HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Notices

ESPN: Kings Summer Report

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-14-2006, 12:08 AM
  #26
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David A. Rainer View Post
The total and complete cutting and pasting of a copyrighted and proprietary piece of written material is not fair use. There must be something added to the work by the user other than just reproducing it.
Right. The whole point of my original post was to point out that there are legal ways to quote select portions of copyrighted material.

Osprey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2006, 12:11 AM
  #27
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Race City USA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReggieMoto View Post
He would have had to provide some commentary and criticism first. All he provided was a link.

I don't think it's sufficient to simply throw some quotes from an article into a thread in an effort to generate comment and/or criticism. I think the poster would have to offer the quotes in support of his or her commentary or criticism in order to qualify under fair use.
Well I did not see the original post to see if the Thread starter had added their own comments. If it was a straight "Cut and paste" then I agree it should not have been allowed. I was just trying to point out that "if" someone "Cut and paste" part of an article from a premium site that did include their own comments and/or criticism then it would indeed fall under the "Fair Use" category. Sorry for the confusion.

Captain Ron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2006, 08:39 AM
  #28
Old Hickory
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squidward View Post
I am going to have to side with Osprey on this one.
All that does is make you both wrong

  Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2006, 03:53 PM
  #29
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Race City USA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsjohn View Post
All that does is make you both wrong
And where is your proof that we are wrong? Oh....that's right....you don't have any.

Captain Ron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2006, 04:01 PM
  #30
Matt13
Registered User
 
Matt13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: I'm on a boat MF!
Country: United States
Posts: 4,112
vCash: 500
I saw the post.

It was NOT by the thread starter and it was a simple, cut and past of the entire article.

Matt13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2006, 04:14 PM
  #31
Old Hickory
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squidward View Post
And where is your proof that we are wrong? Oh....that's right....you don't have any.
Where's your proof that you are right?


Here's mine...

-I was a mod here for years and know the rules. Remind me of your credentials.
-D.a.r.e. didn't post the article for a reason didn't that tell you something? Dave has been a Glocal Mod here for years.
-Read D.a.re.'s post above
-http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
- Posting info obtained with a subscription to non subscribers is stealing an against HF rules. Which is why don't see see Mc Keen's articles in the prospect forum

As far as this cheesey defense
Quote:
1. Comment and Criticism
The underlying rationale of this rule is that the public benefits from your review, which is enhanced by including some of the copyrighted material.
Subscription services aren't there to benefit the public. They are there benefit their subscribers. Your example would only be accurate in a case of two or more subscribers sharing info.

Fair use does not apply to content that money is required to obtain. That is why there were lawsuits over file sharing. Web based suscriptions fall under the same copywright protection as software, music, and movies. It is illegal to reproduce them for non subscribers.


Last edited by Old Hickory: 08-14-2006 at 04:21 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2006, 06:19 PM
  #32
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsjohn View Post
Fair use does not apply to content that money is required to obtain. That is why there were lawsuits over file sharing. Web based suscriptions fall under the same copywright protection as software, music, and movies. It is illegal to reproduce them for non subscribers.
"Fair use" absolutely does apply to pay content. That's the main thing that it was passed for in the first place. Also, music and movies do fall under "fair use." That's fact, not opinion. Even just a little research would bear that out...

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyrigh...pter9/9-c.html

Think of it this way: the ESPN Insiders thing is just an online magazine, no different from a printed magazine that you get in the mail, except that it's delivered in electronic form, rather than print. If I were to receive a printed magazine issue that I had paid for, I'd be permitted under "fair use" to reproduce small portions of it. It's no different for online magazines.


Last edited by Osprey: 08-14-2006 at 06:27 PM.
Osprey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2006, 06:49 PM
  #33
King Blazer
Registered User
 
King Blazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 6,420
vCash: 500
Thanks for the recap D.A.R.E...

No mention on when Allison or Deadmarsh might return? How about Rosa? Any word on Rosa?

King Blazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2006, 07:18 PM
  #34
Face Wash
Registered User
 
Face Wash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey View Post
If I were to receive a printed magazine issue that I had paid for, I'd be permitted under "fair use" to reproduce small portions of it. It's no different for online magazines.
If ESPN were a library of information that was completely free to the public, we wouldn't be having issues. Google has been reproducing books and magazines now for a while with their "Library Project?" Circumventing PUBLISHERS by going directly to public and college libraries where people can access copyrighted materials for free. They've also gone directly to private entities with copyrights to movies to ask for DVDs so that they can transcribe the scripts for the same use. And frankly, they've had to jump through a variety of legal hoops to do this and it's still not clear whether or not they're allowed to do it.

I know, you're only arguing "Fair Use", but I think we can use common sense that on two levels what was done (and subsequently erased) was not a "Fair Use" of the article.

1) It's reproduction and unauthorized reuse of copyrighted materials in their entirety.
2) HF forbids it, as they have the right to as a private organization.

Face Wash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2006, 07:55 PM
  #35
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Face Wash View Post
I know, you're only arguing "Fair Use", but I think we can use common sense that on two levels what was done (and subsequently erased) was not a "Fair Use" of the article.
That goes without saying. You must've missed the purpose of this discussion if you thought that anyone was defending the erased post.

Osprey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2006, 08:12 PM
  #36
Face Wash
Registered User
 
Face Wash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey View Post
That goes without saying. You must've missed the purpose of this discussion if you thought that anyone was defending the erased post.
I didn't... I just thought I'd add the Google angle of it. Just another example of what's going on with the intranet and copyright law.

Face Wash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2006, 01:20 AM
  #37
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Race City USA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsjohn View Post
Where's your proof that you are right?


Here's mine...

-I was a mod here for years and know the rules. Remind me of your credentials.
-D.a.r.e. didn't post the article for a reason didn't that tell you something? Dave has been a Glocal Mod here for years.
-Read D.a.re.'s post above
-http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
- Posting info obtained with a subscription to non subscribers is stealing an against HF rules. Which is why don't see see Mc Keen's articles in the prospect forum.
You and I are arguing 2 different things. I am not saying it is or is not against HF rules to post copywrited material. I am saying that premium content still falls under the "Fair Use" law......that is fact.....and no amount of mod experience will dispute that.



Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsjohn View Post
Fair use does not apply to content that money is required to obtain. That is why there were lawsuits over file sharing. Web based suscriptions fall under the same copywright protection as software, music, and movies. It is illegal to reproduce them for non subscribers.
Since when? The majority of copywrited material requires money to obtain. A newspaper........a book.........a magazine........these are all things that people spend money on to obtain information from. Yet they all fall under the "Fair Use" law. Don't try and tell me that an article from McKeens Hockey has more copywrite protection than a novel or magazine just because it is on the internet. If anything electronic media has less protection under the law than printed media because it is almost impossible to prove where the information originated.......You need to research the facts before joining taking sides in a debate.

Captain Ron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2006, 10:13 AM
  #38
Face Wash
Registered User
 
Face Wash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squidward View Post
Since when? The majority of copywrited material requires money to obtain. A newspaper........a book.........a magazine........these are all things that people spend money on to obtain information from.
Not entirely true Spongey (and o by the way, you'll always be Spongey to me ). If you look hard enough, you can find almost any book, magazine or newspaper for free online or at your local library or at a library somewhere. So technically, even though in some cases it might be more "convenient" to purchase the things you're talking about at a book store, etc. these days, it isn't entirely accurate to say that a majority of copyrighted materials require money.

And that goes to my point about Google's library project, etc...

But of course, having said that, I still think copyrighted materials SHOULD be protected, yada yada yada...

Face Wash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2006, 10:18 AM
  #39
Old Hickory
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squidward View Post
You and I are arguing 2 different things. I am not saying it is or is not against HF rules to post copywrited material. I am saying that premium content still falls under the "Fair Use" law......that is fact.....and no amount of mod experience will dispute that.
But yet you have to reply even though you have absolutely nothing to say and even include a snide emoticon. It must be that time of the month for you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Squidward View Post
Since when? The majority of copywrited material requires money to obtain. A newspaper........a book.........a magazine........these are all things that people spend money on to obtain information from. Yet they all fall under the "Fair Use" law. .
Show me a print copy of ESPN Insider. Until you can that comparison is apples and oranges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squidward View Post
Don't try and tell me that an article from McKeens Hockey has more copywrite protection than a novel or magazine just because it is on the internet
Use your head.

I don't remember the RIAA going after people for copying CDs on tapes and giving them to their friends? Do you

They had a real big problem with illegal downloading though. The same rules apply to electronic subscription based media.

This is called an accurate comparison. Try it sometime.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Squidward View Post
If anything electronic media has less protection under the law than printed media because it is almost impossible to prove where the information originated.......You need to research the facts before joining taking sides in a debate.
This is the single dumbest thing I have ever read. If you really believe this you need to slap yourself.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Face Wash View Post
Not entirely true Spongey (and o by the way, you'll always be Spongey to me ). If you look hard enough, you can find almost any book, magazine or newspaper for free online or at your local library or at a library somewhere. So technically, even though in some cases it might be more "convenient" to purchase the things you're talking about at a book store, etc. these days, it isn't entirely accurate to say that a majority of copyrighted materials require money.

And that goes to my point about Google's library project, etc...

But of course, having said that, I still think copyrighted materials SHOULD be protected, yada yada yada...
Exactly

Memo to Osprey and Sponge. you are both wrong. Arguing ticky tact facts and fighting a war of attrition with replies until people get tired of reply to you don't make you right....It makes you annoying. Osprey should have already learned this after being run off one website. Sponge should have already learned this after the Bobby Sanguinetti incident.
You two are wrong. Stop being cheapasses and buy the insider if you want to read it until then....zip it!


Last edited by Old Hickory: 08-15-2006 at 10:32 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2006, 10:55 AM
  #40
David A. Rainer
Registered User
 
David A. Rainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David A. Rainer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squidward View Post
Don't try and tell me that an article from McKeens Hockey has more copywrite protection than a novel or magazine just because it is on the internet.
Not because it is on the internet but because the subscription has value.

One of the aspects looked at when determining whether something is "fair use" is the loss of commercial value to the creator if the content was considered "fair use". If by reproducing the content under "fair use", so much of the content is used and made accessible to the public that it is unlikely that anyone would purchase the product or subscription, there is a loss of value to the creator and you would have a hard time winning a "fair use" battle to support it. For example, you could not reproduce large excerpts of content for which a subscription is required such that the next person would go to your free content instead of the subscribed content without affecting the value of the content to the creator. Doing so would undermine the publishing industry and not be considered "fair".

If the content is free to the public already (non subscriber internet pages, ads, some magazines and newspapers), it would be hard to argue against "fair use" because there is no loss in value since the material is already free. However, once there is a value to the product in the form of subscription, the threshold to prove "fair use" becoms a lot more stringent because there is a protection of something of value.

Yes, some copyrighted material is more protected than others.

Boy have we gone way off topic. Everyone else can keep going if they want but I'm going to drop out of this.

__________________
Saxon Sports Information and Research
David A. Rainer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2006, 04:32 PM
  #41
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsjohn View Post
I don't remember the RIAA going after people for copying CDs on tapes and giving them to their friends? Do you

They had a real big problem with illegal downloading though. The same rules apply to electronic subscription based media.
They had a "real big problem" with it because songs were shared with millions of users and it was something that they could track and enforce, not like your petty crime of copying a CD for your friend. It is no more of a crime to share something online than it is to share it with the same number of people offline.

That's beside the point, though. What I can't understand is why you're comparing "fair use" of "electronic subscription-based media" and illegal downloading of complete songs. You complained about comparing apples and oranges, but you're the one who's doing it here. Did you know that it's legal, according to "fair use" and under the right circumstances, to use up to 30 seconds of a song for your own purposes? That's right. As I said earlier (and to which you objected), music is covered under the Fair Use Act. If you're so keen on comparing music to online text, you should compare apples to apples by noting that both are covered by "fair use" and, therefore, both can be excerpted from legally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsjohn
Memo to Osprey and Sponge. you are both wrong.
I'm sorry, but we're not. I've done quite a bit of research into "fair use" and know what I'm talking about. You seem to have only anecdotal evidence derived from memory of what you think is legal and what isn't. Your example above seems to bear that out. As I indicated earlier, if you would do just a little bit of research (such as actually visit the link that I provided yesterday), you'd see that everything that I've claimed is true. This information is not hard to find.

P.S. If you really still think that you're correct, then you should be raising a stink about the excerpt in this thread instead of arguing here.

Osprey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2006, 04:44 PM
  #42
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Race City USA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey View Post

P.S. If you really still think that you're correct, then you should be raising a stink about the excerpt in this thread instead of arguing here.
Exactly.....2 rather large paragraphs are quoted directly from the THN 2006 Yearbook.....A publication that is available through purchase on the net....Yet nobody deleted it......Why? Is that not against HF rules?

Captain Ron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2006, 04:50 PM
  #43
Matt13
Registered User
 
Matt13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: I'm on a boat MF!
Country: United States
Posts: 4,112
vCash: 500
Am I going to have to close this thread?

Matt13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2006, 05:08 PM
  #44
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Race City USA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt13 View Post
Am I going to have to close this thread?
Please do.

Captain Ron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2006, 05:51 PM
  #45
Sybil227
Registered User
 
Sybil227's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Santa Clarita
Country: United States
Posts: 2,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squidward View Post
Please do.
But not before I post!

Okay. Now.

Sybil227 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2006, 11:18 PM
  #46
no name
Registered User
 
no name's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 11,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsjohn View Post
It's illegal to reproduce any part of an online article that they charge to view and very against HF rules

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=107697
Negative. You can post a few clips as long as you link it for credit.

no name is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2006, 12:42 AM
  #47
Reaper45
Registered User
 
Reaper45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: South Bay
Country: United States
Posts: 30,736
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Reaper45

Reaper45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2006, 12:46 AM
  #48
Capn Brown
Registered User
 
Capn Brown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,493
vCash: 500
*launches nuke towards general vacinity of this thread and runs away*

Capn Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2006, 06:31 PM
  #49
braincramp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,594
vCash: 500
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyrigh...er9/index.html

braincramp is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:40 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.