Kyle: The 10% rule is just a guideline. Copyright doesn’t apply for the purposes of personal study either. Satire is a dodgey one. It’s often unlitigated since it tends to make people look worse than the satire did, and it’s also often not financially worth suing the satirist (unless you just want an injunction). The whole point about copyright is that it is. in fact, infringed all the time, but very few infringements are noteworthy. This is the reason people seem to think you can copy entire chapters of books and not infringe copyright: you are infringing copyright, in the same way that you break the law by driving at 101kph in a 100kph zone.

You’re right in thinking, however, that we won’t get in trouble for posting it here, because it’s just not worth anyone’s hassle.

So, the answer to the original question of whether or not full reproduction of an ODT article is an infringement of the copyright which subsists in the article as a literary compilation is yes, it is.

Wicky: Don’t hate me because I’m not intellectually challenged.

Hellyer: Someone besides Kyle and I who understands the concept eh? Lord be praised, a miracle!

Hmm, you realise I take Intellectual Property Law, right Kyle? You really, really, REALLY do need permission to reproduce the article. As in really do. As in I’m 100% sure you do. Trust me, you do. You do.

But you’re right, it won’t make a shit of difference.

Give me ten minutes and I’ll post the article.

Umm, no, sorry Kyle, it would be breach of copyright. Ryan: you have the right idea.

However, the consequences of said breach would be, well, nothing, so I’ll scan it and plunk it up soon.