Updated FR Excerpt and Link Only or Deny Posting List due to Copyright Complaints

April 5, 2004 | Jim Robinson

[hellinahandcart]

found it...:D

[MizSterious]

I think FR is being singled out. I see articles from these places posted in Yahoo groups and other websites all the time. None of them (to my knowledge) has ever been threatened in this way.

[hellinahandcart]

The writer was Ismail Royer.

[CounterCounterCulture]

Oh my! :-)

[StarCMC]

Loser rag fit only for TP anyway -- ugh!

[boxerblues]

Bumped and Bookmarked with a grumble.

[BushisTheMan]

It's growing because these lying pieces of scum media know we are on to them.

Sorry but I had to vent.

We can still paraphrase what they said and make our points.

[cyborg]

As if they will be missed!

[glock rocks]

Perhaps the Link at the top of the Admin Moderator's profile page could be modified to point to this thread (it's pointing to the older list).

It's an easy way (for some of us, um, seasoned folk) to remember where to find the taboo sites list.

[SheLion]

[ladyinred]

Oh I am so sure none of this is personal! Nope, no politics involved at all! I canceled Vanity Fair magazine! I don't want their trash if this is the way they feel. I heard one of their main "journalists" Gail Sheehy on that antiwar radio station we have here bashing the war and the President last week!

[onyx]

And before everyone rushes off to check it out, studlife.com is a website about student life at Washington University in St Louis.




Of course I had to check:
Husband is a graduate of their medical school;
not that 'stud' and 'husband' can't compute.

[Humidston]

I couldn't agree with you more. If they refuse us on copyright grounds, then every other discussion site should be held to the same standard.

It might also be a great argument for our side - if we do have to go back to court - which I'm sure will happen as long as we "draw breath" as a conservative website. Sorry Jim, but you have to admit FR is in their cross hairs.

They can't very well limit us without limiting all, can they?

[The Mayor]

Bump!

[TaxRelief]

What are the rules concerning AP?

[Feiny]

You can always save the article on your computer instead of bookmarking.

[Soaring Feather]

Thanks for the link Jim, Tonkin for the ping.

[Dog Gone]

There is something spooky about not being able to post the articles or even post links to some of the articles.

There is absolutely NOTHING preventing a link to their articles, even if they complain. To even suggest that, and I don't think any of them have, is legally absurd. Link all you want.

[TaxRelief]

Well, what would happen if we linked to a liberal forum that had the article in question posted in its entirety? That would be amusing.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

If I'm not mistaken, I think they're part of the LAT/WP empire.

A good amount of URLs on that list are under the LAT/WP umbrella. Newsday is one that I can remember as LAT owned.

I said it before, I'll go them one better and never go to their websites at all.

I know this is the hard way, but if I saw an important article at one of these places, I did a search and tried to find that article at it's original non banned source. It works sometimes as those people at the LAT/WP don't write everything.

[steplock]

You cannot prevent anyone from discussing articles by anyone.

There ARE legal definitions & restrictions for "Fair Use" and if those are followed, those "useful idiots" have no recourse in law - unless they have the ear of the 9th Circus Court, but who gives a damned about their opinions?

So someone doesn't like Freepers discussing their PUBLIC articles? Too ****** bad! We can, AND SHOULD, bring stupidity, immorality, and treasonous behaviors to light. We may not be allowed to quote extensively an article, but there is NO LEGAL BASIS to prevent a discussion - THAT is call our FIRST AMENDMENT!

[Willie Green]

I know this is the hard way, but if I saw an important article at one of these places, I did a search and tried to find that article at it's original non banned source. It works sometimes as those people at the LAT/WP don't write everything.

Yeah, sometimes that works.
But ya gotta watch-out for the other way around as well.
As an example, just a week or two ago I excerpted an article from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (not normally required) because they had picked it up from the Washington Post (where it had originated).

[Naspino]

Well, what would happen if we linked to a liberal forum that had the article in question posted in its entirety? That would be amusing.

IFRAMES!!

[Agnes Heep]

Things may get to the point where all that's practical is the link itself and a short precis of what's there. I don't think anyone could object to that!

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Jim Rob's point is that even if we are still in the right, that won't stop them from constantly dragging him to court anyway. It's better just to avoid these people so they don't even have a basis for a legal complaint.

I'm wondering about how we can "blog" some of these articles where we don't link but retell and analyze what the person wrote, only in our own words. It will take some work, but I'm sure we would be kind to them. ( Ha Ha )

[mylife]

These publishers have asked us not to allow any material at all to be posted to FR:

americanpolitics.com
antiwar.com
eweek.com
extremetech.com
independent.co.uk
newyorker.com
pcmag.com
studlife.com
theonion.com
thetowntalk.com
universitystar.com
vanityfair.com
washingtondispatch.com

I will refer to this one as the Whaaaaa! List!

[SandRat]

Sounds more like Cockroaches objecting to the light being turned on than anything else ---- but as you ask I'll try and follow. Bookmarked. Keep us informed when the next cockroach complains.

Ummmmm, ... wonder if Hannity, Rush, Laura Ingram, etc.... would like to know about this little bit and ask why other than "Copyright" reasons the cockroaches object?

[tubebender]

Ping...

[Mears]

I'm not too clever so please bear with me.

Can you refer to an article you have read and the date it was published? Can you paraphrase the article and cover the salient points?

Can you suggest that someone read it?

[farmfriend]

All I will say is "Oh the irony!"

[Gabz]

I think we have them scared!!!!!!

OTOH, I've got no clue why any site would refuse to accept the extra hits they would be getting if there were a link in an article on FR to their site.

their loss I guess.

[Humidston]

Ok.... I give up. What the heck are IFRAMES??

[mhking]

HEY! THIS IS IMPORTANT!

THIS MEANS YOU! YEAH, YOU!

GET IT? GOT IT?

Good.

 

Double-barrelled Mega-PING! to both lists! If you want on, FReepmail me!

[IronJack]

As a workaround for the "expired or altered link" problem, I suggest that if an article is especially interesting to you, you cut and paste a copy into a Word document and file it in your own archives. It's not perfect but it can be a valuable comparative archive copy should the piece mysteriously change or disappear.

[Pippin]

Thanks for the ping!

I bookmarked it.

[PJ-Comix]

theonion.com

How stupid was The Onion? They were getting lots of publicity here from frequent postings of their articles and now they've lost it. STUPID!!!

[Syncro]

I'm astounded that jewishworldrevew is on this list.
The editor is one of the good guys.

Yes he is. A couple of years ago he nicely asked us not to post full articles, but do excerpts so he would get hits on his website.

FR gladly obliged him.

[P.O.E.]

With subscriptions plummeting, you think some of these would be happy they were even being noticed.

Oh well.

Acknowledged, will comply.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

ping

[cyborg]

The Onion we hardly knew ye

[Pan_Yans Wife]

That is a shame.

[Mudboy Slim]

These publishers have asked us not to allow any material at all to be posted to FR:

americanpolitics.com
antiwar.com
eweek.com
extremetech.com
independent.co.uk
newyorker.com
pcmag.com
studlife.com
theonion.com
thetowntalk.com
universitystar.com
vanityfair.com
washingtondispatch.com

Can they enforce that?

FReegards...MUD

[Born Conservative]

Note to self; don't renew PC Magazine when it's expired; plenty of others to subscribe to that will allow posts to FR.

[FairOpinion]

"These publishers have asked us not to allow any material at all to be posted to FR: "

===

I think this is where Fair Use just has to come in. They can't dictate to us, not to use an excerpt or discuss their articles.

[nuconvert]

Got it.

Does this mean that excerpting won't be done for the poster?

[weegee]

Makes you go "Hmmmm" when some of these organizations don't want people to discuss their writings (AIM.org, antiwar.com, etc.).

Rats and roaches hide when the light of truth shines.

I wonder if these "do not excerpt" writers have made the same demand of Rush Limbaugh.

[GUIDO]

antiwar.com?

Who would have quessed?????