Content stealing much?

[dc2k08]

Recently we had a case of a member being asked to censor herself due to a potential threat of legal action against the the forum over what could be considered slander.

As far as I can tell, what constitutes slandering here appears to be extremely selective. I am a member of many online communities and have never once witnessed anyone being asked to sensor themselves due to a potential law-suit. Perhaps they know their disclaimers cover them.

However, what I do see as having a much stronger case for a potential lawsuit is the copying and pasting of articles and other content verbatim. This appears to be becoming increasingly common.

Republishing or copying any article or other content without the permission of the owner constitutes copyright infringement as far as I was aware. There are some limited exceptions such as the fair use doctrine which is a complicated area of the law though.

I was warned that articles or other content should not be republished unless permission is granted from the author or owner or you are very comfortable that it falls under a defence such as fair use.

Am I missing something? Why is content stealing permitted here?

 

[MonkeyMonk]

dc2k08 can you clarify a bit:

1. Are you saying that it is wrong to post a link and then post the text of the article below the link? (I thought that was being kind/considerate because the linked site's bandwith doesn't go up.)

2. Is it ok to post just the highlights of the article? ...Like a couple of paragraphs?

3. Is there something we should look for in the original article to know if it's one of those exceptions that you mentioned?

 

[Ramblin]

Best practice is to post a couple of relevant paragraphs and your comments. Then a link to the article. It's all about the hits. Saving the original article's site bandwidth isn't an issue for the most part.

Many news organizations are getting quite upset when articles are posted in their entirety on other web sites.

 

[rsmith76]

In my opinion, if it's posted on the internet for all eyes to see, I can see no infringement. But, I am not a lawyer. If it is posted anywhere, it is obviously not intended for private or selective viewing. Now if you were to purchase a copy, then post it, you might have a problem.

rsmith76

 

[Sun Vaporer]

In my opinion, if it's posted on the internet for all eyes to see, I can see no infringement. But, I am not a lawyer. If it is posted anywhere, it is obviously not intended for private or selective viewing. Now if you were to purchase a copy, then post it, you might have a problem.

rsmith76

RSMITH76--Thanks!! Because that is the standard. So long as you cite the article that you did not pay for and there is no monetary gain like posting it here on the Fourm, there is no infridgment of the copyright!! --Sun

 

[Philip]

I would disagree with that. If you take a full article for example from the New York Times website and publish it on a forum it is a copyright infringement even if you place a link to the original article. By posting the full article there is no reason for the reader to visit the original website.

This deprives the original website of potential advertising revenue.

Fair use is if you post an excerpt from the post with a link to the original. This way the original poster doesn't loose out.

 

[Ramblin]

Media organizations have sued various political web sites for posting "too much" of an article. Associated Press and a slew of US newspapers/media organizations have been very vigilant and aggressive in protecting their copyright content.

It does not matter if monetary gain is involved or not. They will send their lawyers hounding the web site owner if they notice.

 

[dc2k08]

monkey monk. As far as I was aware, it is illegal to copy and paste a piece of content in its entirety even if a link is provided to the original source. However, I think snippets of content might be considered fair use with a link to the reference maybe unless the owner of the content stipulates that it is not. It's a murky area. Sites want hits. Hits means eyes on ads (and other means of monetising content). ads pay for content - keeps the site alive and making money.

The media have always been wary of giving away content online where ads do not pay as much and it is easy for anyone to copy and paste. Some like the NY Times hide their content behind a passworded account. Others have had no option but to embrace it without constraint. The CS Monitor recently stopped publishing it's print edition but for a weekender because of a decline in sales largely in part to the amount of free content that is given away online. They still publish their content online though and rely on people hitting their site for revenue. Whatever about legal issues, it's simply bad form to copy and paste articles into other sites without the author's/publisher's permission.

As for your last question MM, I think If a site is allowing it's content to be published elsewhere - it will say so, somewhere on the page.

 

[Kitabz]

Am I missing something? Why is content stealing permitted here?

Yes, I've often wondered that.
According to this other website/forum (that I also participate in):

Contributors may summarise articles and quote an occasional sentence or two, but not an entire article.

Full restrictions may be found here:
Treat Copyright Right - Discussion Board Guidelines - Fool.co.uk

[EDIT - and this other board is VERY strict about enforcing this rule - posts get removed immediately if they contain more than a snippet of the original article]

 

[Oliver]

Recently we had a case of a member being asked to censor herself due to a potential threat of legal action against the the forum over what could be considered slander

There was no threat of legal action in this instance. Whatsoever.

As far as content stealing goes - I agree and perhaps we need to moderate this more. But to compare this with the potential legal repercussions of libel is to make a HUGE category error.

All that would ever happen with intellectual property is that ECF would be asked to take it down (and we would). Slander, on the other hand, cannot be "taken down", by definition. In any case, slander is the wrong term since slander refers to spoken words - what we're talking here is libel.

I don't know what you mean by "what constitutes slandering here appears to be extremely selective" - would you care to explain? I've only seen 3 or 4 genuine instances of libel, and these have been removed.

 

[dc2k08]

I know there wasn't an actual threat of legal action submitted to you by the supplier concerned. But the reason, I was aware, that the member was asked to censor her comments was because there was potential for a lawsuit.

This issue has been beaten to death already but the reason I am linking the two issues is because I am wondering if ECF is worried about a potential lawsuit with regards to libel, why isn't it concerned with potential legal action with regards to stealing content?

Your post suggests that with regard to content stealing you would rather the original owners of content first submit a request to ECF for their content to be removed before it is removed once they become aware that it is posted here. Potentially libellous posts will be taken down or asked to be altered if they are identified as such with or without a request - That answers my question.

 

[Duckies]

SJ -- the Associated Press can get very aggressive about this. Once you get on their radar, they can be relentless. As you are leasing forums to suppliers, they may even go after you for a profit motive as opposed to just "infringement of copyright".

 

[nicowolf]

Thank you fine folks for the topic and the input. I just learned a new piece of internet etiquette here. I knew that sites count on hits for revenue. I knew that simply copying and pasting without citation was wrong. I never linked together in my mind that copying and pasting deprived someone of their rightful revenue. I will make sure not to do that from this point forward. I always ...umed that the rules were the same as writing papers in college - cite sources, give credit to original author, add comments. Thanks for the info and the reasoning. I better understand now. (I don't think I am guilty yet, as I don't get into any depth of research usually, but someday I might, and I will try to do it correctly)

 

[Oliver]

Thanks guys, certainly one to watch. Please would you report any posts you feel may contravene intellectual property of others so we can edit it down and add an appropriate link?

All the best,

SJ

 

[Mohave]

Thank you very much for posting this thread. Folks who imagine it is okay to steal the work of those who write just because they easily can, are very, very, very wrong.

Best practice is to post a couple of relevant paragraphs and your comments. Then a link to the article.

Fair use is if you post an excerpt from the post with a link to the original.

Yes. Thank you very much. That is both the law, and also obviously what is just plain right.

But...

In my opinion, if it's posted on the internet for all eyes to see, I can see no infringement. But, I am not a lawyer. If it is posted anywhere, it is obviously not intended for private or selective viewing.

So long as you cite the article that you did not pay for and there is no monetary gain like posting it here on the Fourm, there is no infridgment of the copyright!!

NO! WRONG! Legally and morally wrong, wrong, wrong. Writing is difficult work; stealing from those who do it is is indefensibly disgusting as well as not legally acceptable. If someone does that to any work of mine they WILL be paying for it. Nobody else is free to make up their own rules on what they imagine they can do with my property.

It is also, incidentally and of much less importance, of no benefit whatsoever to the reader or to the venue in which the theft takes place vs. doing the right thing, which is actually easier and better for the intended audience anyway.

And thank you for the appropriate forum admin response above.

 

[strayling]

Legality aside, I much prefer it when people make the effort to quote only relevant snippets of an article and provide a link to the original. News stories are usually easier to read on the original site and there is often extra information such as pictures, videos, comments and links to related articles which don't show up in a wall-o-text cut and paste.

 

[incineradma]

Monetary gain doesn't have to be money.. it can be anything, if I'm not mistaken, including popularity and the like. I know that anything posted on the Internet (or written/drawn/etc on a piece of paper etc) is automatically copyrited and if you can prove someone used it they can be prosecuted. Why don't people spend the extra 0-3 minutes and paraphrase the section they want to quote?

 

[Nuck]

Great topic, too bad it was linked to drama-town and posted with a sarcastic, childish title.

Paraphrasing leads to errors of interpretation. Much more useful if a short clip is posted to give context followed up with a link.

 

[ChainSmkr]

I know a business owner with a website and can tell you that content theft is rampant and a huge headache for him. He repeatedly finds his text lifted verbatim and art copied even with his logo plastered all over it. The biggest offenders are eBay sellers. Always do your own work and know that apologizing and/or pleading ignorance will not hold up in a court of law. Thanks for bringing this topic up; its great to increase awareness.

 

[lordmage]

here is what i undertsand on the issue of copyright and posted material weather the source site states it or not it can be given a copyright to the information being copied. that said with out changing or omitting or otherwise reciving permission.information may not be posted. also as per making money this site asks for donatation there for it is implied money is made on the posting of copyrighted material. now should you omit lines or paragraphs you need to cite where in the source article it came from and where people can go to view it in its entierety. forgive spelling but if you like i may be able to answer more questions on this thur pm