Can Copyright Law Be Used to Suppress Conspiracy Theories?

Am I confused about the legal system of writing non-fiction books or is it in fact possible to use copyright law to suppress the discovery of information related to conspiracy theories?

Imagine the government assigns many disinfo agents to pose as legitimate researchers who have discovered key information regarding well known conspiracies. These researchers all document their discoveries and theories in individual books websites and videos that are all pieces of the puzzle yet they mix in a bit of disinfo to take people off the actual trail.

So imagine someone comes along and discovers how all these numerous pieces fit together but in order to prove this to others it would require permission from all these copyright holders to reproduce their work..

The person who put the pieces together could write a book that vaguely covers the elements of the entire puzzle.. but in order to really understand it, others would need to see all the evidence that is controlled by the individual copyright holders and to do this they too would need to read all these books which most would be unlikely to do and if they did they would be confused by the disinfo mixed in...

Am I wrong or could this method be used as a form of suppression?

From my understanding, if you were to try to paraphrase these works entirely you would be damaging the market for the original work and you could have your work taken off the market and if they sued you, you would be financially responsible and would even have to pay their legal fees for suing you.

OR is it possible to paraphrase their entire work and make a knock-off of all these pieces without getting sued?

Believe it or not but this is the actual position I feel I am in. I am not a writer though and I am trying to understand the process of writing non-fiction and what is acceptable.

I don't understand why someone couldn't just write the book and reference as needed the information in the other works. Unless they're quoting huge chunks of material or actually reproducing copyrighted photos, there would be no copyright violation.

I think that perhaps your understanding of copyright is muddled. At the very least you should maybe look it up on Wikipedia. Also, be on the lookout for the term "Fair Use."

Originally posted by Toromos
I don't understand why someone couldn't just write the book and reference as needed the information in the other works. Unless they're quoting huge chunks of material or actually reproducing copyrighted photos, there would be no copyright violation.

Well I am speaking from my own experience.. and to fully understand this information I feel people would need to see most of the information they provide.

This is the problem I am currently having. so much of the information is someone else's proprietary information that I would need to tell people to read all these different books.

I could put little excerpts but I don't think it would be enough to fully sway people and have them understand everything..

I could try to contact these people and ask to use material.. but guess what... if you do that and they say no then you will get in more trouble than if you didn't ask at all from my understanding.

So as I see it the system is totally set up to prevent people from using others proprietary information. I think they could easily manipulate things to enhance this as well by using kind of "terrorist" acts for lack of a better term. So by abusing the system and creating precedents that prevented people from sharing information they could REALLY use this to suppress information from spreading.

For example.. there is a guy who has a site that details info I need to make my case.. he has images showing experiments he did to demonstrate this.. how can I demonstrate to people what he did without showing these illustrations and experiments? From my understanding if I try to reproduce these same elements in the same order I could be screwed.

This problem is really apparent in science journals as well.. we can't even READ these without subscriptions and the rules are even stricter there..

And the beauty (horror) of this again is they can manipulate the system by abusing it and creating precedents that help them suppress all the info.

BUT.. maybe I am wrong and it isn't this complex or there are work-a-rounds. but from my understanding you need a lawyer to find out and I don't have the money.

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
I think that perhaps your understanding of copyright is muddled. At the very least you should maybe look it up on Wikipedia. Also, be on the lookout for the term "Fair Use."

I have been researching this heavily for awhile.. I have been talking to lawyers on a site where you can ask them questions the past 2 days. They say I need to pay for a lawyer.

The problem is according to fair use you can only use like 200 words or a few lines.. and guess what.. if it is key to the book then even if it is one line they can sue you.

Also, from my understanding this even applies to re-wording and paraphrasing. If you paraphrase too much then they can sue you.

Maybe I am wrong but from my understanding if you damage the market for the book then you are violating.

How do you relate the info needed from the book without damaging the market of the book?

Supposedly you can't copyright facts and ideas though... this is where it gets confusing though.. because different rules conflict with each other.

reply to post by TheKeyMaster


You can use all of his line of thinking, you just have to put it into your own words. Like a book report you did for school. Also, you can use media from other sources that simply resemble whatever his media may be tying to convey. That is to say, every bit of your media can be made up of a multitude of others' media and it is acceptable. Just don't take too much from one persons work on a subject and reuse it in its exactness.

And like the others said, seek the, fair use law.

Originally posted by TheKeyMaster
...

I have been researching this heavily for awhile.. I have been talking to lawyers on a site where you can ask them questions the past 2 days. They say I need to pay for a lawyer.

...

Whoa! A lawyer-referral site advised you to hire a lawyer?

Just kidding. I don't think you need to hire a lawyer; I think you need to re-assess what you're trying to accomplish. For example, are you planning a book that rebuts someone else's books point-for-point? If that's the case, then you may want to reconsider your approach. Other people have written books rebutting someone else's ideas without using an unnatural number or volume of quotes....

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by TheKeyMaster

 

You can use all of his line of thinking, you just have to put it into your own words. Like a book report you did for school. Also, you can use media from other sources that simply resemble whatever his media may be tying to convey. That is to say, every bit of your media can be made up of a multitude of others' media and it is acceptable. Just don't take too much from one persons work on a subject and reuse it in its exactness.

And like the others said, seek the, fair use law.

I have looked all over for something to tell me what you just said and have not found it anywhere online. And from my understanding the guidelines for a book report are not acceptable for a copyrighted work.

I mean I fully admit I could just be missing the boat here because I am not a writer in any way shape or form.. but I just asked specific questions to lawyers regarding this and they said I needed a lawyer to be sure.

And I didn't explain this very well but these discoveries I need to relate to people are only documented by these individuals and this is cutting edge info. So there isn't a pool of people to take from.

And if you search for fair use every article online just talks about quoting not rewording and you can only use 200 words from one source or a few lines.

I hope I am wrong though... please if anyone has info illustrating this please let me know..

Look at this example..

www.explorewriting.co.uk...

Originally posted by Ex_CT2

Originally posted by TheKeyMaster
...

I have been researching this heavily for awhile.. I have been talking to lawyers on a site where you can ask them questions the past 2 days. They say I need to pay for a lawyer.

...

Whoa! A lawyer-referral site advised you to hire a lawyer?

Just kidding. I don't think you need to hire a lawyer; I think you need to re-assess what you're trying to accomplish. For example, are you planning a book that rebuts someone else's books point-for-point? If that's the case, then you may want to reconsider your approach. Other people have written books rebutting someone else's ideas without using an unnatural number or volume of quotes....

I have seen this question asked repeatedly by people though... not just me. I agree with you though that self interest is likely a part of it in their case. But I have searched and searched online to find a definitive answer to this.

This book doesn't rebut others work but it requires several sources who provide unique pieces to the puzzle.. and no one else provides these pieces...

BUT.. they are missing or ignoring certain aspects that tie everything together and show what is really going on.

I spoke to someone that is familiar with this subject matter who knew a deceased scientist who worked in this field and they were amazed.. they said I should write a book. I can't express to you how important this info is.. it will change the world.. the timing of me discovering all this is the really creepy part.

Copyright doesn't protect an idea, it protects the expression of an idea. So no.

Copyright law protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. So if I write a book about, let's pretend, Atlantis, then you cannot "copy" (as in verbatim) what I wrote. But you can still write a book about Atlantis, using your own words. The IDEA of Atlantis having existed is not copyrightable, but the exression of how I write about Atlantis is.

You also cannot copyright a title. So if I write a book entitled "Atlantis was Real!" you can write a different book entitled, "Atlantis is Real!" and not violate copyright. Though that would be pretty stupid, IMO.

So, short answer to your question is, "No."

PsykoOps beat me by a minute. We're still both correct. As a professional librarian who has dealt with this for an entire career, I have encountered this issue a zillion times, attended and led seminars on the subject ad nauseum. Take it to the bank.

reply to post by schuyler


I think you are missing my point though.. it isn't anywhere near as simple as what you are saying as I see it..

Imagine you went through a long process of discovering something.. let's say it's Atlantis.. you did all these experiments and research to show that it did in fact exist and you documented it..

In order for me to show others HOW you came to this determination I need to show how you did it.. all the reasoning and explanation for why..

And YOU are the only person to have done this and gone through this process.

This is why it is more like a biography,.. and from my understanding biographies are copyrightable because it is the order of events that make it copyrightable.. this is why people buy the rights to biographies...

If I am wrong please show me how so.. I would be overjoyed. It would solve all my problems.. remember I need to show the same experiments and illustrations they did as well.. even if I redo them in my own style it could still be infringement..

Also.. look at the example I posted above.. it was a non-fiction book..

www.explorewriting.co.uk...

The first is copyright law. It’s a legal labyrinth, but in essence it boils down to the fact that the copyright on a work remains with the author, or his successors, until 70 years after his death. However, if the work was first published outside the UK, then it becomes even more complex.

So, if you want to pursue your plan, you first need to know when the writer died, and do your research to ascertain where the book was first published and what particular copyright laws apply to it – which could involve consulting a specialist lawyer.

Again.. the key isn't the simple proclamation "Atlantis is real" the key is showing the process and reasoning they used to show why this is.. the information they use to show it's real.

Now, the reason this is a problem is because the people who copyrighted this discovery may be people withholding it from being spread more widely. IF it was someone who wanted this info to spread it wouldn't be a problem..

I don't know that these people would withhold this info but as I said... just asking people for permission is dangerous... And this problem could exist even if they aren't part of it just due to normal copyright issues... which might be by design.

Let's put it this way.. is an entire book just an idea?

If it was that simple then why did they need to write that long book and why did they copyright it?

Can you show me an example where someone copies nearly the entire contents of another persons non-fiction book and includes it in theirs even if they reword everything?

reply to post by TheKeyMaster


Research data isn't copyrighted cause it's not creative work. Also there's fair usage clause. So again no to original post

reply to post by PsykoOps


Again.. it's isn't just research data.. what do you think is filling these big books? It isn't all data... probably less than 1 percent.

Basically what you are saying is that the book is all filler.. it's not that simple. The cases they make are pivotal to explaining how one would come to these determinations.. if you don't have that then people can't follow their logic.

This is why I think it is a very easy way to control information and knowledge.

Also.... look at these science journals people pay to join. Could people rewrite the contents of these journals and sell them? If what you are saying is true it seems they could... Can you show any examples of this?

Here is an excerpt from a web page describing fair use..

Limit your borrowing, both

Quantitatively: Quote or closely paraphrase as little as possible to make your point: under 10% is best; above 20% is high risk (though a recent case allowed that, where mainly facts were copied).

Qualitatively: Avoid using the “heart” of the original, what most people would buy the work to read.
Avoid uses that replace (i.e., are market substitutes for) the original.

The only thing that makes me think you guys might be right is this part - or closely paraphrase.

If you don't closely paraphrase can you use as much as you want? Why doesn't it say that here or anywhere??

It also doesn't say if it applies to fiction or non fiction or both..

What Every Writer Ought to Know about Fair Use and Copyright

The doctrine developed to allow limited and reasonable uses of copyright–protected work. Examples include a reviewer quoting briefly from a book, or a teacher using brief passages from a book to teach English usage or writing. Copying allowed by Fair Use is usually, though not always, a small part of a work and typically includes an author credit and attribution.

www.thebookdesigner.com...

Other posts have already answered your question. If you want the answer put in another way start with reading the link. Quick question.If you are in England why are you asking about U.S. copyright law?

This is one of the most tedious threads I've seen in a while. OP, your question has been answered repeatedly. I don't see why you fail to accept the answer you have been given from multiple sources. It is the correct one.

At least, in the USA this is correct. I can not say about UK or international copyright law. Are you in the UK, perchance? I ask because I don't recall your mentioning a country of origin, and the link you provided talks about copyright in the UK, specifically.

Simply stated for you (yet again) published research data is not proprietary in any way. You can reproduce the data from research with no worries. Why don't you pick up a long fiction book. Something about a serious topic. A professionally published book, nothing self published. Maybe grab 2 or 3 just in case. Do you see footnotes with references at the bottom of some pages, or at the end of chapters, or at the end of the book? Each of these describes where the author of the book got their information from. Authors reference the work of others all the time.

I will point out that a book which references ONLY one work, and which is based entirely on that one other work is pretty rare. I can't think of one, though it's possible it exists. The reason for this, I think is simple. Aside from toeing right up to the boundaries of copyright law, if the entirety of the book you want to write can be pulled from another work, then why even bother writing one? It's already written. Is it money? I don't get it.

As stated, you can reproduce data from research. You can take the opinions, observations, analysis of the authors in the book you're referencing, and you can reproduce them in your own words. As I said before, it would be good to add your own thoughts on their data, otherwise, what is the point of even writing a book?


Maybe there is something that makes your situation strange or unique which you have failed to tell us? Otherwise, I think you have your answer.

I wasn't aware something I linked to was from the UK... I have explained why I think you guys are under-estimating the issues here.

As I have said I have posed this to lawyers and writers... and both of them have said that you need a lawyer to navigate this.

An experienced writer familiar with the law also said 10%.. but I think that person was from Australia. so maybe this is what led to the confusion?

As I have said.. I need to reference several sources... IN DEPTH in each case because all of this info is relevant to what I have discovered..

The more info I can use the more effective I will be in convincing people of what I have discovered.. the less info I use the less effective I will be in convincing people of what I have discovered...

So the common refrain on the internet seems to be to recommend to use as little of the material as possible to avoid copyright infringement.. do you see how that hinders what I am trying to do?

If I simply tell people these books provide the pieces to the puzzle of world changing information do you think people are going to take my word for it? Unlikely...

Also.. people keep saying that it isn't an issue yet people don't provide any info to support this..



Here is another example of what I am saying...

www.milwaukeepatents.com...

A recipe for chicken soup is not subject to copyright protection. It's a method or process for creating the soup. Anyone is free to reproduce a list of ingredients and proportions for this popular home remedy. However, a written, descriptive work containing detailed textual instructions and original photographs of the soup is subject to copyright protection. Similarly, facts about a historical figure are not copyrightable, but a biography expressing them may be copyright protected.

As I have said.. several of these books fall more under the realm of biographies, as I see it, because they document the journey these people went on to discover this information... IF I can't show that information - that journey - then it is unlikely I will convince others as I was convinced...

reply to post by FreebirdGirl


I have already read that piece... could you post a quote you feel covers my copyright issue?

Again.. I have read nearly every copyright article and nothing covers the type of situation I am in..

Fair use is a tiny portion of the original work.. that supports what I am saying...

I am beginning to wonder if the people posting here and ignoring what I am saying are trying to cover up this entire issue to deceive people in order to convince them it does't exist......either that or they simply aren't reading what I am writing..

Here are the questions I posed to the lawyers..

www.avvo.com...

www.avvo.com... on_page#answer_1818615