Posted on 02/01/2008 3:07:03 PM PST by Jim Robinson
We received a copyright infringement notice today from Forbes.com. They requested that we either remove a thread that contained a full text posting of one of their articles or reduce it to a brief one paragraph excerpt with a link back to their source article. We have complied with their request and have added Forbes.com to the excerpt and link only list.
My understanding of fair use is that we can quote small amounts of copyrighted works for critiquing and discussion purposes as long as we're not adversely impacting the publisher's market for his works.
Our excerpt and link list is growing (click link above) and I'm afraid it's just a matter of time until we're going to have to require excerpting on all posts.
Please comply with our source publishers' copyright requests by excerpting your article posts where required and linking back to the source sites. Please keep the excerpts brief and do not continue the excerpted article in the comments or reply sections.
Thank you all very much.
Jim Robinson
It is a simple matter... unless you're on dialup (and folks still are) and the site is larded-up with graphics and other slow-loading material. When I still used dial-up, "excerpt" meant I was not going to read the article unless I was really, really, interested enough to wait many minutes for the garbage to download.
Even now if it's excerpted, it's fairly likely I won't click through; it it's presented in its entirety on FR there's a fair chance I'll read it.
I hadn’t considered the dial up folks.
Sorry, I’ve had high speed for a very long while now.
I remember my early years of AOL blue strip.
I’ve been on line 14 or more years now.
It would be impossible to show that FR is depriving anyone of revenue by reposting material here for discussion purposes.
At best, an argument might be made that a few people here might hit the Forbes website and thus deprive them of some webpage hits which could result in advertising dollars. But you couldn’t prove it, and it’s just as arguable that FR is directing more traffic to a site by those curious about the source.
Why aren’t public libraries illegal?
You're very fortunate. We only got there year before last, and even then limited to 26 kbps by poor telephone copper. (It got to where I could tell a bit about the weather conditions by listening to the connection negotiation tones.)
This article should make your head explode.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/31/AR2008013103958.html?hpid=topnews
NFL Pulls Plug On Big-Screen Church Parties For Super Bowl
Excerpt:
The NFL said, however, that the copyright law on its games is long-standing and the language read at the end of each game is well known: “This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL’s consent is prohibited.”
The league bans public exhibitions of its games on TV sets or screens larger than 55 inches because smaller sets limit the audience size. The section of federal copyright law giving the NFL protection over the content of its programming exempts sports bars, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said.
LOL.
If nominated by my party I will not run. If elected I will not serve.
That sounds like the best approach.
;)
You are a very wise man.
Besides, you're more valuable running FR!
I must agree, Jim is much more valuable running FR. However, if we could find someone like him to run. . .
Like I said, he is a conservative’s conservative.
Will do! I’m sorry for the stress that this stuff must cause you, Jim. Letters from lawyers are never fun to receive.
Thanks for everything you do to keep FR going strong. :) G-d bless you and yours!
Same here. In general, if they don't want their stuff posted here, I don't want to give them traffic. That's especially true for those who require links only.
I'm thinking a firefox plugin that blocks content from all sites that restrict access would be just about right.
Excerpts. I hate them
And I don’t understand why so many original sources would want Free Republic to excerpt thier articles.
Often times, when I or other FReepers have to excerpt an article we cut and paste. We - snip - out sections to make that under 300 word requirement.
In other words we edit.
Do these morons in the MSM really want us FReeprs editing their copyrighted material? Cause that’s what we do.
Excellent idea! We do want to follow the rules.
Me thinks, therefore ..........
Updated FR Excerpt and Link Only or Deny Posting List due to Copyright Complaints
You should check that subject. They probably undid your edit.
Link and excerpt is one thing. I think the ones who insist that we not quote them at all (or in rare cases, even cite them) are idiots. They’re actually using copyright in a way that brings DOWN traffic to their sites.
But they’re liberals, so I don’t expect them to be intelligent.
I just went there and checked and my edits are still intact- Tom.
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.