OT: Taking sports too seriously

[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?

[Adam]

Fair Use Doctrine. Here's a link to the actual federal code. It doesn't seem clear to me from this.

[Camron Rust]

The issue with the AP is that they own the articles and define who can use them and when. The work is copyright protected even if it is owned by a not-for-profit cooperative. To reprint it without following their rules of use is a violation of the copyright.

It is likely that all members of the cooperative pay a fee to be part of the AP and with that they automatically get the rights to print the articles in their publications. Their business model is that they depend on each other to create news articles to sell to their patrons. Even if there is not a single writer that is listed on the byline, it is someone's work....and it is owned by someone (the AP).

[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

(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.

You tried selling it last year.
Reporter defends officials

You just finished trying to sell it again this year.

Y'all come back next year, Dookie, and try selling it again. Hell, you might even have a brand new audience to preach to then(if you're lucky). Us old embittered caracitures can't live forever, you know.