Pet Peeve about Posting Links to Articles.

[CWIPPERMAN]

OK... sorry to throw this up here - and it may be the wrong forum but it doesn't seem to fit in the "Community" Board. Here goes:

I am one of the millions of folks out here that frequently access this website from work. I never do it when I have work to do - only when it's slow. What my point is - is that my work has "internet blocking" software installed on the computers. The most obvious point of it is to block Porn or Gambling - but for some reason they have it set to block "News" sites. Often times when some of you post an interesting story or article, you will simply post this:

Check this out:
http://www.thisisalinktothearticleonsomenewswebsite.com

... And that's it. Since the article is on a "News" site - I can't access it.

Then the discussion begins on the article. I have to ask a favor. PLEASE!!!!! POST THE ARTICLE!!! As long as you include the authors name, the copyright intact - and the link to where it is posted... there is no copyright issues.

It is just very frustrating to see a great topic on here - and see some heated debate... but not be able to read the article that is being discussed.

Thanks.

 

[HB2K]

What my point is - is that my work has "internet blocking" software installed on the computers. The most obvious point of it is to block Porn or Gambling - but for some reason they have it set to block "News" sites.

Correct me if I'm wrong but if you're work cares enough to block your internet usage from MSNBC, CNN, and other legitimate news sites, do you really think you should be accessing the Disboards on company time?

 

[CWIPPERMAN]

Well.... I knew that would be the response of some of you. There is little rhyme or reason as to why some sites are blocked. The software "websense" is set up to block certain categories - but allow others. I can access this website - along with many others like jimhillmedia.com, mouseplanet, screamscape, and more. But I can't access something like www.weather.com (The Weather Channel). I can access my "Yahoo" page - but none of the links will work. They have "Free" pages blocked (anything hosted by geocities or other free hosting services). They also block "Message Boards" - yet 90% of the ones I try to access are allowed.

Like I said, the main thing they are trying to prevent is folks looking at porn, gambling, or games sites.

My mission is two-fold. I access the site from work on a T-1 line - and from home on a cable modem. But I'm sure there are still some 56K'ers out there. By making these folks click on a link - that is often another minute + of waiting for them while a new window opens so they can read the story.

And.... to make another point. Many of the sites that are linked to have pop-ups. So before you know it - you're fighting pop-up ads.... just for trying to read an article.

Anyway... it's not that much to ask you to simply copy & past the article on the page somewhere. Hell... you're copying & pasting the url of the article.... it takes an extra 20 seconds.

And by the way.... the thread that inspired me to ask this of you is this one: http://disboards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=404871. As a Drudge fan - I would love to participate in the discussions - but I have no idea what the article is about - because Drudges' site is one that is blocked.

 

[hopemax]

I'm actually surprised that as much reposting of complete articles on the DIS as there has been. Laughing Place doesn't allow it, and I think here's why. I wouldn't want Pete to get in trouble.

COPYING FOR WEBSITES & PUBLIC DISSEMINATION

Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic, 54 U.S.P.Q.2D 1453 (C.D. Cal. 2000)

A bulletin board website allowed members to post full articles from newspapers in order to generate awareness and discussion of various subjects. Access to the site was unrestricted. The defendant was a for-profit corporation, but was in the process of seeking nonprofit tax status and did not charge for access to materials on its website.

Purpose: The articles were copied directly from the news sources and were not “transformative.” The judge was also not persuaded that a link to the news source would not be sufficient. While the court generally favored the claim of a “nonprofit” use, the court still found that posting the articles was drawing readers away from the commercial websites where the articles originated.

Nature: The articles are predominately factual, tipping the factor in favor of fair use.

Amount: The website included the full text of the articles, and the court found that the copying was more extensive than necessary to accomplish the defendant’s objectives.

Effect: The newspapers were seeking to exploit the market for the articles and draw traffic to their websites; the defendant was “usurping” the copyright owner’s potential markets.

Conclusion: The bulletin board’s use of the newspaper articles was deemed to not be fair use.

 

[CWIPPERMAN]

To me, there is quite a difference between copying a full newspaper - and copying a specific story on a specific topic. I have a website with a forum. If myself or someone else posts an article, I ask that they post the entire article (from title to copyright), leave the byline in tact, and post a link back to the original article. I have never had any problem with this process.

In most cases, a newspaper may have 1 (one) article posted on this site in a year (an exception would be a paper like the orlandosentinal.com - which is obviously going to cover Disney more than most other sites). I don't think that it could be proven in any way, shape, or form that the purpose of posting an informative article on this site is to specifically draw traffic away from another site. Hell...... I'd never have even started checking out the Orlando Sentinals website if I hadn't been linked there from this site.

I'm not trying to debate whether or not I should be checking out the Dis from work. I'm not trying to debate whether or not copyright laws are expansive enough to include the posting of an article on this site (which - to my knowledge - as long as the above mentioned items are left in tact and a link to the original article is placed with the article). I'm simply asking that as a courtesy - if you're going to reference an article from a news website.... just post it here. Now obviously if you're going to post every article Jim Hill writes in the forum - that's different. I'm referring to the folks that make these posts that say....

Check out this review of the Pirates movie in the NY Times....

http://www.nytimes.pocreview.htm (not a working link).

It would save a lot of folks time (and for those that have to wait until we get home to read it - save us even more headaches) if you would just post the article & link to it.

That's it....

 

[d-r]

another thing is, sometimes if you look at a threat that has been there for a while, the original source will have deleted the page and you can't read it anymore.

A while back someone said "show me where anyone ever said the disney credit card was replacing the disney club" and I remembered that someone had posted a newspaper article that said it a while back. But when I found that post it was just the link, and the article itself had been removed. It would be nice if we had that sort of stuff archived here. Not that the search here works worth a hoot most of the time or anything.

Anyway, I'm as guilty as anybody of it. Also, I don't think this would get to the point where somebody would post the full text of every article anywhere that had anything to do with disney, so that people came here rather than the original sources. What I would think people would do would be to paste in the part they are interested in - that would probably be fair use (IANALAIANGLA).

DR

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

Copying a full article is a copyright violation. It could land this site in big trouble. I've been surprised that the moderators and site owner have allowed it to continue.

It doesn't matter that it's more convenient not to have to click on a link, or that a link might become invalid over time, or that some news sites may not be accessible through some corporate firewalls.

It hurts the sites that pay the writers to produce those articles. For revenue, those sites rely on "eyeballs" viewing advertisements, and users clicking on e-commerce links. As revenue goes down because of content that is stolen and posted on bulletin board sites, the business of online publishing becomes more and more dubious. There are already plenty of magazines that only publish articles in their printed editions, not in their online editions.

So, please post a link to an article. Please copy and past a key paragraph. Please write your thoughts about the article. But keep in mind who owns the rights to the article -- it's not you or the DIS boards.

 

[HB2K]

Well.... I knew that would be the response of some of you. There is little rhyme or reason as to why some sites are blocked. The software "websense" is set up to block certain categories - but allow others. I can access this website - along with many others like jimhillmedia.com, mouseplanet, screamscape, and more. But I can't access something like www.weather.com (The Weather Channel). I can access my "Yahoo" page - but none of the links will work. They have "Free" pages blocked (anything hosted by geocities or other free hosting services). They also block "Message Boards" - yet 90% of the ones I try to access are allowed.

Look like they're trying to restrict your web surfing while at work....yet you say:

Like I said, the main thing they are trying to prevent is folks looking at porn, gambling, or games sites.

Let me say this....if they purchased software which blocks the above, then I seriously doubt they want you purusing the Disboards on company time.

 

[CWIPPERMAN]

OK..... clearly everyone is missing the point. I am just asking folks to post the article. One person has said that they think it is not permissible under copyright laws. I'm pretty sure it is OK as long as you provide credit for the article - and link to it.

Everyone is getting off track with my reasoning for why I would like to see this. Please keep this on the main issue.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by CWIPPERMAN
OK..... clearly everyone is missing the point. I am just asking folks to post the article. One person has said that they think it is not permissible under copyright laws. I'm pretty sure it is OK as long as you provide credit for the article - and link to it.

Everyone is getting off track with my reasoning for why I would like to see this. Please keep this on the main issue.

I don't believe it is off-track. You started out by mentioning two key points: (1) you are accessing this site at work and (2) your employer has software that blocks access to certain sites. You raised the issue of accessing this site at work, so people are free to comment on that. If you didn't want comments about that, maybe you should not have mentioned it. (BTW, what does surfing the DISboards have to do with your work anyway? )

That said, it's a waste of bandwidth and storage to post an entire article. You've not provided much of a convincing justification for doing so -- just because you cannot access links is hardly an overwhelming reason for people to waste the time and bandwidth copying & pasting entire articles. It seems that your entire argument is summarized thusly: "It would save a lot of folks time (and for those that have to wait until we get home to read it - save us even more headaches) if you would just post the article & link to it." Why should everyone else who can access links easily have to scroll through the entire article posted here just to save one person some time (time that actually belongs to your employer -- hint, hint) & a "headache"?

If you cannot access it at work (and maybe you shouldn't be -- but that's an issue between you and your employer), maybe you should wait until you get home to read it & participate in the discussion. After all, your employer is paying you to work, not to participate on discussions on the DIS!

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

The real issue here is whether we are allowed to post full articles -- not whether someone is playing on the Web on company time and/or with company resources, and how that company's firewall is configured.

Take a look at the Terms of Service of any online newspaper's Web site. For example, take a look at the Terms of Service for the L.A. Times at http://www.latimes.com/services/site/lat-terms.htmlstory which makes it abundantly clear that we are not allowed to post their content. And there's the following there:
<blockquote>WARNING: A VIOLATION OF THE FOREGOING GUIDELINES MAY BE REFERRED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES. </blockquote>
Take another look at the post from hopemax earlier in this thread. The L.A. Times went after the Free Republic, "a bulletin board website [which] allowed members to post full articles from newspapers in order to generate awareness and discussion of various subjects." When will a newspaper or magazine go after DIS for the same reason?

There are laws and court decisions about what constitutes fair use of copyrighted material. But, even then, it often comes down to who has the better lawyer.

Just because CWIPPERMAN thinks it's "OK as long as you provide credit for the article - and link to it" does not make it so.

 

[Lewisc]

Sorry, I don't think your request is reasonable (both copyright and bandwith reasons).

People who can't access the links probably shouldn't be on disboards either. BUT

I think people should include a BRIEF summary. It would serve to help OP, help others decide if they want to bother clicking on the link and take care of the times in which the post survives the link.

 

[seashoreCM]

Would this be a good standard to go by?

The person who posts a link should accompany it with a summary of the material in his own words. Or rather the main material should be the summary and the link included "for more information".

If there is just the link and no summary, and the link goes bad or obsolete, the entire thread should be deleted from the forum promptly thereafter.

Disney hints:
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/disney.htm