OT: Taking sports too seriously

[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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

The difference is the local radio station is the one who chooses to put the content on the air. In this case, the site doesn't post the content, only the people participating in it. Also, the site only receives revenue for "clicks" on the ads, where the radio station directly charges the advertisers based on the number of eyes or ears - but that's probably an anciliary argument.

In any case, can you show who profited from the posting of the article, and how that profit would be different if the article was not posted? If there was ever some mention on the site's home page that readers should go to the discussion forum because there was a scintilating discussion going on about soccer violence, then yes, there's a possible direct link. But otherwise, just because money changes hands somewhere doesn't mean Fair Use has been violated, from what I can see.

What would you say about some parent printing off several copies of this article, taking them to the local park district soccer meeting, and passing it out to discuss the kids' safety? Surely the park district receives money from local businesses, heck, perhaps even state and federal money, so should they disallow this to happen? If they do allow it, under what law would they be liable to the AP for payment of some kind? Or would that simply be a Fair Use of the article?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

The difference is the local radio station is the one who chooses to put the content on the air. In this case, the site doesn't post the content, only the people participating in it. Also, the site only receives revenue for "clicks" on the ads, where the radio station directly charges the advertisers based on the number of eyes or ears - but that's probably an anciliary argument.

In any case, can you show who profited from the posting of the article, and how that profit would be different if the article was not posted? If there was ever some mention on the site's home page that readers should go to the discussion forum because there was a scintilating discussion going on about soccer violence, then yes, there's a possible direct link. But otherwise, just because money changes hands somewhere doesn't mean Fair Use has been violated, from what I can see.

I suggest you check out YouTube. Individual people post there but that doesn't make it OK to post copyrighted stuff.

You don't have to profit for it to be a violation. In fact, the whole point about copyright is not about preventing you from making a profit but about allowing the rightful owner to control thier work and ability to make a profit off of it if they choose.

[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.