Slickdeals Saves U! Congratulations Fall 2017 winners! Apply for our $2,500 Spring scholarships today Learn More
Forum Thread

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

thelnel52 2,390 2,589 July 27, 2010 at 11:58 AM
Dear Podiumites,

Thanks to copyright trolls like this guy [wired.com], we're going to have to change the way that you guys share news articles here in the Podium. To make a long story short, a lot of the stuff that gets posted in here is theoretically protected by the newspaper/magazine/website's copyright. This hasn't been much of an issue in the past, because most publishers simply appreciate the attention (and can't argue that the value of the copyright is being damaged with a straight face). Unfortunately, it seems as though the goal of these copyright trolls isn't to actually win a big lawsuit, but to force smaller sites to settle instead of hiring an expensive attorney to defend. Given the overriding principles of Slickdeals, you can imagine that we don't aim to rack up unnecessary attorney fees.

So, in response to this- we're establishing a new policy for pasting and linking articles:

From now on, posts should include the title of the original article, a link to the article, and your take (your own summary if you choose). Posts SHOULD NOT INCLUDE LARGE BLOCKS OF TEXT FROM THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE. You can still quote from the article, but only use what you need to make your point (you guys are kind of doing this now by bolding particular parts- just quote what you might otherwise have bolded). Also, please err on the side of under-quoting.

I know that this will make things a little tougher on OPs, but I really do think that the extra bit of burden will (1) cut down on the number of lazy starts to threads, (2) help establish a focus for the discussions, (3) make threads less intimidating to jump into, and, most importantly, (4) help SD avoid being sued.

A similar note will be posted in the lounge.

97 Comments

1 2 3 4 5

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2010
Permanently Banned
3,601 Posts
129 Reputation
#31
Quote from Elmer View Post :
Perhaps no one will read their site soon......

We can hope at least.....
It's password protected now.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jan 2005
Patronsaint d'Lostcause
14,296 Posts
1,201 Reputation
#32
Quote from JackHandey View Post :
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. Big Grin
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2006
L6: Yankees 1
4,661 Posts
58 Reputation
#33
I'd put this in the rules thread, but that's locked.


Reply Helpful Comment? 1 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Apr 2005
L7: Weenie
21,133 Posts
466 Reputation
#34
Quote from jamegumb View Post :
I'd put this in the rules thread, but that's locked.


+4 If I could Thumbup
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Mar 2007
Password: ••••••••
21,097 Posts
1,591 Reputation
#35
With Righthaven's setbacks, are we still limited to posting only sections of articles?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Steve Gibson on password policies [grc.com]: I mean, I don't get this change it every eight weeks. ... It's not as if passwords are traveling by camel after they've been stolen, going to the bad guys, and so there's, like, some weird eight-week window, like, oh, we're going to change your password so that the stale password no longer works. ... And all this does is make IT people despised because users, who are not dumb, they think, why am I - why do I have to do this? What problem is this solving?
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Dec 2006
L7: Teacher
2,390 Posts
2,589 Reputation
Original Poster
Pro
#36
Quote from redmaxx View Post :
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.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
I'm giggin' on these deals, treat them like dominoes. I flip them on they back, and tell them vamanos.
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Oct 2006
L10: Grand Master
20,262 Posts
2,071 Reputation
#37
Quote from thelnel52 View Post :
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. Smilie
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Quote from Demosthenes9 View Post :
Quote from MadisonAlexa View Post :
Well you know I can be a bitch. You know me. Good night.
Hey, now here is something that you and I agree on completely. Smilie


Step 4. Cook bacon, everything should have a step for bacon

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jan 2005
Patronsaint d'Lostcause
14,296 Posts
1,201 Reputation
#38
Quote from thelnel52 View Post :
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.


Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Last edited by Anonymouse March 31, 2011 at 10:11 PM.
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2008
Permanently Banned
23,142 Posts
462 Reputation
#39
Quote from Anonymouse View Post :
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.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Dec 2006
L7: Teacher
2,390 Posts
2,589 Reputation
Original Poster
Pro
#40
Quote from Anonymouse View Post :
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.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jan 2005
Patronsaint d'Lostcause
14,296 Posts
1,201 Reputation
#41
Quote from thelnel52 View Post :
I don't think this agrees with your previous point.
Heeeheee, Stick Out Tongue 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.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Mar 2007
Password: ••••••••
21,097 Posts
1,591 Reputation
#42
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jan 2005
Patronsaint d'Lostcause
14,296 Posts
1,201 Reputation
#43
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.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Mar 2007
Password: ••••••••
21,097 Posts
1,591 Reputation
#44
Quote from thelnel52 View Post :
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.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Sep 2003
Rotten Apple
30,738 Posts
681 Reputation
#45
Looks like nail in the coffin

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquir...ontributor
Quote :
NEWSPAPER COPYRIGHT LITIGANT Righthaven has lost another case in its attempts to get hundreds of bloggers to pay up for alleged copyright infringement, while in a deeply ironic act one of Righthaven's primary supporters apparently copied most of a lawyer's blog posting.

...

The latest is the case of Wayne Hoehne, who contributed content to the web site Madjacksports as a voluntary unpaid contributor. On 29 November, 2010 he reposted the article Public Employee Pensions. We Can't Afford Them from the Las Vegas Review Journal, in its entirety and without permission, though a citation was given.

Righthaven used this as grounds to sue him, but Hoehne attested that he did not post the article for profit and there was no way for him to make a profit on it since he was not employed by the web site. US District Judge Philip Pro agreed with him, ruling that Hoehne's republication of the story was consistent with the provisions of the US Copyright Act governing Fair Use, because he made no profit and it did not have an adverse effect on the market for the original article.

....
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Annoyed
Quote from slickdeals View Post :
  1. Using quotes enables phrase search and it makes the order of the terms important. Thus "rotten apple" would return posts with "rotten peach & apple" but will not return "the apple is rotten."
Page 3 of 7
1 2 3 4 5
Join the Conversation
Add a Comment
 
Copyright 1999 - 2017. Slickdeals, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Copyright / Infringement Policy  •  Privacy Policy  •  Terms of Service  •  Acceptable Use Policy (Rules)  •  Interest-Based Ads
Slickdeals members have saved over $4,000,000,000 since 2007 Join Now
Link Copied to Clipboard