Posting whole articles

[Micheal Ellis]

>Without going into all the legal technicalities and four-part tests of fair 
>use, the argument is that copyright infringement involves any reproduction 
>of copyrighted materials that undermines the market or substitutes for the 
>original work.  Since posting the whole article means that a person will 
>not go to the original site (seeing the advertising) or pay for archive 
>access later, the original copyright holder has been deprived of income and thus an infringement has occurred.
> 

this is essentially the same as the napster thing.....posting copyrighted articles
as far as marketing goes has a neutral effect...some may read the article without
subscribing or paying someone but on the other hand it is also like free publicity
for the writers as well as the publisher/paper whatever. it's common knowledge
or at least should be that in general that people that want to subscribe or whatever
will do so and the people that don't won't regardless of  what's posted or not.
what's going on here is tantamount to fraud...and the ones pushing this crap
are the one's that KNOW what their publishing isn't worth what they are charging.

yes i think mettalica is fully aware of exactly how much they suck!!!!

~M.E.