"The 3 paragraph rule" Topic

Can the Editor please clarify the Tango01 inspired "3 paragraph rule" about copying copyrighted material into a post?
I was just going through the FAQ and couldn't find it.
Armand has unfortunately been slapped with a DH sentence several times in the past for violating this rule. I simply think that it was high time "others" had to comply also.

I do not think this calls for a poll. It was initiated by the editor as an ad hoc response to legitimate concerns about copying massive amounts of copyright text.
A book being in the public domain should not be a go around on this rule.

I am simply asking for an Editorial clarification.

"A book being in the public domain should not be a go around on this rule."

Public domain means it's no longer under copyright. Are you talking about something else?

Let's just say that this is a private jihad against one particular individual who contributes nothing but pages and pages of copied text.
Some may be under copyright, some may not.
It's a shaming.

If you want to be "legal" just put it in quotes and give the reference. The government has more pressing things to do than to monitor TMP as does most authors and publishers.

An argument could be made that using a quote on TMP falls under fair usage. A limited use, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work.

Posting GMB flags or something like it would probably violate copyright. Don't post an entire book or chapters. Posting pages and pages of of a book would, in my opinion violate copyright.

I am sure come Copyright Lawyer is going to chime in and say everything I said was wrong.

The government has more pressing things to do than to monitor TMP as does most authors and publishers.

I'm talking about The Editor's ad hoc "3 paragraph rule", which has been applied to Tango01 on a regular basis. I'm not talking about legal issues.
It should apply to EVERYONE.
Yes. I'm thinking of one person in particular. I would be dishonest to say I'm not.
He recently copied about 10 paragraphs from the same source. Admittedly non consecutive.
A "history teacher" would not allow his students to do that. He would ask for original thought.

The government has more pressing things to do than to monitor TMP

Copyright violation is a civil violation, so the government does not monitor and initiate proceedings.

Actual violation is contextual, based on an assessment of damage done to the property (not necessarily fiscal damage to the copyright owner).

I'm talking about The Editor's ad hoc "3 paragraph rule",

Which, while not a civil standard, is related to the ideas of fair use. So, it is also going to be contextual. That makes "3 paragraph rule" a bad name for such a standard.

He would ask for original thought.

This is the Internet. ;)

Well, actually this is TMP on the Internet, so the Editor should be assessing value added against damage caused from a community perspective.

Bill's ad hoc "3 paragraph rule" is an attempt to bring some order out of the "fair use" chaos.
It's arbitrary and it works. Or, it SHOULD work if applied even handedly.
It is often applied to my buddy and fellow Game of Thrones fan, Tango01.
My only point is that it should apply to EVERYONE, even pseudo-scholars or climate change aficionados. Pro or con.

Even if the work being copied was published in 1926, spamming whole pages and paragraphs should be discouraged, if only for esthetic reasons.

To be fair, the 3-Paragraph rule is pretty self-policing in the posts you refer to.

At least, I personally have never got past the third paragraph before losing interest and ignoring the rest.

For what it's worth, there probably is a difference between (on the one hand) posting a number of quotes on, for example, flower arranging as part of a discussion/debate/bunfight on that subject; and on the other hand, starting a thread on flower-arranging with a huge chunk of copyright text from another site.

The latter simply needs a link and 'Great article on flower-arranging here, chaps!'

This impacts my enjoyment of TMP how?

Opportunity cost.

Well, since you are physically unable to close a thread if you get bored with it or otherwise don't like it, you are forced to read the entire thing that doesn't align with your tastes when you could be reading something else.

MEGO.
"Mine eyes glaze over."
Particularly when the copied text doesn't agree with what the poster wants to say, and/or if it is irrelevant to the main topic.
Reams of charts and data have the same effect.

I think it would be great if said person would check to see if he already posted it.

I was just going through the FAQ and couldn't find it.

I could, at the last section (titled "Copying") on this page:

TMP link

I want to quote from a book/magazine article/website. Is there a limit to how much I can quote?

Yes. In order to respect possible copyright issues, please quote no more than three paragraphs. [COPYRIGHT RULE]

So go ahead and hit the complaint button.

Haven't yet encountered the 3 Paragraph Rule in my readings.

Seems like a workable standard for The Editor to ask other TMP Editors to enforce.

Obviously it should apply to everybody.