This is the single funniest thing I've read on all of FT this week (and, the only even remotely worthwhile thread in this post after the OP).

None of these are among my many shortcom�ngs.

Is is hypocritical if Dan Rather broadcasts over the public airwaves and then complains if someone publishes a book of his editorials without permission?

QL

An imperfect analogy.

This is not the scenario. A more apt analogy would be if someone were writing a book about NASA and amongst hundreds of other sources, included excerpts of Dan Rather's editorials following the Challenger and Columbia explosions.

You'd have an argument if someone (other than Randy) wanted to publish "QuietLion on Travel: The FlyerTalk Posts" and the posts made up a substantial portion of the book, but no one is talking about anything like that.

I need to start shopping at bankruptcy auctions... That gorgeous $100,000 desk only brought $5,000. How did they sell off the wine?

Here are a couple of recent articles, featuring quotes from the OP (for those who are too lazy to Google for themselves ):

Going inside the making of the alleged CyberNET scam

The final testament of Barton Watson

Brief quotes falling within the narrow doctrine of "fair use" are never an issue. Republishing a whole post -- that was made to this public forum -- without permission is a copyright violation.

QL

I think you guys are seriously overvaluing your words. I'm quite certain that whole posts (!) will be considered de minimis by any court in the land in a book totally unrelated to FlyerTalk and not about you.

I'll be eager to hear what Josh's IP lawyer buddy has to say, but what exactly is the point of harassing the guy anyway? Even if you had a cause of action, I'd still like to see what damages you might be claiming. You know you won't get an injunction against publication as prima facie copyright infringement would not be enough to call for prior restraint.

If the court won't enjoin the author from publishing, then what relief would you seek? What market do you have for these posts? What damage to your character might result from the republication of your already public statements?

Again, what's the object of the protest?

Interesting point...
my objection is not to the book or to quotes or anything else like that - when Jim first posted about the book it sounded like it would have a fascinating take on someone who was clearly not what he appeared..however in going to the web site about the book, the blurbs, headings, and descriptions read like Weekly World News or The Enquirer...
And not that there isn't an Enquirer type story there for the taking - just that the OIP made it sound like a serious look at a bizarre situation...

OMG, Philip Seymour Hoffman would be perfect....... (think Owning Mahowny)
This would actually be a great movie.

p.s. This is the first time I heard about this loser's demise. I smelled a rat when I came across his posts in the UA forum. My intuition told me that he was a total fraud, but I guess he was "for real" and instead ran a real major league fraud. It's really sad that he was an inspiration to a lot of people on FT.

Thanks for the criticism. The tone of the website is definitely promotional. It was actually very hard to write. It is very different in tone than any of the writing in the book. Remember, I still have to sell this project. If you read the back of any book jacket...unfortunately, that is what I had to try to replicate. And writing a book proposal...don't get me started!

Jim

I am a professional writer and the object is to protect my stock in trade. Were I to bother registering the copyright on all my posts, which I probably won't, I would get statutory damages of $100,000 per infringement. That aside, I should think actual damages could be assessed based on a reasonable price per word or percent of the revenue from the book.

Surely you can't be advocating that others are free to publish my work without permission and beyond the narrow doctrine of "fair use" because it just isn't that big a deal!

QL

QL

No, I simply think it's fair use.

1. Purpose and Character of Use. In this case, your posts would only be used as a foil for or context to Barton's posts. The commentary provided along with them wouold seem to be reasonably transformative.
2. The Nature of the Work. Your posts are already published, noncommercial, have no market value, etc.
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion taken. You've made 6,058 posts to FlyerTalk. Two or three of your posts selected only for their interplay with Barton could hardly be said to be substantial or the core of your FlyerTalk content.
4. The effect of the use on the potential market. You have no market for your posts. They have already been published and a license granted for republication by Randy. You've got no money on the line here.

Again, I just think it's absolutely silly to suddenly value these words as if you've written this monster bestseller and had it stolen from you. You carried on conversations published for free, and you knew it. It's disingenuous to place a value on them now just because you don't like the author and want to harrasss him.

Could not agree more with you !!!
maybe the movie should be "catch me if you can 2" ?