Peace Talks

[Gaybutton]

Yesterday Prime Minister Abhisit and the Red-Shirt leaders sat down together to try to work out, through negotiations, a settlement and end to Thailand's current political crisis. It was all done "in the sunshine," meaning that the entire meeting, which lasted more than three hours, was shown live on television for all to see.

 

The negotiations are continuing today.

 

The following commentary appears in the BANGKOK POST:

_____

 

Reasoned Discussion Offers Way Forward

 

Published: 29/03/2010

 

The government and the red shirt leaders' decision to sit down for talks to settle the continuing political conflict is most welcome.

 

Although the positions of the two parties remained far apart at the end of their three-hour meeting yesterday, it began a long-overdue process to resolve the differences between the groups.

 

Needless to say, the two-week stand-off between the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) and the government has caused much anxiety for all Thais. The massive street gatherings and the deployment of security forces in the capital have disrupted the lives of Bangkokians. They have also caused immeasurable damage to the economy.

 

A series of dramatic stunts staged by the red shirts in which protesters were sent to military barracks and other public and private places have increased the danger of violence. A series of bomb attacks on government buildings, state-run TV stations and commercial banks are strong indicators that the "peaceful" protest might not remain that way for long. Those behind these subversive plots - regardless of their motivations - must be condemned. With or without the red shirts' knowledge, these senseless and barbaric acts must stop if all stakeholders in the present dispute are sincere in wanting to lead the country out of its sorry state.

 

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva should be commended for being open-minded in embracing the peace talks with the UDD leaders. His decision to welcome them at the negotiating table has helped significantly ease the political tensions that have gripped Bangkok for the past fortnight.

 

With the prime minister and the red shirt leaders agreeing to resume talks later today, it is hoped both sides will come up with more accommodating propositions to make the peace talks fruitful.

 

The red shirt leaders in particular must demonstrate more sincerity and flexibility. Their offer to give the government two more weeks to dissolve the lower house is still far from acceptable as it fails to explain how this will lead to reconciliation.

 

Mr Abhisit has already made clear that he does not object to a snap election but prefers to see some fundamental rules in place to ensure a lasting reconciliation in the country. These may involve constitutional amendments and guarantees that all parties will accept election results. He suggested at the talks that concerned parties work out a clear road map to provide a basis for a new election before the lower house is dissolved. This proposal is reasonable and should be supported by the red shirts if they are sincere about their calls for true democracy in Thailand.

[Guest joseph44]

Abbisit was regularly laughing like "a farmer with a tooth ache" (Dutch saying).

Nice moment was, when the fat red-shirt representative got several sms-es (probably from T.). After reading the sms-es he immediately took over the dicussion, which ended approx. 10 minutes later.

[Gaybutton]

The following appears in the BANGKOK POST:

_____

 

Peace Talks End in Stalemate Again

 

Published: 29/03/2010 at 08:53 PM

 

The second round of talks between the government and the anti-government United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) ended in stalemate on Monday night as they could not agree on the time frame for dissolving the House of Representatives.

 

The two-hour negotiation began around 6.20pm at King Prachadipok's Institute. It was broadcast live on national television and radio.

 

The government and red-shirt teams were unchanged from the first round of talks. On the government's side, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva was accompanied by his secretary-general Korbsak Sabhavasu and Democrat Party deputy secretary-general Chami Sakdiset.

 

On the red-shirts' corner were UDD chairman Veera Musikhapong, opposition Puea Thai Party MP Jatuporn Prompan and political activist Weng Tojirakarn.

 

During the early stage of the meeting, Mr Veera asked Mr Abhisit whether he will accept the UDD's demand to dissolve the House of Representatives within 15 days.

 

The prime minister again rejected their demand, reasoning that the country would not benefit from a House dissolution at this time.

 

Mr Abhisit, however, said he could dissolve the House within nine months or by year's end after the draft of the fiscal 2011 budget, the disputed constitution amendments and the political climate are settled.

 

The meeting then discussed other issues from the past political protests to the role of deployed soldiers around the red-shirt's main rally site near Phan Fa bridge.

 

Both sides tentatively set to meet again on Thursday when the prime minister returns from Bahrain.

 

The overall atmosphere of the meeting was friendly or nonbelligerent like the previous talk on Sunday even though no progress was made.

[Gaybutton]

The following appears in THE NATION:

_____

 

Dissolution Call is a Ploy to Help Thaksin : PAD

 

By THE NATION

Published on March 30, 2010

 

The yellow-shirt People's Alliance For Democracy (PAD) yesterday opposed political talks about a parliamentary dissolution. It said the solution proposed by the red-shirt protesters had a hidden agenda to help fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

 

PAD coordinator and secretary general of the New Politics Party Suriyasai Katasila, said the red shirts were not qualified to negotiate with the government as they were not representatives of a majority, but just Thaksin's proxy.

 

"The government's recognition of the red-shirt group is equivalent to recognition of a Thaksin regime - which we regarded as the root cause of the current political crisis," he said.

 

The PAD called a meeting of its key members yesterday to take a stance in opposing the red-shirt proposal to end the on-going political stalemate.

 

Dissolution is a normal practice in the parliamentary system, but the red-shirt proposal aimed only to help Thaksin get amnesty for his guilt, the PAD said in a statement.

 

The red-shirt group, who are political rivals of the yellow-shirt PAD, should not use street protests, violence and innocent people as bargaining chips to achieve their goals, the statement said.

 

The PAD strongly opposed any move to rewrite the military-sponsored Constitution since it was not the root cause of the crisis, it said.

 

"We don't oppose changes to the Constitution as long as that is done for public benefit, rather than the personal benefit of politicians," the PAD said.

 

Political reform was the only real solution that could get the country out of the political crisis, it said.

 

Instead of negotiating, the PAD called on the government to enforce the laws to punish wrongdoers and end the illegal protest as well as bring peace to the country, it said.

 

The PAD called for its supporters to exercise utmost restraint and not to confront the red shirts.

 

The PAD would soon call a meeting of its network to seek a solution to lead the country out of crisis, the statement said.

[Guest]

Gaybutton, what do you think the result of these talks will be? New elections? Nothing? Media hype?

[bkkguy]

Gaybutton, what do you think the result of these talks will be? New elections? Nothing? Media hype?

 

increased newspaper sales? decreased traffic at the Nation and Bangkok Post web sites thus depriving them of advertising revenue because copyright material is being reproduced verbatim on discussion forum web sites?

 

bkkguy

[Gaybutton]

thus depriving them of advertising revenue because copyright material is being reproduced verbatim on discussion forum web sites?

Which happens to be perfectly legal provided the source is cited.

 

Gaybutton, what do you think the result of these talks will be? New elections? Nothing? Media hype?

I wouldn't know any better than anyone else would. So far, neither side seems to be willing to compromise at all. But now we're starting to see grumblings from the Yellow-Shirt side. Whatever the outcome is, I still see the country being split right down the middle. If the Red-Shirts prevail, the Yellow-Shirts are likely to start up again. If the Prime Minister prevails, then the Red-Shirts will keep at it.

 

If some sort of agreement is not reached that both sides will abide by, then the only two peaceful solutions I can see will be the next elections or agreement from both sides to binding arbitration from a neutral, outside source.

 

Other than that, it seems like this is just going to go on and on and on.

 

My personal opinion is that all the smiles, mutual respect, and friendliness we're seeing on television during these meetings is all hype. I think the reality is that both sides would love to strangle each other.

[bkkguy]

Which happens to be perfectly legal provided the source is cited.

 

not under US copyright law and it is the same in most other jurisdictions - to quite from the US Copyright Office:

 

Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

 

and you should read their guidelines on "fair use":

 

U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use

 

specifically fair use allows

 

“quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; ....

 

I am sure the editor of the Bangkok Post, the Nation or any other major news site would not agree with the liberties you think are legal to take with copyright material - by reproducing the full article you are far exceeding "fair use" so the correct procedure would be to request permission to repost the articles on the forum if this is what you want to do, or quote the headline and some key text and include your opinions or comments then include a link to the full article

 

indeed the Bangkok Post has expressed their views very clearly in their stated Republishing policy.

 

Even if you are not concerned about it I think the site owner should be as you are violating US and Thailand copyright laws and the express wishes of the copyright owner! And it should be part of the standard forum rules that quoting full news articles is not allowed!

 

copyright laws are not perfect and don't get me started on DRM and RIAA lawyers but I think the newspaper sites have a reasonable case here!

 

bkkguy

[Gaybutton]

Even if you are not concerned about it I think the site owner should be as you are violating US and Thailand copyright laws and the express wishes of the copyright owner! And it should be part of the standard forum rules that quoting full news articles is not allowed!

Are you an attorney? I checked all this out with my own attorney years ago and was clearly told that as long as the source is properly cited, then it is not against the law and not a copyright violation. If you believe that it is, can you post the section of the copyright laws that backs up what you are saying?

 

Meanwhile most of the web sites do things this way and always have. There has never been a problem. Are you trying to cause one? Do you have some personal objection?

 

If GT wants to consult an attorney about it, that's up to him. Until then, we'll just leave things status quo or maybe I'll post links instead of the articles. Links are fair game, aren't they?

 

You may be familiar with another web site on which nearly everything posted is copied news articles, along with their usual put-downs and flames directed toward GT and me. Take those away and that site would be rather empty. You might want to let them know too, although if you're right it would pretty much finish off that particular site.

[bkkguy]

Are you an attorney? I checked all this out with my own attorney years ago and was clearly told that as long as the source is properly cited, then it is not against the law and not a copyright violation. If you believe that it is, can you post the section of the copyright laws that backs up what you are saying?

 

then I suggest you check this again with an attorney that is familiar with copyright law or at least read the official US government Copyright Office web site - the links and quotes I included in my post were from there, what better authority do you want me to quote from?

 

If you don't believe the US Copyright Office then try a google search for other authorities, they will give you the same answer: citing source is not sufficient and fair use does not allow reproduction of the complete article without permission

 

 

Meanwhile most of the web sites do things this way and always have. There has never been a problem. Are you trying to cause one? Do you have some personal objection?

 

no I am not trying to cause a problem, I am trying to save you/GT from one - many news sites are starting to crack down on such blatant copyright infringement

 

 

If GT wants to consult an attorney about it, that's up to him. Until then, we'll just leave things status quo or maybe I'll post links instead of the articles. Links are fair game, aren't they?

 

I have already given my opinion on what would be allowed under fair use and you don't seem to like that opinion so if you want to reproduce articles from the Bangkok Post then I suggest you read their Republishing Policy which is on their web site - I did include a link to it in my previous post which you seem to have ignored, similarly for the Nation etc, after all the copyright owner is obviously a more authoritative source than I am!

 

bkkguy

[Gaybutton]

I am trying to save you/GT from one - many news sites are starting to crack down on such blatant copyright infringement

Ok, no prob. From now on it will be links only.

[bkkguy]

Ok, no prob. From now on it will be links only.

 

so I suppose I should just graciously accept this with no acknowledgment from you, GT or your attorneys that you now finally acknowledge and understand what fair use is all about?

 

at least I don't need to keep scanning past articles I have already read at the original site (with paid ads)

 

bkkguy

[Guest fountainhall]

you should read their guidelines on "fair use":

 

U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use

As I have said before on this site, I am not a lawyer, but my work involves some contract law as well as occasionally copyright law. I am not totally convinced that quoting from a newspaper is in fact "blatant copyright infringement" - for this reason. In the arts and entertainment business, all performing companies, artists, press managers, agents etc. use extensive media quotes to publicise their activities. This is not simply a few lines as you can see outside a theatre with a credit to the relevant media organisation. It involves complete articles similar to those quoted earlier by GB. Indeed, a number of major international artists from the US and Europe who have appeared in Bangkok have complete Bangkok Post reviews on websites (with word count way over the 150 suggested in the Bangkok Post web guidelines).

 

I know for a fact that there is no agreement of any kind between many of these groups/individuals and the media they are quoting. Further, to my knowledge, I know of no case in the UK and other countries with strict copyright protection laws that has gone before the courts regarding alleged infringement of such copyright by such groups/individuals.

 

I find it hard to believe there is an exception for one particular industry, and so I checked the US Copyright website. Right at the start, it says -

 

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

 

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

 

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

The nature of the copyrighted work

The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

 

The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission.

To me, it seems absolutely clear from the above (see my underlining) that GB is perfectly entitled to quote articles from the media. In my view, use on this site is a very clear "limitation". I am not sure of the Thai law regulations, but I suspect they are in fact less strict. If I am wrong, I look forward to being corrected.

[Gaybutton]

so I suppose I should just graciously accept this with no acknowledgment from you, GT or your attorneys that you now finally acknowledge and understand what fair use is all about?

I didn't say I agree with you. I said from now on we'll use links instead of copy-and-paste and that's what we'll do. You've made your point and I'm acting on what you said because you very well might be right whether I agree or not. I'm not interested in debating about it. For what? You've convinced me to change the way we post news items. That's what you wanted and that's what you'll have.

 

Is there something more than that you want?

[bkkguy]

As I have said before on this site, I am not a lawyer, but my work involves some contract law as well as occasionally copyright law. I am not totally convinced that quoting from a newspaper is in fact "blatant copyright infringement"

 

it is obvious that you are "not a lawyer" and you need to re-read your own quote (the same site I quoted from) - the key text is "The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" - which you seem to have ignored in your underlining!

 

and you also need to be considering "The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work" - specifically in relation to advertising revenue sales for the news web site

 

in 20 years of following discussion of "fair use" in US, Australian, European or Asian jurisdictions I have yet to see a legal opinion or judicial decision that supports reproduction or republication of 100% a copyright article without permission is not a breach of copyright - if you have other information I would love to see it

 

what GB has been doing here is not "quoting" from a source but republishing 100% of the original article - and you can miss-quote and re-interpret information for your own purposes but this does not change a substantial body of legal opinion

 

prostitution is illegal in Thailand but the law is rarely enforced, so don't try to claim that some artists "quoting" newspaper reviews from the Bangkok Post supports your view - I am interested in real legal opinion, not what untested cases have gotten away with in the past!

 

bkkguy

[Gaybutton]

what GB has been doing here is not "quoting" from a source but republishing 100% of the original article

What GB has been doing here has been trying to make our readership aware of news items that are probably of interest and significance. What GB has not been doing here has been intentionally or knowingly violating the rights of anyone.

 

I don't know whether you're right or not. But I've already said I'm going to change the method by which I present news items based on what you are saying, despite the fact that we've been posting news articles with sources cited for many years without any problems or legal complaints.

 

It doesn't matter anymore who's right. For the third time, from now on I'll only allow links to the news items and all anyone who's interested has to do is click on them.

 

I'm going to do as you asked. So, what are we arguing about?

[bkkguy]

I'm going to do as you asked. So, what are we arguing about?

 

the fact that you keep asking this question at this point in so many of our discussions implies that I should just give up!

 

you have been posting full articles for years based on your belief in the advice of your attorney years ago, now because I have been so difficult you will change your policy - not because you believe it is right but because it is is the easy way out and will make me stop complaining, and you expect me to respect this?

 

it is not about who is "right" and "wrong" - it is about the moral and legal issues and which are worth fighting against and which are not

 

and this has always been the end-point (and the final point of disagreement) in most of our discussions - but then I am just a pedantic bastard!

 

bkkguy

[Gaybutton]

I am just a pedantic bastard!

There. Now we have something we agree about. I always have to admire a man who won't take yes for an answer.

 

Concerning whether I expect you to respect this, are you actually under the impression that this is something personal and that I care about your complaints and am looking for an easy way out? Out of what? If I was looking for the easy way, I would have left the boards and refused to be a moderator years ago instead of sticking around and going through this shit all the time.

 

So, complain all you want. As a matter of fact all your complaints really do is refute the accusations constantly made about me - that I delete the posts from those who dare to disagree with me.

 

"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

 

Now, once again we've let a thread about one subject gravitate into an entirely different subject. You can have the last word, and then the thread goes back to the subject of the peace talks. After all, that's the easy way out . . .

[Guest fountainhall]

the key text is "The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" - which you seem to have ignored in your underlining!

 

in 20 years of following discussion of "fair use" in US, Australian, European or Asian jurisdictions I have yet to see a legal opinion or judicial decision that supports reproduction or republication of 100% a copyright article without permission is not a breach of copyright - if you have other information I would love to see it

I clearly defer to your considerable knowledge of the subject. However, I have quoted an example of an entire industry - which, by the way, also includes the multi-billion dollar worldwide movie industry - which clearly pays no attention whatever to what seems to be the law - and all parties seem perfectly happy with the arrangement. If you do not agree with this assertion, I will happily send you a file with hundreds of examples where media articles are quoted in their entirety without authorisation. Would a lawyer not argue that this is a major worldwide precedent? And in law, does precedent not play a major role when similar cases come before a court, irrespective of the detail of the law?

 

you also need to be considering "The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work" - specifically in relation to advertising revenue sales for the news web site

Perfectly understandable. But what is the "potential market for, or value of", say, a general news story (provided it has been originated by that paper on not reprinted form another source) to the paper owners or the writer? The value is surely its list prices in the open market for the physical product or for the on-line product. If it is a piece of news reporting, its value surely deteriorates rapidly within a matter of hours following publication. Certainly few daily newspapers are sold on the streets after early afternoon each day. If on-line, then perhaps a few hours later. So from that viewpoint, surely courts would generally agree that its "potential" value has dropped to almost zero? So do we not, once again, have a potential conflict about what a law says and how it could be interpreted?

 

I will not belabour this subject as I do not have the required legal knowledge. But, as bkkguy rightly points out, the quidelines themselves highlight the difficulty in interpreting the law -

 

The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission.

Given the above, I'd have no problem quoting extensively from news-related items, provided I did so a reasonable number of hours after publication. Speaking again as a layman, surely this is even more more favourable to the copyright holders, because the provision of a link to a free media site posted earlier in the day might well affect "potential value"?

[bkkguy]

However, I have quoted an example of an entire industry - which, by the way, also includes the multi-billion dollar worldwide movie industry - which clearly pays no attention whatever to what seems to be the law - and all parties seem perfectly happy with the arrangement.

 

the situation is changing now as news sites need to make more money from their web offerings - but it has always been about mutual benefit and who is worth prosecuting and who isn't!

 

if I have a restaurant or produce a play and get a review in the Bangkok Post and I print that and put it on the window or in my portfolio the Post lawyers will not care, if I only quote from that review in advertising I am well within fair use anyway

 

if I add the review in full to my restaurant or play web site at best the Post lawyers might send me a polite reminder to obtain permission or only quote from it

 

if I print 1000 copies and stand on the street corner and distribute with a flyer for my restaurant/play the Post lawyers may be interested enough to send me the reprint rates for an article but if I am just a small player ...

 

if I am a major restaurant chain or production house I probably already have a working relationship with the major press outlets and thus have "permission" to use their content anyway

 

however if I run a movie or restaurant review site and I start reproducing the Post reviews in full for every restaurant I add I am sure I will be hearing from their legal department as soon as they hear about it

 

But what is the "potential market for, or value of", say, a general news story ... The value is surely its list prices in the open market for the physical product or for the on-line product. If it is a piece of news reporting, its value surely deteriorates rapidly within a matter of hours following publication.

 

for most news web site the "value" is the advertising revenue that could be earned from the reader visiting the news web site to read the story, and that is not significantly impacted by the age of the story - a news archive I manage has not had new stories in 10 years but still generates significant ad revenue!

 

by reproducing the article in full on a forum site like this you are depriving the news owner of that advertising revenue - who is going to click on the link if they have already read the full news article?

 

but as GB says we should get back to the original topic of this hijacked thread - this weekend could be a very depressing time for Bangkok residents!

 

bkkguy

[Guest fountainhall]

it has always been about mutual benefit and who is worth prosecuting and who isn't!

So a New York Times review of an Andrea Bocelli concert printed in full in Bocelli's website will probably be regarded by The NYT as beneficial because so many non-NYT readers will see it and presumably come to believe that the NYT is a prestige paper? Whereas a Bangkok Post review printed in full on the Pattaya Players website might be regarded by the Post as having little or no benefit?

 

But is there not another issue? Concert promoters depend on newspapers to print media releases, diary entries etc. for free. Newspapers like to have interviews, write concert reviews, some even have whole pages devoted to concerts, the arts in general and features about concert artists. For reviews, they depend on the concert promoters providing free tickets. The copyright of any performance is always held by the artist or promoter. By accepting such tickets and writing a review, can it not be said that rights to the review belong equally to the artist/promoter on the one hand, and the newspaper/reviewer on the other? I am just curious!

 

Perhaps the arts/entertainment industry is different, but I can see no way a publisher - not even News Corp. - is going to sue any arts/entertainment outfit for publishing a review in whole or in part. There would be a total outcry from the industry

[bkkguy]

the copyright issues I originally raised here where that reproducing in full a copyright news story on a forum site like this even with an attribution was a breach of copyright and the correct procedure would be to either obtain permission to reproduce or else quote extracts with discussion or opinion and attribution to the original source which would be covered by fair use provisions

 

nothing I have seen posted on this thread or on the thread about the legal advice GT received indicate that my original statements were wrong

 

I don't know the entertainment industry and what "official" or "working" relationships there may be for "permission" to quote a review in full and most copyright issues never see the light of day in court, I am not a lawyer, you are not a lawyer, I have given my opinion (and you have ignored the fairly significant point in my post about what a news story's "value" is), you have given your opinion, we are never going to take this to court so I think we should stop hijacking this thread!

 

bkkguy

[Guest fountainhall]

I think we should stop hijacking this thread!

Agreed.