Copyright violations

[TheDan]

Copyright violations: Cutting and pasting any external article content will no longer be permitted. If you care about TGT please don't do it. We can't afford to get shut down over a needless lawsuit and these legal firms are getting more aggressive about coming after site owners. So when you want to reference an article, you may post: 1) A link to the article. 2) The title of the article. 3) A brief summation in your own words of the article. 4) While quoting the first sentence of the article is probably reasonable under the doctrine of Fair Use, the practice should be avoided. Threads that violate this policy will be deleted without notice. Multiple infractions will draw a ban. The state of copyright law as it pertains to online use is in flux internationally and TGT will take a conservative approach.

#4... yep...

If the concern is the EU's stupid Copyright Directive, why not just block all IPs outside the US? Hell, block all IPs outside Texas

While we're worrying about legal issues in other countries, I'm pretty sure you'll have to censor 99% of the site for consumption in China.

 

[benenglish]

If the concern is the EU's stupid Copyright Directive, why not just block all IPs outside the US? Hell, block all IPs outside Texas

There are far more concerns than just the Copyright Directive. That will be a problem in the future. Right now, there are cease and desist letters floating around and the lawyers required to deal with those aren't cheap.

While we're worrying about legal issues in other countries, I'm pretty sure you'll have to censor 99% of the site for consumption in China.

China already does that censoring for themselves. Feel free to write about the massacre at Tiananmen Square; we're unlikely to get any legal hassles from China.

 

[grasshopperglock]

Does the latest copyright push have anything to do with net neutrality?

 

[Byrd666]

Probably not, since this was brought up quite a while back. The first time I remember hearing/reading/seeing something about copyright laws and infringement changes was about ten or so years ago.

If I remember right, it had something to do with a songwriter and public domain stuff.

 

[SloppyShooter]

Hey, can we talk about last nights NFL game last night?

Oh....wait....

 

[Sam7sf]

Just remember the site rules. Such as I recall the bit about though tgt respects freedom of speech, it’s still their house. I can live with this. I have noticed plenty of times, in my post too, how the mods give us a lot of breathing room. If the site owner wishes to avoid being hassled by insane legal threats, then let’s just help him out. I don’t agree with any of this, I think freedom of speech is hypocritically controlled by the media and these legal threats from a simple cut and paste show how immature and unintelligent this country really has become. I’m done, that’s my two cents.

 

[SloppyShooter]

Just remember the site rules. Such as I recall the bit about though tgt respects freedom of speech, it’s still their house. I can live with this. I have noticed plenty of times, in my post too, how the mods give us a lot of breathing room. If the site owner wishes to avoid being hassled by insane legal threats, then let’s just help him out. I don’t agree with any of this, I think freedom of speech is hypocritically controlled by the media and these legal threats from a simple cut and paste show how immature and unintelligent this country really has become. I’m done, that’s my two cents.

Just pointing out how the NFL states : ( very loosely quoting) "Any reproductions, ACCOUNTS, blah blah blah....without the expressly written consent of the NFL is STRICTLY prohibited.

I can see the rush by folks to delete their DVRs and posts all across the internet.

I can see it now...." Your Magistrate. .."

"Bailiff, escort this looney out of my courtroom ."

I don't have a problem with the new rule, just think it's a little screwy. I thought we took care of this after dumping tea?

 

[Sam7sf]

Of course it’s screwed up but tgt has to protect itself. Worlds nucking futs. We have moo cows spilling hot coffee on themselves and winning cases.

 

[benenglish]

I've been fighting copyright battles for almost 30 years now, in various venues. The re-wording of the rules is little more than an update to bring the site into line with current best practices for such businesses. It's basically the same rule that has always existed; it's just a little clearer.

I sincerely doubt anyone will notice any difference except for the few people who like to start threads by just cutting and pasting entire news articles.

To everyone else, this should not impact you at all.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I normally include the headline, is that ok?

 

[grasshopperglock]

I've been fighting copyright battles for almost 30 years now, in various venues. The re-wording of the rules is little more than an update to bring the site into line with current best practices for such businesses. It's basically the same rule that has always existed; it's just a little clearer.

I sincerely doubt anyone will notice any difference except for the few people who like to start threads by just cutting and pasting entire news articles.

To everyone else, this should not impact you at all.

A couple of years ago. Louder members would complain of a post containing nothing but a link. Any perceived personal added direction by your own words was cussed at. Any sites not pre-approved for pop ups. Any sites not commonly known like CNN caught hell too.

I started copying and pasting the first paragraph in the authors own words. Giving them credit for the writing but at the same time sharing the thought.

I don't have a problem going back to the older way. The trick being describing the article in a unbiased way. Because Ill call it phucked up. Preemptively judging the article for the shared reader.

©

 

[benenglish]

I normally include the headline, is that ok?

The headline is the same as the (allowed) title, right?

 

[ZX9RCAM]

The headline is the same as the (allowed) title, right?

I suppose it is.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

A couple of years ago. Louder members would complain of a post containing nothing but a link.
©

This is true.

 

[Sam7sf]

I don't have a problem going back to the older way. The trick being describing the article in a unbiased way. Because Ill call it phucked up. Preemptively judging the article for the shared reader.

And it’s sad this is what people have to do. News sources chose to be more talk show/editorial like than actually reporting real news. So now we have to watch what we say because we’re not the ones allowed to do certain things after they chose to release public information. Freedom of the press...yeah. F em.

 

[IXLR8]

I guess this means that we can swear like sailors, to make up for the loss of copyright malfeasance.

 

[toddnjoyce]

A couple of years ago. Louder members would complain of a post containing nothing but a link. Any perceived personal added direction by your own words was cussed at....

The trick being describing the article in a unbiased way. Because Ill call it phucked up. Preemptively judging the article for the shared reader.

I’m more inclined to read a linked article that is posted when the poster paraphrases or gives their own summary of the linked article because critical thinking is involved.

Copy/pasted entire articles that include the link, I generally skip, as it takes not critical thought to copy/paste.

I liken it to the guy who’s lawn looks good at a distance. Then, up close you realize it’s just close cut weeds. Sure, it looks green, but it’s not a lawn...no skill needed at all to keep a weed green.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Hey, if not for green weeds, my yard would be dirt....

 

[benenglish]

And moss. Don't forget the moss.

 

[Byrd666]

...and the clover.