Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
We were starting to at first, but you're addressing my point now. You're right, if that agreement is in place, then your hypothetical would be a violation. No such agreement, however, is in place between Nevadaref and the AP.
Your library analogy would be more closely related to someone with a paid account at the WSJ online putting their materials on the board.
|
Cool, we're on the same page again, even if we still disagree somewhat. I think the library analogy works if we look at, say, the NYT running an AP story. The times has an "AP Library Card." Anyone can go to times.com and read any AP stories that are run there. The Times pay a subscription to the AP to be allowed to run their content, thus fulfilling the requirements for the library card, and the Times then gets to manage their site however they please. But the Times then turns into its own sort of library. In other words, you can go "use" their stuff, but that doesn't mean you get to pass it around to non-members. (Of course the NYT isn't the only outfit with access to AP stories, but as I've tried to show, that's beside the point)
Since this site doesn't have an AP Library Card, it shouldn't be displaying full-text AP stories without permission. As Nevada's research reflects, the AP might indeed allow stories to be run here free of charge. But as you pointed out earlier, that should be the AP's call, and not be simply assumed to be okay by users or administrators of this site.
(Not directed to anyone in particular) It's really easy to talk about mountains and molehills here, but to my mind it's just as easy to simply post a link, maybe an excerpt, and a description, thus steering clear of even the appearance of impropriety. I've engaged discussions on this point on multiple boards, sometimes usefully, sometimes not. I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that since the denizens here make it a consistent practice to study fine print, and generally believe that it's not okay to pick and choose the rules one follows simply on the basis of convenience, that this would be an easy sell.
Nevada, I'm very sorry to have used the word "steal" in my earlier post. Though I didn't mean it as one, I realize that there was no way that my word choice wasn't going to be taken as a personal attack on you. I was irritated at another's complete dismissiveness of mty claim, and as I fired back you got hit in the cross-fire. I apologize for my careless aim. I greatly respect that you took the time to do the research you did on the issue, even if our interpretations of the relevant law/doctrine may differ. Cheers.