[Groop] the magic of stealing

[Porter]

Hi folks;

After a little deliberation, I decided to chime in on this one, having  
brought up copyright issues in the past.

After double checking and comparing my own card sets, the ebay page  
and the groo.com page I really think this has been blown way out of  
proportion. I would frankly be highly surprised if there was ANY legal  
issue being trod upon.

Kaytee, you are right that content on the web is not automatically  
open-source, but that does not mean everything is protected either -  
you do not necessarily have to cite  or get permission to use  
everything you copy and paste online. First, the seller did not copy  
"an article, written by somebody else" - she/he copied a transcription  
of printed text. Ronny typed it up, but he doesn't own the text and  
therefore has no claim upon the content (not that he has ever made  
such a claim - that Ronny has also replied to this thread saying he  
doesn't mind anyway is beside the point).  The only original content  
on the webpage which was used in the ebay sale are the single-sentence  
descriptions/ section headers for the cards which, again, would not be  
covered under copyright either; length and context matter and in this  
case they serve only as brief, straight-forward explanations, being  
neither opinion, review nor beyond basic description.

Second, as it applies to the original source - the cards themselves.  
Would anyone deny a seller the right to post a photograph of an  
individual card for sale? Probably not - a photo is there to give  
potential buyers information and context so they can make an informed  
decision to purchase or not. It is the item itself which is of  
financial value, not the dissemination of it. Using the one-, two-, or  
three-sentence descriptions/ comments on the back of each card is a  
totally justifiable and legitimate use of content to explain the items  
for sale - as would posting photos/scans of each of the 153 cards  
(though highly impractical). Unlike comics or novels or books in  
general, each card (front and back) is single-piece stand-alone  
content and therefore, like paintings or prints or calligraphy for  
sale, subject to complete dissemination, description and translation.

The closest I believe one could come to finding possible legitimate  
fault in this situation would be an accusation of plagiarism of  
Ronny's groo.com card page. Plagiarism, though unethical, is not even  
slightly illegal however, and even that accusation would be a *major*  
stretch for me to agree with. I understand the reason for getting  
agitated about it but I nevertheless don't see any dishonesty here.  
There just isn't enough original content to warrant it. And beyond  
that, ethically it still stands up - it was someone else's efforts,  
yes, but efforts to provide information to others without concern for  
how it need be used, commercial or otherwise.

Really, isn't this all because we, as die-hard fans and supporters of  
Groo, his creators, and the Groop as well, feel personal ownership of  
them - entitled and protective? I certainly feel that way at times and  
based on this subject and dozens of other posts in the past, many  
other Groopers do too. Just something to think about.

The only thing wrong the seller has done is to not consult with the  
Groop first... and that is but a small offense in the eyes of...  
well... everyone but us.

A final and tangential thought - though massively overlooked these  
days, the primary purpose of original copyright laws and concepts is  
two-fold: to protect the ownership and financial interest of  
individual creators and owners but also to equally (and perhaps even  
*primarily*) ensure public access and use of that work for others'  
personal/ commercial/ scientific/ creative use and advancement. Again,  
just something to ponder.

Fond regards,
  ~ Porter.

And now the Groop does what the Groop does best...



>> In a message dated 7/3/2009 11:34:18 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, seanferris at optonline.net 
>>  writes:
>> >>Are you upset with the person who put it on the Groo page for  
>> informations sake without permission or the person who used the  
>> information for the EXACT product that was being sold?<<
>>
>> I'm upset with dishonesty and injustice. Do you KNOW that the  
>> original posting on the Groo page was "without permission"? Did you  
>> read the FAQs on the www.copyright.gov website? Quoting portions of  
>> a work is allowed. The seller copied an article, written by  
>> somebody else, in its entirety, without even crediting his source.  
>> Somebody did that with one of Mark's blog posts, if I remember  
>> correctly... and he was not pleased.
>>
>> More to the point-- why are YOU so upset with the idea (and law)  
>> that permission is required before taking and/or using somebody  
>> else's property?
>>
>> Kaytee
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.newdream.net/pipermail/groop/attachments/20090706/13c99854/attachment-0001.htm>