Free Republic
Browse · Search		 News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Updated FR Excerpt and Link Only or Deny Posting List due to Copyright Complaints
April 5, 2004 | Jim Robinson

Posted on 04/05/2004 3:53:42 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

Edited on 05/27/2014 11:31:00 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

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]:

All McClatchy sources must be excerpted and linked.

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

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:

We will eventually add a link to this list from our posting program. In the meantime, you can find it by searching on "copyright list."


In addition to all of the above, do not post articles written by Maralyn Lois Polak per her copyright complaint. Her column usually appears on WorldNetDaily.

Also, do not post images from Corbis or Getty.

Thanks,

Jim

********Additional

New York Times must be excerpted.

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.

TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: adminlectureseries; antiamericans; asspress; asspressbias; babies; bankrupt; bengarrison; bigbrother; businessowesus; c; canttakeit; charging4fairuse; children; commies; communists; companiesoweus; complaints; copyright; copyrightcomplaints; copyrightlist; deny; donotcopy; donotpostlist; excerpt; excerptlinklist; excerptlist; excerptonly; fairuse; faq; fascists; foffmediahogs; forbiddenlist; fr; freep; freerepublic; freerepubliczotted; hannity; indecent; infonazis; intolerantleftists; lawsuitabuse; legalabuse; lexicon; liberalmorons; link; linkandexcerpt; linkonly; links; nazis; notwelcome; pl; posting; postingrules; publishersoweus; rules; sean; seanhannity; sheesh; socialistssharework; spue; stupidfools; thelist; theyoweus; totalitarians; violatingfairuselaw; whineyjournalists; zot; zotfreerepublic
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440, 441-460, 461-480 ... 821-824 next last
To: All

Added timesdispatch.com to excerpt and link only list.


441 posted on 07/20/2004 11:40:39 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: Jim Robinson
It would be good to include a link to this thread on the "Posting new thread" page. I had a hard time finding this list. I looked on the main page of FR and when I couldn't find it I finally found it doing a search for JR posts in the forum.
442 posted on 07/22/2004 5:05:15 PM PDT by yellowhammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: Jim Robinson

Not even excerpts from the Argus Leader? Another reason not to even bother with it.


443 posted on 07/23/2004 6:34:16 PM PDT by jwalburg (Hatriots for Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: Jim Robinson

Bookmark for future reference


444 posted on 07/25/2004 11:36:12 AM PDT by 2111USMC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: Jim Robinson

That's just about everyone. I think it's time to excerpt everything and make it easier on everyone.


445 posted on 07/25/2004 11:44:56 AM PDT by BunnySlippers (Must get moose and squirrel ... B. Badanov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: Born Conservative

Student newspapers are not immune from comment of those outside the school.

As editor of my college paper, we have agreed to be published as a section of the local town paper instead of just being published by them. This increases our readership by a ton because we are actually part of the professional newspaper.

Quite frankly, I like this. It means we have to try harder to write stories of substance, not puff pieces on boring crap going on at school (I got a heck of a lashing though last year from one student for not covering homecoming king and queen at all...will have to cover that this year).

The point is, any legitimate journalist would love to have his work quoted elsewhere.

If some student reporter is upset about his work being on FR, he needs to grow a pair or quit writing. Obviously such a person does not have the heart of a true writer.


446 posted on 07/25/2004 11:48:29 AM PDT by rwfromkansas (BYPASS FORCED WEB REGISTRATION! **** http://www.bugmenot.com ****)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]
To: Ed_in_NJ; Jim Robinson
Have you responded in kind -- telling these bozoes that they are not to make any use of anything they see on FR?

Great idea!!!

447 posted on 07/28/2004 6:33:49 AM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]
To: All

dallasnews.com added to excerpt only list, bloomberg.com moved to the deny list, prevention.com added to the deny list.


448 posted on 08/04/2004 12:52:13 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: Jim Robinson

Bloomberg is now on the deny list? They're idiots! They just lost a watcher and a subscriber. There are a lot of investors on FreeRepublic.


449 posted on 08/04/2004 12:59:30 PM PDT by kingu (Which would you bet on? Iraq and Afghanistan? Or Haiti and Kosovo?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]
To: StayAt HomeMother; ALOHA RONNIE; Pagey
RE: High schools and colleges using the internet to archive
all student termpapers and reports in the name of "plagiarism"

I'd like to see a copy of Hillary Rodham Clinton's
college thesis, by the way.

I wonder if http://www.turnitin.com can get us a copy.
450 posted on 08/04/2004 10:48:15 PM PDT by Joy Angela (**Hillary's allergic to Botox! Breaks out in Hives!! ** (If dreams come true...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]
To: Jim Robinson

I am lrking at DU -- they seem to have no problem with excerpting.

Is it that they are libs?

Why do they get a pass?


451 posted on 08/04/2004 10:50:30 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (I want to die in my sleep like Gramps -- not yelling and screaming like those in his car)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: freedumb2003

Your guess is good as mine.


452 posted on 08/04/2004 11:09:28 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies]
To: Jim Robinson

I guess we have to lrk.

I have to assume vowels are the problem.

(ps: I am having a bit o' fun on the new features on another thread -- I actually like them so please don't take my funnin' as criticism.)


453 posted on 08/04/2004 11:45:52 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (I want to die in my sleep like Gramps -- not yelling and screaming like those in his car)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies]
To: freedumb2003; Jim Robinson

If in fact they are excerpting without permission, publicizing that fact to the source from whom they are excerpting, might "Remedy" the situation.

Of course, I wouldn't mention that you happen to know from this website that the excerpted source forbids it.

A news outlet can certainly demand (and possibly get) whatever it wants based on copyright of its materials. However, if it does not do so uniformly, its discriminatory practices may be actionable (you'd *have* to ask a lawyer about that one), and in any case *definitely* represent censorship, which charge should promptly be hurled at whatever leftist rag did it, if only for the fun of watching them try to squirm out of looking like the ethically bankrupt leftist schumerhole that they undoubtedly are...

So if you *catch* them protesting *our* posting their material, and can prove that they are allowing DUh to print it *without* protest, they may be in trouble...

Meanwhile, it's clear that I don't completely understand how the system here works. I tried posting something from one of the Gannett papers, and got a window refusing the posting. But it wouldn't let me post it even when I removed *all* the body of the article, excerpting *nothing*, leaving only the title and the link, which I thought it was OK to do. What gives?


454 posted on 08/06/2004 2:55:21 AM PDT by fire_eye (Socialism is the opiate of academia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies]
To: fire_eye

What gives is we don't have an option for title and link only. Doesn't make much sense in a discussion forum so I'd rather just go without Gannett's blather.


455 posted on 08/06/2004 2:58:18 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]
To: fire_eye

(and see no need to supply them with hits)


456 posted on 08/06/2004 2:59:06 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]
To: Jim Robinson

Yeah, I suspected as much... although in this case I was going to use their content not so much as news as for a launching point for a diatribe (Who, ME???). Too inconvenient
to be effective on this type of forum in any case, though, just as you say.

<<< grumble... >>>

I can't help but think (a) they're up against not us, but the fundamental anarchy of the Internet, and (b) there's gotta be a solution to this. For instance, while going after even one of them legally is a bottomless pit, getting a citation of precedent from an apparently unrelated court ruling somewhere, probably isn't. There'll be one sooner or later, whether it originates with a forum site like this or somewhere else.

For instance... if one person buys a newspaper and takes it home and shows it to 3 other people in his/her living room and they have a discussion about it, the fact that they've *showed* it to those other people cannot be construed to be copyright violation. So, a slick lawyer could easily make the case that a forum is the electronic equivalent of same, and that - HMMMMMM... << brain working feverishly... >>

What if the text that showed in the window of the post, was
actually displayed, *not* from what someone had cut-and-pasted into the "posting" form, but directly from the excerpted website, by Javascript (or whatever)?

JUST thinking outside the censoring-left-wing-scumbag-media-imposed BOX
here...


457 posted on 08/06/2004 3:10:58 AM PDT by fire_eye (Socialism is the opiate of academia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies]
To: fire_eye

If a solution of the sort I hatched above were legally defensible (ideally to the extent of not even *having* to defend it), one would have to weigh the undesirability of giving them hits against the desirability of watching the occupants of the aforementioned (hypothetical) media rodent-hole go into fuming, smoking meltdown from having been outwitted by those wascally Wepubwicans AGAIN...


458 posted on 08/06/2004 3:16:44 AM PDT by fire_eye (Socialism is the opiate of academia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]
To: fire_eye
However, if it does not do so uniformly, its discriminatory practices may be actionable (you'd *have* to ask a lawyer about that one), and in any case *definitely* represent censorship, which charge should promptly be hurled at whatever leftist rag did it

Point of clarification (because I almost failed Con Law...oh well). When the DUmmies claim that they are being censored because Conservative radio stations, casino owners, etc ban liberal musicians, don't we usually have to explain to them (like the two-year olds that they are) that it's not censorship if it isn't government doing the "shutting-up?"

I really don't think there is much difference here. Publishers are free to have their material printer or reprinted wherever and whenever they choose.

Like someone else said though, Most of thise Gannett and other papers are nothing but librul trash anyways.

459 posted on 08/09/2004 6:37:34 PM PDT by dayton law dude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]
To: dayton law dude

Yes... you are right; they are within their rights to discriminate.

However... What about a hypothetical case (you've been to law school, so you've been adequately subjected to *those*, I'll wager) in which Scumbag Leftist Media Outlet A (the party of the first part), succeeds in extracting unapproved excerpting (or whatever) rights from Scumbag Leftist Media Outlet B (the party of the second part), based on (possibly) (a) First Amendment issues, (b) contract law, (c) copyright law, (d)... etc.?

Would something of that sort thereby set a legal precedent by which Disenfranchised Conservative Media Outlet A (the party of the *third* part) could then freely excerpt the desired(?) filthy leftist drivel from (at least) Scumbag Leftist Media Outlet A, and possibly from any other media outlet... Etc.?

Actually, what I'm driving at, is, (1) it seems apparent to me that somehow, because of the structure (or more properly, the lack thereof) of the Internet, we are going to see legal precedent which will resolve the issue - i.e., the media and anyone making money off copyrights and etc. are going to end up having to adjust, or, to use a favorite leftie-lie-beral term, "get dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century", etc., (2) such precedent may not even involve *political* issues - it might involve two gardening magazine sites, or something equally mundane, (3) for those reasons it might be possible to produce a favorable ruling without a great deal of expenditure or a lawsuit, just by setting up an appropriate set of circumstances?

I still don't think I'm making myself clear, but I smell blood in the water w/r/t this issue... really. Maybe I'm just being overly optimistic but I really think it's possible to kick these jerks in their collective Theresa without a great deal of expense, just by the right sort of imaginative legal maneuver...

To take a different tack... let's say somebody stores the last 100 issues of a newspaper in their basement (I can just imagine the smell), builds an index of articles in it, and lets their friends come over and use the index and look stuff up in the paper. If the newspaper can demand royalties from someone doing that, then they can ostensibly demand royalties equally from someone who just shows their newspaper to the person sitting beside them on the (equally odiferous politically correct mass transit) bus, can't they? Is that going to fly in court? Then, what is the difference if a website which makes such archives available for free? (Or, more importantly, how can a court rule that there *is* a difference without landing in legal quicksand?) No one in either case is actually *reproducing* the material and *distributing copies* of it - the only ones doing that, are the website subscribers (assuming they're making copies).

I just think it's futile, particularly in the long term for the media to try even to suppress posting of entire articles, much less excerpting, and that - like the recording industry, but in even more severe measure - they're on a collision course with modern communications technology, and that by clever lawyering it should be possible to help them on their way to a thunderous crash without a great deal of expense...


460 posted on 08/10/2004 12:09:46 PM PDT by fire_eye (Socialism is the opiate of academia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 459 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440, 441-460, 461-480 ... 821-824 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search		 News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson