Think about it for a minute. If no on could ever make a copy of anything without copyright owner's permission, then commentary, critical articles, news reporting, research papers and education would be much more difficult. It would be much more difficult, for example, to write a book report without including a quote or two from author. It would be even more difficult to write a thesis, term paper or research article without including quotes from dozens or even hundreds of sources.

Let's say you were writing an article on copyright and you needed to illustrate a point. You could write your own words (and you should), but you would have a much more powerful article if you included some quotes from reputable sources. It makes it appear that you have done your research and gives you additional authority that you might not otherwise be granted.

In fact, it would be downright silly to require people to get permission to make quotes of this nature. Imagine how difficult it would be if you were writing a term paper which included references from a hundred difficult sources. You would have to track down each author and ask permission. Many times author has given up copyright to some other entity, so you would have to do further research on who really owns copyrights. This could conceivably require more time than writing paper itself!

To enable you to include quotes of other author's works, an exemption to United States copyright law was created. This allows for "commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without permission of author (from "10 Big Myths about copyright explained", just to illustrate how this works).

So how does this work? Well, some of more important considerations are:

- Your intent in copying work - How much of work was copied - As well as any damage to commercial value of work.

So, for example, if you were writing an article about quality of movie "The Mummy Returns", you could use brief quotes from film to illustrate your point. However, if you included entire script on your web site, well, that would be a copyright violation.

In general, it is a good idea to include a reference to original source material. This serves many purposes, one of most important being simple common courtesy (in fact, I often like to let author know I have borrowed some of his words). It also makes it clear that you have invoked fair use, and it gives your readers a source for additional information. Just as important, you improve your own credibility by showing you have done your research and you are not afraid to allow others to see how you came to your conclusions.

To further illustrate, following would most likely be covered under fair use:

- Including brief quotes from published papers for your research papers.

- Writing an article on your web site about Simpsons and including a WAV file quoting Homer. Perhaps something like "Homer's 'Doh' has become famous world over", with a hyperlink to a WAV file for "Doh".

- Criticizing a book and including a few quotes to illustrate your point.

- Criticizing a book and including quotes from other critics to reinforce your point.

The following would most likely be considered copyright violations:

Rule #1: Don't assume you understand problem. This is one of classic mistakes of problem solving - you think you understand what's going on, but you didn't look deep enough or get enough information to really get it. Before starting to solve any problem, be sure you spend some time and be absolutely sure you understand exactly what's going in.

Rule #2: Don't assume that person who reported problem understands problem either. In computer field, I've found that users will report problems in many different, often bizarre ways. Sometimes they will describe it in such a manner that it appears to make sense, but actually what they are describing has no relation to problem at all. Remember, most people do not understand computers and related technology at all, so they tend to piece together descriptions based upon what they have heard, what they think they know and what people have told them.

Rule #3: Duplicate problem. Always, always, always duplicate any problem before you start working on finding a solution. Why? See Rule #4. In addition, if you can make a problem occur again, there is a much better change that you really do understand what's going on (rule #1).

Rule #4: You cannot know you have solved a problem unless you followed Rule #3. The only way to be sure that a problem is solved is to fix it, then exactly replicate what happened. The sequence is simple: duplicate problem, fix problem, then try and duplicate it again. If you've exactly replicated issue, then you can be reasonably sure you've fixed it.

Rule #5: Don't assume someone else understands problem. If you need to delegate problem to another person, or if you are receiving instructions from another person to solve problem yourself, do not ever assume they understand what they are talking about. Always follow Rule #3 to be sure YOU understand problem. Do not take anyone else's word for it. If you delegate problem, make sure person you give it to follows Rule #3.

Rule #6: Don't assume you have just one problem. Sometimes things are more complicated than they seem. It's never a good idea to assume that there is just one problem to be solved. Throughout entire problem solving process, keep your eyes open and find any additional problems that you may see.

Rule #7: Don't assume there is more than one problem. Also, don't make assumption there is more than one problem either. How do you follow rules #6 and #7? Just base your conclusions upon what exists, not upon your assumptions or what others have told you.