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

April 5, 2004 | Jim Robinson

[listenhillary]

No it doesn't. Have you seen one that does? That would be cool to find.

[TBP]

Today, I saw "the" on antiwar.com so I don't think we can use "the" any longer.

[Ed_in_NJ]

I can understand why any of these pubs would not want the ENTIRE article copied here - they want their website visited for $$$ reasons.

But to prohibit us from quoting any part of an article says to me that they want to be in the catbird seat when it comes to criticizing the rest of the world, but do not want their own lies, errors or bias to be exposed by us.

[TBP]

I don't know how they can stop us from quoting them or linking to them. The FAir Use provision premits use of a certain amount of content for purposes of comment, and I think thelaw trumps these guys' petty desire to control what is said about them.

[Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin]

It's good to know the newspapers that have shoddy reporters and are too ashamed of what they print to have people respond to it all...

[GOP Poet]

The WAAAMBULANCE List (the non links ever crowd)--such as antiwar.com.

Like little kids acting out some of them I presume. I see a red headed freckled face kid yelling with a tear stained face, "You can never come to my house, again! NEV-er."

[foreverfree]

05/06/04 -

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:

GANNETT NEWSPAPERS ON THE WEB:

[snip]

Delaware

The News Journal, Wilmington

[snip]

Tonight I tried posting a link to a News Journal article from two weeks ago (about NASCAR, just to see FReepers' responses), using the source field for the link, and it rejected the post. Has Gannett's copyright edict been updated further since 5/6/04? Oh, and what are "third-party content providers"?

ff

[beltfed308]

bookmark

[GarySpFc]

Ping - Copyright list

[Tucker822]

Info ping.

[Oshkalaboomboom]

bttt

[Ready4Freddy]

what the hey..

[BulletBobCo]

bump

[DeaconBenjamin2]

For the next time I need to find this

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

I love that they call the Hold 'em Poker hand: ACE KING a "Kournikova." Looks great--never wins!

[theFIRMbss]

>they call the Hold 'em Poker hand: ACE KING a "Kournikova." Looks great--never wins!

[La Enchiladita]

Bumping. I had something pulled the other day posted from Air Force Times. Lo and behold, here it is on the list; should have checked.

[Palladin]

It's good to look in here once in a while to see the updated lists.

I can't believe Gannett and their big long list of no-nos.

I'm glad that that particular dinosaur of the media is having hard times financially, and is having to close down many of its subsidiaries.

[DeaconBenjamin2]

PING

[sig226]

They sold the rights to run the website to someone else who will adminsiter it, archive it, and post the content. Essentially, they outsourced it. This causes them two problems. First, the group that bought the rights to publish the content paid for the right to put it on the internet, so no one else can do that unless they pay for the right. If Gannett allows others to post the content for free, why should the contractor pay them?

Second, the third party has a legitimate complaint that it is absorbing all the costs to put Gannett content on the internet and their ability to profit from advertising is harmed by cutting and pasting the articles to another site.

They probably also hate Free Republic, which means we are doing something right. Gannett papers tend towards bird cage liners anyway.