OT: Taking sports too seriously

[jbduke]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Since I'm not in the mass media business, perhaps I don't understand exactly how this works and the crux of your complaint. Maybe you can enlighten me.

As you can clearly see, the story which I posted does not have a named author rather it comes from the Associated Press. I did some checking into what that is. Here is what I found:

FAQs | The Associated Press

2. Who owns The Associated Press?
The Associated Press is a not-for-profit cooperative, which means it is owned by its 1,500 U.S. daily newspaper members. They elect a board of directors that directs the cooperative.

5. How can I become a member of The Associated Press and receive AP services?
If you are a newspaper, radio or television station, you can become a member of the AP cooperative.

6. How do I get permission to reprint an AP story or photo?
All requests for republication of AP material must be in writing, clearly stating the purpose and manner in which the copy will be used. All republished material must carry AP credit. Unless specifically noted otherwise, all permission is given for one-time use only. No political candidate, political party, political action committee, polemical organization, or any group formed for partisan purpose may use AP copy in any publication. There may be a fee for reprint use. For permission to reprint an AP story or to use AP material in online/electronic
form:
E-mail AP Digital: [email protected], or fax 212-621-5488.

8. How can I get a copy of an AP story or photo?
AP stories are available on Lexis/Nexis at your local library.

So while I don't fully understand their business model, apparently, I was not harming any individual writer by posting the story as to my knowledge no one in particular claims AP works. Personally, I've never seen a by-line on an AP story.

The group is not out to make money as it is a not-for-profit cooperative. Obviously, the writers have to make some money for their efforts, but how that works and how much is a mystery to me.

I couldn't become a member of the AP if I wanted to as only newspapers, TV stations, and radio stations may do so.

In republishing the material as hundreds of media sources routinely do, I did include the AP credit as is asked.

If one writes to them and asks for permission to reprint one of there stories, it seems unlikely that they will want a fee. Their posted information clearly states that there may be a fee, not that there is one!

All of their stories are available for nothing at any public library, so what possible harm is it to post one on this internet forum in order to share it with other readers? It seems to me that the AP freely distributes their news through our public libraries anyway.

You make a very strong statement that my OP constitutes stealing. Now I challenge you to support that.
Are you contending that if I or anyone else went to my local public library to read this story that I would somehow have to pay for it? If the library pays a fee to the AP make their material available haven't my tax dollars paid for it whether I go there or not?

I see that you think that certain entities carrying these stories deserve "clicks" on their sites. So is the business model of the AP to create content, sell that content to distributors, then have the distributors post it along with advertising which is purchased from them so that when a reader goes to that distributors to read the content they also view the ads? Is this how the AP writers make their salaries? Are they creators of content to be packaged and sold with advertising? If you are worried about the distributors getting their due, I can't sympathize with that. They seem to simply be middlemen who have created a closed monopoly. They set up a system from which only they have access to purchasing the content and then hope to turn around and sell this access to it for an even greater amount. What about that makes them deserving of anything? They didn't create squat.
Of course, the above is only the case for private distributors, but what about the public ones such as the libraries? They don't sell advertising or even membership. All of their funding comes from tax dollars. If the AP sells its content to them, didn't I actually pay for it with my tax contribution? So I'm not depriving those hard-working newsgatherers of any revenue. It's only debatable if I am depriving those in the carefully crafted distribution network of supporting numbers used to market themselves to advertisers.
While it is true that this site didn't pay the AP for the story, it isn't known as, nor does it depict itself as, a place where people can come to consistently read AP material. Posting an occasional story from them isn't going to circumvent the normal distribution model nor hurt the AP's revenue stream.
I think that I will write to the AP and ask them some of these questions in order to better understand what they do and how the do it. Until I learn otherwise, I think that your claims are nothing more than hyperbole.

BTW you contacted Duke University and obtained permission and of course paid for the ability to include their name in your screen handle, right?

I think the crux of our disagreement is in how much weight I give to the considerations the AP gives to libraries, considerations they don't specially grant to other types of entities.

As you found, the AP has special rules for libraries. And there's no disputing that you personally subsidize libraries through your tax dollars. But the fact that you do so does not mean that you are thereby entitled to treat an internet forum as if it were a library.

Good lawyers such as yourself are able to to sell judges and juries on the notion that imperfect analogies are close enough to perfect--please permit me to have a go.

Most public libraries provide computers and internet access to their patrons. If one takes the time to get a library card, he'll be granted some period of access to these library resources. Now let's assume that the library provides wireless access, and that the signal is strong enough so that the cafe next-door can pick up its signal. You're sitting next to a complete stranger in the cafe, and you hear him grumbling about not being able to access the Web.

Is it okay for you to tell him that he can just pop onto the next-door library's signal, and that you'll pull out your library card and read off the password
to him? After all, it's a public library, and you have a proper library card. Why wouldn't it be okay to give him access to that signal?

I think it's not okay first and foremost because he's not a member of the library, and the library's resources are very clearly set out for use by the people who are willing to invest the ten minutes necessary to get a card. But even that notion assumes that this stranger is eligible to get a card at that library in the first place. Maybe he's not: maybe he doesn't live in a zone that pays taxes that are directed to that library.

Now, one might argue that the analogy breaks down because everyone subsidizes a library somewhere. To that I would respond A) off-the-grid free-riders are not exactly an endangered species, and B) for those who are paying their societal fair share, let them use the resources they are entitled to in the intended manner (As a non-student, I wouldn't presume to walk in to even a public university library and be granted privileges). If someone wants to read AP stories for free, let him go to the library that he is (indirectly) paying to use, or let him go to the websites that have gone to the trouble of acquiring the rights to those stories.

I'm also unpersuaded by your parallel argument that it's okay to copy-and-paste from middle-men since, in the case of AP works, said middle-men don't create any original content. Would you say that it's okay to go to a museum (we'll even make ithe admission fee $0), take pictures of the artwork, and then post those pictures to the Web? I certainly hope not, and I would argue that the two cases are not substantively different.

As to your jab about my handle, well played. But fear not, all regular worshippers at the First Church of K are given a fancy-pants From-the-Desk-of-K-watermarked-letterhead document that gives us explicit permission to use the word "Duke" in internet forum handles, so long as we're neither trying to profit directly by the name, nor purporting to officially represent the university. The only other stipulation is that holders not publically post any representation of the document

[Adam]

I think the flaw in your analogy is that the internet cafe is profiting off the internet access by making their establishment more attractive to customers. In essence, you're stealing more from the cafe than from the library.

I have to wonder whether the AP would grant the right to print the entirety of their articles here; I believe the site makes a profit (or attempts to) from ad revenues. I would agree that they should probably be given the opportunity to make that decision, though.

[jbduke]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I think the flaw in your analogy is that the internet cafe is profiting off the internet access by making their establishment more attractive to customers. In essence, you're stealing more from the cafe than from the library.

I'm not quite connecting with you here. The cafe may indeed be profiting, but I don't see how that reduces the culpability of someone who grants access to a person who has not gone through the proper procedure to be granted such access. If anything, it seems to me that you're saying that my analogy works as far as it goes, but that it also shows that additional parties could become complicit (if unwittingly so) when the regulations aren't respected.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I have to wonder whether the AP would grant the right to print the entirety of their articles here; I believe the site makes a profit (or attempts to) from ad revenues. I would agree that they should probably be given the opportunity to make that decision, though.

My sentiments exactly.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jbduke

I'm not quite connecting with you here. The cafe may indeed be profiting, but I don't see how that reduces the culpability of someone who grants access to a person who has not gone through the proper procedure to be granted such access. If anything, it seems to me that you're saying that my analogy works as far as it goes, but that it also shows that additional parties could become complicit (if unwittingly so) when the regulations aren't respected.

I had started writing my response, then re-read your post. First, I was thinking the internet cafe was actually using the library's wireless for its customers.
Your analogy depends upon the agreement the card holders signed when getting their library cards. If the library wants to restrict such access, it's up to them to either a) put such restrictions in their library card agreements, or b) limit the distance their routers project the signal.

[jbduke]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I had started writing my response, then re-read your post. First, I was thinking the internet cafe was actually using the library's wireless for its customers.
Your analogy depends upon the agreement the card holders signed when getting their library cards. If the library wants to restrict such access, it's up to them to either a) put such restrictions in their library card agreements, or b) limit the distance their routers project the signal.

We're talking past each other. The location is mostly beside the point. The main issue is that you have resources managed by a library, who then have the right to "lease" those resources (for the cost of the time required to get a library card) to certain qualified individuals. Every library card agreement has an amendable section for transferrability, but any "extra users" must be listed in advance of the use of library materials/resources. In other words, it would be a violation of the agreement to allow someone not listed on it to use the card, internet password, etc.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jbduke

We're talking past each other. The location is mostly beside the point. The main issue is that you have resources managed by a library, who then have the right to "lease" those resources (for the cost of the time required to get a library card) to certain qualified individuals. Every library card agreement has an amendable section for transferrability, but any "extra users" must be listed in advance of the use of library materials/resources. In other words, it would be a violation of the agreement to allow someone not listed on it to use the card, internet password, etc.

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.

[MD Longhorn]

WTH does the library have to do with someone posting an article here? Answer the real questions - why (by what rule/law) is what Nev did against the rules or law?

[jbduke]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by jbduke

But fear not, all regular worshippers at the First Church of K are given a fancy-pants From-the-Desk-of-K-watermarked-letterhead document that gives us explicit permission to use the word "Duke" in internet forum handles, so long as we're neither trying to profit directly by the name, nor purporting to officially represent the university. The only other stipulation is that holders not publically post any representation of the document

The Dookie-ban are also all given copyrighted baseball caps with DUKE written on the front.

Size 1145 1/2.

These caps must be worn at all times when talking to any non-believers, heretics or other such pond scum under penalty of excommunication. Even as we talk, JB is proudly wearing his.

The Dookie-ban motto? "When in doubt, bore everybody to death!"

Cary on upholding that motto, JB.

[jbduke]

Like Dick Vitale, you've become a caraciture of yourself. The only real difference is that Dick's is much less embittered.

[M&M Guy]

jbduke - it's possible the Old Embittered One is simply commenting, in his own special way, on the fact that he finds your posts on basketball officiating enlightening.

Without getting into the middle of that particular cat fight, I would like to seriously ask what you feel Nevada did wrong? More than likely the article can be found on many different internet sites, most free to the average person. (I'm assuming we can find that article perhaps on ESPN.com, CNN.com, CBSSportsline.com, etc.) If so, then the appropriate fee has already been paid to the Associated Press. So, then, isn't the article now in the public domain? So he read this article, and then posts a copy of it on yet another free internet site, which happens to be this discussion forum. He is not an owner or operator of the site, or connected with management in any way, so he does not profit from any of the possible ad revenues, which are not connected in any way to the posting of that article. He also does not profit in any way on posting to this forum; he is simply a participant. Since it was copyrighted material, he did properly include that information in his posting, rather than try to pass it off as his own material.

Can you tell me how this differs materially from a student using the article in a school paper, and properly listing the credit, without having to pay a fee to the AP? I would think you could probably make the argument that the student stands to benefit more financially by passing the course and being able to get a better-paying job in the future, than Nevada does by posting that same article here.

Granted, I am not an expert in copyright law, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express. But I would be curious as to your credentials in this area, seeing you have made such a strong statement in saying Nevada is completely wrong in posting the article, and that the mods are wrong for allowing it. As we do in discussing basketball rules and plays, do you have any backing to your claim? What specific laws are you citing in saying it is wrong?

As much as I like a fight as the next person, I'm actually looking for facts on this. I have posted articles, and parts of articles found on various sites here on the forum. If I am wrong, I would like to know how, rather than someone simply telling me I am. No different than if I were a coach asking for an explanation on a call - I would rather know the specific rule involved, rather than hearing the official tell me, "Because I said so."

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by jbduke

Like Dick Vitale, you've become a caraciture of yourself. The only real difference is that Dick's is much less embittered.

Omigod, Vitale is a charter member of the First Church of K. You could be burned at the stake for that statement.

Heresy!

Heresy, I tell ya!!

Nope, not embittered. I get a laugh out of clowns like you. You're a hoot.

When you first started posting here, Dookie, you actually were some kind of basketball official iirc. You really did talk a little bit every now and then about what we do. But for the last few years, it seems that the only time that you show up here is when you want to whine, piss or moan about something. And that something that you're whining, pissing and moaning about has never got anything at all to do with basketball officiating. So, my question to you is why do you still bother to show up here with all of us lowclass, low-rent scumball characters when there's a ton of other forums on the net that are more appropriate for your erudute and educated arguments about topics that have got absolutely dick-all to do with officiating?

Just wondering.....

And btw, I just looked up your posting history, It looks like the last time that you actually engaged in a discussion here that actually related to officiating rules, mechanics or philosophies was back around 2006. Soooooo, carry on carrying-on.