visitorfromclinton: Your copy and paste job has extended beyond what would be considered fair use. Having looked at the blog and seeing no right to redistribute granted, I have replaced the insertion of the content with a link to the content. If you can provide me a link in which the author of the blog grants permission to copy, please say so in the comments here and I will undo my edit.

I think you must know that a fair use definition only applies to copyrighted material as outlined in the digital millennium act of 1998. What I had cut and paste was not copyrighted material. I will paste as a teaser just two paragraphs from the link that you found.

Thus I present exhibit A: One Dr. Nina Pierpont, who began reseraching this issue after (surprise) a wind farm was built near her home. To give Dr. Pierpont her due, she is a board certified pediatrician and a graduate of Johns Hopkins, was a professor of clinical pediatrics at Columbia, and holds a PhD from Princeton in “population biology”, which sounds relevant but actually isn’t. She’s also an aging hippie environmentalist who once lived with Eskimos in Alaska. Anyway, Dr. Pierpont began studying the health of families who lived near wind turbines and came up with the idea of “wind turbine syndrome” based on her findings.

Now, what a good doctor or scientist would do would be to publish a paper in a respected journal, so that her findings could be reviewed and perhaps duplicated by others. If subsequent studies confirmed her work, she would be hailed as a pioneer. Instead, Pierpont decided to write a book for commercial sale, presenting her work as established scientific fact to an uncritical audience ready to be terrified by her conclusion, that it is unsafe to live within the totally arbitrary distance of two miles of a wind turbine. Her most likely reason for doing so was her knowledge that her research was sloppy and that she had assumed her conclusions before she even began.

Visitorfromclinton, I respect your viewpoints but I suggest you pick your battles with someone other than a person who works with intellectual property for a living. I don't know where you got your perception of copyright, but according to US Code Title 15, 102(a): "Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device."

You might want to read this primer on copyrights, provided by the US Copyright Office:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf

Pay particular attention to page 2, under "Who Can Claim Copyright? Copyright subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form." Continue reading on and show me where this work would be an exception.

Yes, excerpting portions is fair use (as you did, inexplicably, in the comment rather than editing your post) but copying the whole article verbatim without permission of the author is a copyright violation, whether the work is registered with the copyright office (or has a copyright notice) or not.

This concludes today's lesson in Copyright Law.

Thank you for the education.