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

Note: Don't post anything at all from the Las Vegas Review Journal or anything from organizations run by Stevens Media, LLC or RightHaven, LLC until the lawsuit brought against us by them is resolved.

Here's an updated alphabetical list of the sites that have complained about copyright violations thus far. The posting program will only allow excerpts and or deny posting where designated from the following sites:

These sites must be excerpted and linked only [300 words or less, 1/2 the words or less for short articles]:

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

Received another letter from Gannett Publications, publisher of USAToday, and several other newspapers. Due to contractual arrangements they have with third-party content providers, they have denied our request to allow posting of excerpts. They will only allow the posting of titles and links.

Please do not post full text or even excerpts from the following Gannett Web sites:

All material from the Associated Press must be excerpted regardless of source (very brief excerpts). AP photos are not allowed.

Photographs, pictures, images, graphs etc may not be posted if the websites are on the lists or added in any of the posts below.

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.

We can get creative in using these secondary sources as primary sources. If they want to shut us down, well, let's shut EVERYBODY down, and then the ACLU & the Left free speechers will start squealing.

201 posted on 04/09/2004 5:09:59 AM PDT by an amused spectator (FR: Leaving the burning dog poop bag of Truth on the front door step of the liberal media since 1996)

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.

I'm thinking that's what we need to do. :-)

202 posted on 04/09/2004 5:12:36 AM PDT by an amused spectator (FR: Leaving the burning dog poop bag of Truth on the front door step of the liberal media since 1996)

"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
---
Funny how this kind of person wants the First Amendment when it's on their side (publishing profanity, lies, and propaganda postited as reporting). Not when taking advantage of the First Amendment exposes them, though.

203 posted on 04/09/2004 7:54:09 AM PDT by unspun (The uncontextualized life is not worth living. | I'm not "Unspun w/ AnnaZ" but I appreciate.)

Bump to that idea. I've never thought of linking to the printer friendly version of an article.

I'm kinda bummed to find out that the ONION is on the list of absolutely NO articles. They have some funny stuff! But oh well.

Warning: since only one legal copy of this article is allowed on the Internet, the original's content may have been altered to fit the copyright holder's political or historical agenda

Warning: since there is only one legal source of this article available on the Internet, the original source's content may have been altered to fit the copyright holder's political or historical agenda

Any other ideas for warning labels?

205 posted on 04/09/2004 8:11:53 AM PDT by an amused spectator (FR: Leaving the burning dog poop bag of Truth on the front door step of the liberal media since 1996)

206 posted on 04/09/2004 8:12:08 AM PDT by unspun (The uncontextualized life is not worth living. | I'm not "Unspun w/ AnnaZ" but I appreciate.)

Warning: since only one legal copy of this article is allowed on the Internet, the original's content may have been altered to fit the copyright holder's political or historical agenda

Any other ideas for warning labels?

207 posted on 04/09/2004 8:20:45 AM PDT by an amused spectator (FR: Leaving the burning dog poop bag of Truth on the front door step of the liberal media since 1996)

Something on a little bit different tack that may or may not be interesting.

I was stuck without a connection in a small Iowa town the other day, so I went into a public library to FReep for a little while.

Their system had 'NetNanny'. It would not let me log into FR. My first suspicion was that it was because of some leftwing librarian's bias. I (sorta) tactfully questioned them about it, and they pled ignorance; claiming that it was 'NetNanny' that determined what got blocked and what didn't.

Out of curiousity, I checked some other conservative sites, and none of them were blocked; just FR.

210 posted on 04/09/2004 2:16:25 PM PDT by kimmie7 (The devil doesn't have any new tricks -- he's just really good at his old ones.)

fox news is okay tho right? This is worse than Canada. Well, actually it's just like Canada's refusal to let Fox broadcast here. Same principal. The CRTC has total control of the airwaves here and they make sure that NOTHING Conservative gets in. They are all a bunch of commies. Is it just FR they are picking on? If it is, we've got them scared. Anyway, where there's a will, there'a a way.

You know bullies usually eventually bully the wrong person. Perhaps mass unsubscribing to these news outlets will get their attention. I certainly hope that is what happens.

They should all just be named PRAVDA!! The freeping is getting them down. LOL!! They are prepared to shoot themselves in the pocketbook? then they can KNOCK THEMSELVES OUT!!

"all at the same time" AND right smack in the middle of an election cycle! Gee, that was hard. LOL We know Democraps are A**holes anyway. This is SO TRANSPARENT!!

I'm confused. How on earth can you see copyright protection as an attack on the forum? They want to drive traffic to their site, and they want to be sure that they can charge people money for access after a week or so.

By that standard, National Review and Weekly Standard are a bunch of commies, because lots of their articles can't be read online in the first place.

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.