OT: Taking sports too seriously

[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.

[M&M Guy]

Is there a case book too?

[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).

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

To reprint it without following their rules of use is a violation of the copyright unless permitted by the fair use exception.

Fixed it for ya.

Many folks seem to think that "not for profit" means "free." It just means that their sales don't yield profits to distribute to shareholders (public or private) at the end of the fiscal year.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Fixed it for ya.

Many folks seem to think that "not for profit" means "free." It just means that their sales don't yield profits to distribute to shareholders (public or private) at the end of the fiscal year.

Agree with your fix...but quoting an entire article is not a "Fair Use".

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Agree with your fix...but quoting an entire article is not a "Fair Use".

As I read it, that's not an entirely correct statement either.

"...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

I didn't see where it specifically says only part of the copyrighted work can be used.

It could be argued Nevada's posting of the article was for comment and criticism, and to a lesser extent reporting, teaching, and/or research. The nature of the copyrighted work is also taken into account, so since this was a news report of a public event, I wonder if there would be some allowance for that versus a completely original story, opinion piece, etc. Another factor of Fair Use is whether the posting/copying is of a commercial nature. Since the forum is a free service, neither Nevada or the owners of the site gain financially from the posting of the article.

I would assume the owners of this site have already done a little research into what can and cannot be posted on the forum. I would also assume the rules would be a little different on the "paid" part of this site, due to the subscriptions being paid. So to simply say Nevada and Officiating.com are "stealing", or don't care about the rules, *might* fall under the category of hyperbole, without any firm reason otherwise.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Since the forum is a free service, neither Nevada or the owners of the site gain financially from the posting of the article.

This forum is no more a "free service" than your local broadcast radio or television. I've got a picture of a Gatorade bottle on top of this page reinforcing that assessment.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

As I read it, that's not an entirely correct statement either.

"...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

I didn't see where it specifically says only part of the copyrighted work can be used.

It may not say it there but that is how it is generally applied. Take the NFHS for example. They have made no issue of the short rules quotes that show up everywhere....but they rightfully make a stink anytime someone posts the whole book. That is the essense of fair use.

The kind of place where a full copy might be permitted would not include discussion boards...which often resemble news/information sources. It would include something like a classroom handout in a class debating sports ethics.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

It could be argued Nevada's posting of the article was for comment and criticism, and to a lesser extent reporting, teaching, and/or research.

Not really. It was an informational posting. I think the comment/criticism type of use would really only apply if the post included true comment/criticism, not use a repost with a couple words added at the end. That is not comment/criticism.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

The nature of the copyrighted work is also taken into account, so since this was a news report of a public event, I wonder if there would be some allowance for that versus a completely original story, opinion piece, etc.

Public event, but a specific depiction of a public event. The facts are not protected, just the presentation of the facts. Otherwise, one TV station could just show the footage from another station (and not even PBS does that without explicit permission).

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Another factor of Fair Use is whether the posting/copying is of a commercial nature. Since the forum is a free service, neither Nevada or the owners of the site gain financially from the posting of the article.

This site is commercial. The presence of content draws views and advertising dollars.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I would assume the owners of this site have already done a little research into what can and cannot be posted on the forum. I would also assume the rules would be a little different on the "paid" part of this site, due to the subscriptions being paid. So to simply say Nevada and Officiating.com are "stealing", or don't care about the rules, *might* fall under the category of hyperbole, without any firm reason otherwise.

Whether it is stealing or not, it is certainly ethically questionable.

[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.

[Adam]

Even Larry King has to retire eventually.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Even Larry King has to retire eventually.

Yeah. He wants to spend more time with his wives.