No, that's not what one can "only assume." I hate defending SciAm because they're so off the deep end lately, but due to the way copyright law works, they're compelled to threaten anyone who uses anything of theirs in any way. This is why Disney goes after mom & pop day care centers that use a drawing of, say, Snow White based on the Disney design. There was a thread here on FR not long ago about how one avant garde musician wrote a :60 track consisting of total silence. He was promptly sued by the attorneys for an avant garde composer who had previously written a piece that was four minutes of silence.
Naturally, the musician said his silence was in no way related to the other silence.
At this point, I have nothing to say regarding the validity of the arguments on either side.
You are confusing copyrights with trademarks. One doesn't have to work to keep copyright enfringment ripe. And if there was ever a better example of fair use -- using the copyrighted text only to demonstrate the argument, so one can rebut it -- I've never heard of it.
LMFAO!!!
Okay that's one of the most futzed-up things I've read on FR all day...
Time to call it a day...