where I found it, I usually a
like "source unknown" or "I forgot where I stole this".

 I'm going to defend John. He told a joke. Jokes are folk humor that get passed freely from person to person. Yes, every joke must have an original author, but it's very, very rare for anyone to ever know or be able to learn of that author, so nobody ever does research to determine the earliest known author before telling a joke.

That's  a valid point within the context of simple jokes - much like the recent 'sad seamus' joke I posted earlier. There are dozens of variants of that (different ethnicities, vocations, and beasts). However, in this case it was word-for-word from an original work by Emo Philips. Andrew noted that he's heard variants of the joke, I haven't (not that Andrew is wrong, just that I have never heard any variants of it before).

 Also, I suspect that telling one joke heard within a standup comedian's act would probably fall under the "fair use" doctrine.  From https:// michelsonip.com/basics-of-ip-blog-series-8-is-it-fair-use-or- infringement/?gad_source=1

I don't think Fair Use Doctrine applies here.

 Some rules for a much more serious parallel situation: "... educational institutions can use photocopies of copyrighted work for students enrolled in a class, so long as the copying is limited to:
     A chapter from a book.
     An article from a periodical or newspaper.
     A short story, short essay or short poem, whether or not from a collective work.
     A chart, graph, diagram, drawing, or picture from a book, periodical, or newspaper."
 Incidentally, I think I'm allowed to post that quotation from that site.   ;-)
 

yup, as long as you don't stand to get financial gain or public recognition.

To me, the situation has a parallel in the traditional-style music I play with friends. If we're sitting in a circle sharing tunes, we would never be prosecuted for copyright violation while playing only for fun, not for any commercial purpose. And I'm very aware of composers of such tunes who hold copyrights to get some reimbursement if their tune is included on a commercial recording, but who have absolutely no problem with informal sharing, or even limited performance for pay. I know this through email correspondence with such a composer, online conversations with others. Details on request.

Correct, though the trad sessions are notably generally devoid of any copyrighted content. However, if you were to play a bar session covering original material from The Pogues or The Chieftains for payment, either you or the the venue are supposed to have a license from a Performing Rights Organizations (PRO). Granted, the vast majority of bars/restaurants don't go through that exercise, but it doesn't make it legal.

 

--
Add xx to reply