Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: freedumb2003; Jim Robinson

If in fact they are excerpting without permission, publicizing that fact to the source from whom they are excerpting, might "Remedy" the situation.

Of course, I wouldn't mention that you happen to know from this website that the excerpted source forbids it.

A news outlet can certainly demand (and possibly get) whatever it wants based on copyright of its materials. However, if it does not do so uniformly, its discriminatory practices may be actionable (you'd *have* to ask a lawyer about that one), and in any case *definitely* represent censorship, which charge should promptly be hurled at whatever leftist rag did it, if only for the fun of watching them try to squirm out of looking like the ethically bankrupt leftist schumerhole that they undoubtedly are...

So if you *catch* them protesting *our* posting their material, and can prove that they are allowing DUh to print it *without* protest, they may be in trouble...

Meanwhile, it's clear that I don't completely understand how the system here works. I tried posting something from one of the Gannett papers, and got a window refusing the posting. But it wouldn't let me post it even when I removed *all* the body of the article, excerpting *nothing*, leaving only the title and the link, which I thought it was OK to do. What gives?


454 posted on 08/06/2004 2:55:21 AM PDT by fire_eye (Socialism is the opiate of academia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies ]


To: fire_eye

What gives is we don't have an option for title and link only. Doesn't make much sense in a discussion forum so I'd rather just go without Gannett's blather.


455 posted on 08/06/2004 2:58:18 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies ]

To: fire_eye

(and see no need to supply them with hits)


456 posted on 08/06/2004 2:59:06 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies ]

To: fire_eye
However, if it does not do so uniformly, its discriminatory practices may be actionable (you'd *have* to ask a lawyer about that one), and in any case *definitely* represent censorship, which charge should promptly be hurled at whatever leftist rag did it

Point of clarification (because I almost failed Con Law...oh well). When the DUmmies claim that they are being censored because Conservative radio stations, casino owners, etc ban liberal musicians, don't we usually have to explain to them (like the two-year olds that they are) that it's not censorship if it isn't government doing the "shutting-up?"

I really don't think there is much difference here. Publishers are free to have their material printer or reprinted wherever and whenever they choose.

Like someone else said though, Most of thise Gannett and other papers are nothing but librul trash anyways.

459 posted on 08/09/2004 6:37:34 PM PDT by dayton law dude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson