Copywrongs

There are lots of things that I thought were okay to copyright, that actually aren't. For instance I wasn't aware of the time restraints involved in not only the amount of time allowed for the subject, but the I find if funny how http://www.educationworld.com is firm with their belief: Repeat after me: , "The Internet is not in the public domain. The Internet is not in the public domain. The Internet is NOT in the public domain.". I find it interesting that before 1978 the copyright is good for 75 more years. It has to be interesting for the investigators that are looking into pantomimed and choreographed work. I think that it would be very hard to distinguish body movements and such. I wonder what things would be like if copyright laws DID extend beyond facts and ideas. I find it interesting that the “fair use” agreements are not more defined. I agree with them, but compared to how strict the other copyright laws are the four guidelines are lenient. Educationworld.com tells about relating internet resources to print resources as a way to distinguish is the copyright is being infringed. I don’t really understand why posting a link with a small description is considered vandalism, but posting the URL and title of a site is legit. As I recall I can think of a lot of sites that do such a thing.

Questions: 1. Why is it okay to post an URL and its’ title, but creating a short description (even after being linked to another site) and another link is taboo?

2. Is poetry copy written the same as all other literature?