Podium Charter Revision: Don't post entire articles or large blocks of text

Quote from Elmer : Perhaps no one will read their site soon...... We can hope at least.....

It's password protected now.

Quote from JackHandey : Hell, just get the 'mouse (and yes, I know the anon referred to earlier is a different one and legion) to start writing angry letters to the editor. In that toxic green text of his that is a bitch to read.

Anon referenced and 'mouse are one and the same Jack.
Though I truly do appreciate the honorific of Legion.

I'd put this in the rules thread, but that's locked.

Quote from jamegumb : I'd put this in the rules thread, but that's locked.

+4 If I could

With Righthaven's setbacks, are we still limited to posting only sections of articles?

Quote from redmaxx : With Righthaven's setbacks, are we still limited to posting only sections of articles?

Yes. We haven't had time to give an in-depth look at what just happened, but my first impressions is that Slickdeals can be distinguished from that defendant fairly easily.

For one, we're not a non-profit, and this is arguably a commercial activity. While you guys are busy changing each others' minds, you're also consuming 728x90 pixels of advertising up at the top of the screen with every page refresh.

Also, Slickdeals isn't gigantic, but we're probably bigger than the defendant in that case, which means that there's a greater (although I'd still argue minimal) chance of overlap in our readers.

In summary, that guy is a jerk and we're glad that he lost one of his more ridiculous cases, but that doesn't mean that he was entirely wrong. It's not fair to the original authors and publishers if you guys rip their stuff off and post it here in its entirety.

Quote from thelnel52 : Yes. We haven't had time to give an in-depth look at what just happened, but my first impressions is that Slickdeals can be distinguished from that defendant fairly easily. For one, we're not a non-profit, and this is arguably a commercial activity. While you guys are busy changing each others' minds, you're also consuming 728x90 pixels of advertising up at the top of the screen with every page refresh. Also, Slickdeals isn't gigantic, but we're probably bigger than the defendant in that case, which means that there's a greater (although I'd still argue minimal) chance of overlap in our readers. In summary, that guy is a jerk and we're glad that he lost one of his more ridiculous cases, but that doesn't mean that he was entirely wrong. It's not fair to the original authors and publishers if you guys rip their stuff off and post it here in its entirety.

Just tell the guy to piss off and if he has any questions, to contact Anonymouse.

Quote from thelnel52 : Yes. We haven't had time to give an in-depth look at what just happened, but my first impressions is that Slickdeals can be distinguished from that defendant fairly easily. For one, we're not a non-profit, and this is arguably a commercial activity. While you guys are busy changing each others' minds, you're also consuming 728x90 pixels of advertising up at the top of the screen with every page refresh. Also, Slickdeals isn't gigantic, but we're probably bigger than the defendant in that case, which means that there's a greater (although I'd still argue minimal) chance of overlap in our readers. In summary, that guy is a jerk and we're glad that he lost one of his more ridiculous cases, but that doesn't mean that he was entirely wrong. It's not fair to the original authors and publishers if you guys rip their stuff off and post it here in its entirety.

I disagree.
People who write articles for the AP or whatever get paid ONE TIME for their article.
The publisher uses it to draw in readers but as we all know, publish or perish, old news is NOT going to draw anyone but researchers to your article once it's a week or so old.

Posting an article here, in full, is NOT going to detract from the number of readers of it on THEIR site - quite the opposite, but posting the article here and linkying to it, it further enhances the chances posters here will check the article for correct C&P and while there, browse a bit on their site.
In reposting articles here for discussion, we are giving them MORE viewership, not less.

Those inclined to click a blind linky instead of reading it for themselves as posted here appear to be EXTREMELY limited in number, from the actual discussions I read wherein people can't even comprehend what we post, and they DEFINITELY never bothered to click a blind linky to an article to read it but it didn't prevent them from opining on something they didn't even bother to read.

Hmmmmmm, I probably could have said that better but I'm too lazy to correct it now.

As for the banner ads at the top of the Podium - has ANYONE ever actually clicked on one of those ridiculous things?
I hardly think SD is making money on the Podium ads, even if Mr. SD has buffaloed advertisers into THINKING we do click them.

Quote from Anonymouse : As for the banner ads at the top of the Podium - has ANYONE ever actually clicked on one of those ridiculous things? I hardly think SD is making money on the Podium ads, even if Mr. SD has buffaloed advertisers into THINKING we do click them.

I've clicked them once or twice.

And I believe they are coded so advertisers know how many click them.

Quote from Anonymouse : I disagree. People who write articles for the AP or whatever get paid ONE TIME for their article. The publisher uses it to draw in readers but as we all know, publish or perish, old news is NOT going to draw anyone but researchers to your article once it's a week or so old.

They get paid once, but I'm sure that their pay is related to the perceived value of the article. The newspapers pay the AP $X, AP pays that guy $Y. If fewer people are reading articles from the sources that paid for them because they're available elsewhere, then those sources will end up paying less for the article next time. I'm not saying that the Podium is big enough to actually have an impact, but that's the rationale for protecting work.

Quote : Posting an article here, in full, is NOT going to detract from the number of readers of it on THEIR site - quite the opposite, but posting the article here and linkying to it, it further enhances the chances posters here will check the article for correct C&P and while there, browse a bit on their site. In reposting articles here for discussion, we are giving them MORE viewership, not less.

I'm not sure if you're right or wrong with this. That's one factor, but I think you might even see more visitors to the source with partial C+P, because then it's much more likely that someone will have altered context to suit his purposes. Either way, there are a lot of factors, some pointing to C+P being better for the original source, some pointing to it being worse.

Quote : Those inclined to click a blind linky instead of reading it for themselves as posted here appear to be EXTREMELY limited in number, from the actual discussions I read wherein people can't even comprehend what we post, and they DEFINITELY never bothered to click a blind linky to an article to read it but it didn't prevent them from opining on something they didn't even bother to read.

I don't think this agrees with your previous point.

Quote : As for the banner ads at the top of the Podium - has ANYONE ever actually clicked on one of those ridiculous things? I hardly think SD is making money on the Podium ads, even if Mr. SD has buffaloed advertisers into THINKING we do click them.

The pron ads do fairly well.

Quote from thelnel52 : I don't think this agrees with your previous point.

Heeeheee, it wasn't meant to agree with my previous point, it was a not-so-subtle bag on people who post ABOUT an article in the op and don't even bother to READ the article they are commenting on - because they already have a stock position on the greater subject matter the op article addresses.

Colorado judge puts Righthaven's cases on hold. [slashdot.org]

Without the "blackmail" effect Trollheaven couldn't exist.
If everyone they threatened to sue said "See ya in court mo'fo'...", Trollheaven would lose more money in attorney's fees than they'd ever stand a shot at collecting and this idea would go where it should have when the jacka$$ thought it up originally.
The law should not be a tool FOR blackmailers, it should protect us all AGAINST blackmailers.
As is often the case, those on the front lines will always suffer in any attempt to retain freedom.
Sad, but true, but it is also the DUTY of those on the front lines to stand up for freedom and take the cost, as a part of being a part of a free society.

Are you reading me, Mr. Slickdeals????
Attica, Attica, Attica......Free the Podium.

Quote from thelnel52 : Yes. We haven't had time to give an in-depth look at what just happened, but my first impressions is that Slickdeals can be distinguished from that defendant fairly easily.

How about now?

Judge: copyright troll Righthaven has no standing to sue [arstechnica.com]

Quote : A Las Vegas federal judge threatened to sanction copyright troll Righthaven, calling its litigation efforts Tuesday “disingenuous, if not outright deceitful.” The blistering decision also places into doubt the litigation factory’s year-old business model, which is also under a Colorado federal judge’s microscope. US District Judge Roger Hunt of Nevada ordered Righthaven to explain why Hunt should not sanction it for trying to “manufacture standing.” Standing is a legal concept that has enabled Righthaven to bring 200-plus lawsuits on behalf of the copyrights owned by news agency Stephens Media of Las Vegas. “The court believes that Righthaven has made multiple inaccurate and likely dishonest statements to the court,” (PDF) Hunt wrote.