The Use of Excerpts

Something interesting just happened tonight when I just tried posting an entire article from The Des Moines Register... It isn't allowed to because of a copyright complaint...

So now I can't point to articles in the largest newspaper in my state because people don't realize you don't post entire articles here (or anywhere) without permission.

But let's just continue to whine about excerpts. Here's a question, if we aren't supposed to do it, why does Free Republic give us that option when we post?

When we post entire articles it is not fair to the authors of the original content whether it is The Des Moines Register, Fox News, or some local blogger.

From your final paragraph: Before I could see any seal, I believed the absence of the seal proved the document’s inauthenticity. Now that the seal has been revealed, IT proves the document’s inauthenticity.

In other words you are fully prepared to use any available evidence to support your theory; not that there is anything wrong with that as long as you use all available evidence and show that it is coherent with the theory. My theory is that the WH PDF is a creation of scanning a paper document (which could be legitimate or fraudulently obtained or forged) then it was diddled in the graphics program. The diddling was mainly thresholding by line widths and darkness into layers similar to what would be done prior to OCR. The result of layers of various junk (some parts of sigs in one layer and some in another) is not consistent with creating the digital artifact directly from bits unless an extra step is added (namely the same step as in my theory).

The seal does not provide enough evidence to support or contradict my theory and the idiot reporter they showed to (picked on purpose) took a low quality snap (probably with her cellphone) and did not bother to read what it said. In my opinion she is simply a tool, part of the rope-a-dope that they can point to as an inarguable witness to the existence of a physical artifact. Obviously they could pass the paper around to multiple reporters or hand it to an expert or two, but chose not to. That choice supports my theory.

The answer is fairly simple: If you can post an entire column or article, then do so. If it must be excerpted, then excerpt it. This ain't rocket surgery. For example, most blog entries (articles, stories, columns) are not copyrighted and therefore can (and should) be posted in their entirety. Exploiting user-supported Free Republic for shameless blog pimping on behalf of oneself or one's "friends" is frowned upon by the owner.

"I have no complaint if a good conservative blogger posts his own material to FR, not as an excerpt to drive hits and discussion back to his blog, but rather to impart useful information to OUR readers and to promote and join in on the discussion and conservative activism HERE on FR."

"If a blogger can’t or refuses do that, and if he constantly complains or fights with our participants over it, then I’d just as soon he doesn’t post here."

"We’re not really that interested in driving OUR traffic to YOUR blog."

The problem is not the photo. This gal did a better job at showing the “seal” than Scott Applewhite did.

The problem is that this seal isn’t even the same size as the “seal” they used for the Factcheck forgery, which shows that one or the other or both are faked seals.

That stands on its own without any talk about layers or anything else. That is just visible to anybody who has eyes. It’s not the reporter’s fault. It’s just a bad forgery. Period.

“Because the rule of “fair use” is not precisely defined

Fair use is defined differently based on who wants to utilize that "fair use".

For example - there are liberal outlets who repost full articles and extended passages from many of the publications/sources on the "do not post" list here on FR... why? Because lawyers and judges are bought and paid for by the deep pockets of the those who also run these "news" outlets (who freely use those outlets to spread propaganda and other lies in support of their own particular political/moral position).

Seems that a "logical" application of "fair use" would and should follow along the rules for citation/quoting/excerpts in formal writing.

1. Always give the source for your material/quote (and FR requires this by default - which directs more traffic to those web sites/sources - so they benefit... but details details).

2. Anything more than three lines directly quoted must be indicated as such (covered again by #1).

3. Quoting of full articles is generally considered wrong/bad practice (unless given permission under specific circumstances by the author/publisher).

I can kind of understand some situations - many media outlets subscribe for/or pay per-article to the AP and other organizations for stories. IF it is posted under that license on say the NY Slimes web site - then one of us were to copy an entire article (or substantially all of it) and post it here with no citation at all, or with only a link back to the NY Slimes... that wouldn't exactly be a "fair use" -

But it is truly beyond my ability to comprehend why some sources absolutely refuse to even allow a small excerpt with a link back - which does not infringe on any copyright, and actually directs MORE web hits/traffic to the full posted article on their own page. The ONLY explanation then, is politics. But for a court to even look at that give the media outlet a judgment in their favor, to me, proves the corruption in the system.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.