OT: Taking sports too seriously

[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.