Updated FR Excerpt and Link Only or Deny Posting List due to Copyright Complaints

Note: Don't post anything at all from the Las Vegas Review Journal or anything from organizations run by Stevens Media, LLC or RightHaven, LLC until the lawsuit brought against us by them is resolved.

Here's an updated alphabetical list of the sites that have complained about copyright violations thus far. The posting program will only allow excerpts and or deny posting where designated from the following sites:

These sites must be excerpted and linked only [300 words or less, 1/2 the words or less for short articles]:

These publishers have asked us not to allow any material at all to be posted to FR:

Received another letter from Gannett Publications, publisher of USAToday, and several other newspapers. Due to contractual arrangements they have with third-party content providers, they have denied our request to allow posting of excerpts. They will only allow the posting of titles and links.

Please do not post full text or even excerpts from the following Gannett Web sites:

All material from the Associated Press must be excerpted regardless of source (very brief excerpts). AP photos are not allowed.

Photographs, pictures, images, graphs etc may not be posted if the websites are on the lists or added in any of the posts below.

Obviously, these sites know of the growing number of members FR has. FR is becoming one of the biggest political forums on the Internet, and these sites want to get some of FR's hits. Through all the years FR has been in circulation with the exception of LA and WP, they haven't complained. However, the number of sites wanting to get direct hits from freepers is growing.

142 posted on 04/05/2004 9:40:40 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul (Kerry said he wasn't at the '71 plot-to-kill meeting, then, he was but voted NO, now he can't recall)

144 posted on 04/05/2004 10:05:34 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States - and war is what they got!!!!)

145 posted on 04/05/2004 10:06:58 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States - and war is what they got!!!!)

146 posted on 04/05/2004 10:19:16 PM PDT by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)

148 posted on 04/05/2004 10:46:08 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Good evening. I'm Sydney Biddle-Barrows, and welcome to Whore Stories!)

149 posted on 04/05/2004 10:47:13 PM PDT by bellas_sister (The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men - Plato)

150 posted on 04/05/2004 10:50:37 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Good evening. I'm Sydney Biddle-Barrows, and welcome to Whore Stories!)

Who in their right mind would want to post a Reuters story, if there was another source? They are the most consistently warped, biased news service around.

and they hate us on the web

Who needs 'em? That muffled protest you hear is the sound of their last dying gasp.

***As an example, just a week or two ago I excerpted an article from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (not normally required) because they had picked it up from the Washington Post (where it had originated).***

Just to clarify, are you saying that the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reprinted the Washington Post article in toto? As in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review VIA the Washington Post?

Also, some people get TOO enthusiastic and excerpt everything.

It looks as though that might be a good idea, actually.

I'm not sure about the sites that don't allow us to post anything however - seems as though that would be harder to justify.

How is this being handled at other sites that post and discuss news? And are the publishers also complaining about those other sites?

>>Just to clarify, are you saying that the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reprinted the Washington Post article in toto? As in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review VIA the Washington Post?

That's common in the newspaper industry - they have agreements in place to do it legally.

This is getting more and more complicated. Are we who have resorted to simply excerpting supposed to check in with this list every time before we put something up? This is all part of why I don't bother posting full articles any more. I don't want to step on someone's proverbial toes.
They're jerks, one and all!
So much for critiquing an article too. The author can say anything they want with no rebuttal whatsoever if you can't even use a statistic, "fact" or statement they've said in an article! Replying to it would require that you put the information up and then the belly aching would commence.
A very sly, effective way of silencing your critics is how I see it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.