NOTICE: A serious reminder....

[Lee Kington]

REMINDER & HEADS UP:

Historically two positions / policies for these forums have been (but not limited to):

1)These are DISCUSSION forums and not here to replace Drudge, Google News, etc. Posts, especially thread starters are not valid if they are just a link or just a link with a quip and no discussion of specific content.

2)We respect copyright law. Reproduction of complete or significant portion of material from an outside source is not acceptable and will be removed from the boards. Fair-Use of copyrighted material is, in reality, quite specific to a very limited amount and only that which is directly discussed, etc. All acceptable amount of quoted material must clearly identify the source and provide a link to that source.

Of the two issues, the latter is more problematic and serious as a violation. In the past the LA Times and Washington Post successfully sued Free Republic for copyright infringement. Currently they, Free Republic, are being sued again by others who have also just filed suit against the Democratic Underground. The plaintiffs in the case are, quite admittedly, making a business out of suing those who infringe upon copyrighted material which they own the rights to. They WILL be suing others. Many others.

We could provide a list of news outlets involved and stress avoiding them. However, regardless of source copyright law must be observed and respected relevant to all sources.

A reminder.

We do NOT want to see an increase in situation #1.

We will remove, not edit but remove, any post containing all or a significant portion of copyrighted material, or any quoted material not directly and specifically commented on, or any quoted material without clearly named source, or any quoted material without a provided link, without warning regarding situation #2.

As always it is essential that the Moderator Staff, while facilitating good discussion, protect the boards, our HOST, and the corporation. Your cooperation will be appreciated.

NOTE:

Limitations on Postings
You agree that you will not:

• Deliver any posting that infringes or violates any intellectual property or other right of any entity or person, including, without limitation, copyrights, patents, trademarks, laws governing trade secrets, rights to privacy, or publicity.

LINK / INTERACTIVE SERVICE ADDITIONAL TERMS

[WildRose]

If we pull a quote, and post the link to the source of that quote together is that attribution enough?

[Lee Kington]

If we pull a quote, and post the link to the source of that quote together is that attribution enough?

1) Limited (very limited) amount of material.
2) Content of material must be directly and specifically addressed.
3) Source must be named.
4) Link must be provided.

-----------------------------------

As we discuss glaciers it is essential to note temperatures are not the only factor in regards to their advance or retreat. In this article a caution is made that they cannot be used as a simple gauge of the climate and are susceptible to regional or local influences. Glaciers very near each other can be changing in totally different directions / states.

I stated above; Glaciers are not a simple gauge which one can use to claim unusual warming or temperatures greater than those of the past. As you can see from my examples, in the same geographical area some glaciers can be retreating, while others, advance.

MY CLIMATE BUZZ / The Story Of Glaciers / LINK

[animalnut]

Excuse me for being dense, Lee, but is it okay to link to an article that is copyrighted? (As long as commentary describing the article is included)?

[darknessesedge]

I am confused.
My farmers thread had the correct link and my comments on the article, but you removed it.
what did I do wrong?

[Lee Kington]

Excuse me for being dense, Lee, but is it okay to link to an article that is copyrighted? (As long as commentary describing the article is included)?

Yes, provided as you noted that actual specific content of the article is discussed in the post. (quips are not discussion)

[Lee Kington]

I am confused.
My farmers thread had the correct link and my comments on the article, but you removed it.
what did I do wrong?

Extensive / full content of copyrighted material.

Reproduce only a SMALL amount (150 words or so) and that content MUST be directly and specifically discussed.

What is directly / specifically?

In the example I posted for WildRose...

As we discuss glaciers it is essential to note temperatures are not the only factor in regards to their advance or retreat. In this article a caution is made that they cannot be used as a simple gauge of the climate and are susceptible to regional or local influences. Glaciers very near each other can be changing in totally different directions / states.


Had my comments been something like this:

Last week the Petermann glacier in Greenland calved dropping a chunk of ice four times the size of Manhattan into the sea.

THEN... the material I quoted:

I stated above; Glaciers are not a simple gauge which one can use to claim unusual warming or temperatures greater than those of the past. As you can see from my examples, in the same geographical area some glaciers can be retreating, while others, advance.

MY CLIMATE BUZZ / The Story Of Glaciers / LINK

would not be relevant, thus, not permitted.

[darknessesedge]

Extensive / full content of copyrighted material.

Reproduce only a SMALL amount (150 words or so) and that content MUST be directly and specifically discussed.

What is directly / specifically?

In the example I posted for WildRose...

As we discuss glaciers it is essential to note temperatures are not the only factor in regards to their advance or retreat. In this article a caution is made that they cannot be used as a simple gauge of the climate and are susceptible to regional or local influences. Glaciers very near each other can be changing in totally different directions / states.


Had my comments been something like this:

Last week the Petermann glacier in Greenland calved dropping a chunk of ice four times the size of Manhattan into the sea.

THEN... the material I quoted would not be relevant, thus, not permitted.

ok..sorry..wont happen again...

[Dr. Funkenstein]

This doesn't seem difficult...

Links to copyrighted material (which most articles from news sites would be)- okay, provided you've also discussed the content of the material.

Copying and pasting a paragraph from said material- okay, again, provided you're discussing it and not just posting it on its own

Copying and pasting an entire article- not okay, regardless of whether the link is provided.

Copying and pasting any part of the article without the link- not okay

The only question I have is this...once the link to the copyrighted material has been established (i.e. the OP follows the rules), are we allowed to pull a quote from the piece without linking back to it, or does each post require a link?

Also, would "this would seem to speak for itself" followed by a quote from an OP's linked article be an acceptable response?

[Lee Kington]

The only question I have is this...once the link to the copyrighted material has been established (i.e. the OP follows the rules), are we allowed to pull a quote from the piece without linking back to it, or does each post require a link?

Each post must stand on its own. Therefore, each post must contain attribution and link.

Also, would "this would seem to speak for itself" followed by a quote from an OP's linked article be an acceptable response?

That is a quip and NOT discussion of content therefore unacceptable.

[Vaard]

yeah, this will get worse as news companies start moving towards pay access for their sites to offset the revenue being lost by people not buying hard copies of their work.......

which leads me to my question.......

what are the protocols for sites that you have to pay to access their stories/articles?


will they be the same as listed in the op or more restictive?

[Lee Kington]

yeah, this will get worse as news companies start moving towards pay access for their sites to offset the revenue being lost by people not buying hard copies of their work.......

which leads me to my question.......

what are the protocols for sites that you have to pay to access their stories/articles?


will they be the same as listed in the op or more restictive?

Aside from all of the legal issues being debated about paywalls consider this.

Quoted material and a link to that material which is behind a paywall is essentially invalid on its face. No one can read full context or really even verify the information without paying to do so. Hence, anyone who

1) Wants to violate their agreement with the owner of the paywalled site and

2) wants to steal material from there and post it here,

3) Also needs to post their valid credit card information so that anyone who wants to read full content and context can do so on that members dime.

Now they could just post their username and password for the paywall, in which case we will remove it and ban their account here for TOS violation.

Limitations on Postings
You agree that you will not:

• Deliver any unlawful (according to local, state, federal, or international law or regulation) postings to or through the Clear Channel Website, or any postings which advocate illegal activity.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Each post must stand on its own. Therefore, each post must contain attribution and link.

That is a quip and NOT discussion of content therefore unacceptable.

Noted...thanks for the assistance.

[konssurvative1]

A group of high school [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]students[/color][/COLOR] attending a conservative leadership conference in Washington, D.C. said they were ordered by a security guard to stop singing the national anthem during a June 25 visit to the Lincoln Memorial.
“They told them to stop singing,” said Evan Gassman, a spokesman for the Young America’s Foundation. “I was taken aback. You wouldn’t expect a display of national patriotism to be censored."
U.S. Park Police confirmed that the students were in violation of federal law and their impromptu performance constituted a demonstration in an area that must remain “completely content neutral.”

So this would not have been ok even though I typed three paragraphs of discussion afterward, because I did not provide the Link where it came from even though it was the same link in the OP of this tread...RIGHT?

I think I got it now Lee and it is a great point to be made...

[Blue Collar]

Lee's point seems common sense to me ...

Aiding and abbetting an argument with limited outside material is approproiate. But none of us come here for a reading list; we come here to converse, albeit by print.

Personally, while having no problem with "quotes" that neatly support a compact point, or serve to support an issue in the form of an example, I find it a real bore when a poster indulges a third party dissertation. Quite frankly, the best conversations here are the ones that are smart and snappy. By that code, my post here is verging on too far ...