Everybody Had Enough of Everyone Posting Whole Articles?

Just do your part, yit ... click up top every now and then.

it's not gonna fit through the phone line

To answer the question, no.

To answer the question, no.

The way an attorney friend (who loves these message board formats) explained it to me, there is less risk of copyright infringement if the publication in which it appears is no longer for sale, and the article is archived. So long as the source is credited or linked, it is usually okay.

Webmasters now have a tool that prevents us normal people from copying text, photos, cartoons, etc. If the material is accessible to copy, there is little risk of problems from copying and pasting the content for personal use only, especially if proper credit is given. Quite a few sites give you permission to do that.

If there is a statement accompanying the copyright information that "no part of this article can be reproduced for any reason without express permission of the author/publisher or whatever", then you can't use it.

Having said that, many of us would do a lot less copying and pasting if it wasn't for the constant clamor from others to 'support our opinion'. Sometimes links will do the trick, but I find it very annoying to have to register to a publication I will likely never visit again just to check out somebody's link. Like KW, I wish a reasoned and logical argument was sufficient in most cases.


On a personal note for us with less than perfect eyesight, I prefer a heading on an article and it being posted full size rather than sized down to fit inside the quote box. It's easier to read. I also like the paragraphs separated and for reasonably short articles to be used.

Even with that warning, the exceptions in Section 107, including "fair use," apply. Just as works are copyrighted even without a copyright notice.

you mean like when there's a caricature of George Bush i can throw punches at?

um, yeah.

Since "fair use" is up in the air and open to interpretation, I guess it comes down to what the Webmaster of the individual site feels comfortable with. He is going to be the one opening up the envelope from the law firm that says he's getting sued.

Since the webmaster of this site has posted that in his opinion, posting of entire articles is against the law, I think we should honor his interpretation on this website and stop posting entire articles. Other message boards might have a different interpretation, and the webmaster there might feel more comfortable running whatever risks there might be. But it is not up to us to make the call for A2K. Craven does.

I would hope that people here would honor our webmaster's interpretation and begin posting only excerpts from now on. I would also hope that the Webmaster writes a prohibition against posting entire articles in the Terms Of Service as soon as it is convenient.

I will abide by TOS of course and if posting copyrighted material is banned, I won't post it.

But here's the problem. Somebody posts something with a link to someting that has become inaccessible or you have to pay $5 to get. If that person is me, who is going to take my word for it that the quote was fully in context and from a reliable author or publication? So the discussion dissolves into the typical "you're a liar" or "how convenient for you" etc.

What's to keep the numbnuts from making up stuff and posting a false link and then just shrugging and say that it was there before? Hey it wasn't their fault they didn't post the whole thing--it was against the rules.

Do you think we could make it the norm here on A2K to be able to exchange opinions and ideas without having to back up everything with a link to somebody else's opinions and ideas? I think that would be great. Can we do it?

I already do it, I'm afraid, when I don't have a link handy.

Note that Craven said "It's legal to excerpt but not to reproduce." So you can copy and paste the most pertinent part (the part that supports your assertion) with a link. Even if the link later expired, the pertinent part should have enough to find the whole thing somewhere online. (Not to mention using the "cached" feature of Google.)

Yes I think that was the concept, Soz. The thing I find though is that sometimes an excerpt can be snipped out of context and it can give a hugely different impression of the writer's intent than is the case if the excerpt is included within the whole context. I'm not sure how to get around that when we just post excerpts from an inaccessible link.

Example:

"President George Bush addressing the whatever group said today, "They are all misguided."

Okay that gives a certain impression and we both know there are members who would post it just that way and say, "See?". But if you look at the whole text, what he said was:

"They are all misguided. That's what they tell us but I'm here to tell you they have it right, and here's why:.....yadda yadda"

I know that maybe you can find the whole text 'somewhere' but the process is often tedious and time consuming, Sometimes when the verification is found, the discussion has moved way beyond that point. It is so much easier (and accurate) to just put the whole context up in the first place.

At the same time there are members who, without their own commentary, post page after page of tedious articles that add little or nothing to the discussion and most of those are a pain.

Okay, I'm conflicted here and don't know which way I want it to go. A2K is capable of some of the most informed and intelligent discussion that is available on the internet. I just don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater I guess.

On the timescale you're talking about, expired links are pretty rare. I don't think it would be much of an issue.

And I have often wondered at your mentions of searches being time-consuming, Fox -- with Google, this stuff is usually just a few click's worth of effort (usually less than a minute).

I reckon a lot of it comes down to the credibility of the poster, foxfyer. If someone "earns" the respect of other A2Kers as being or trying to be a careful reporter when it comes to citing "facts" it isn't necessary to post the whole article that underlies the argument he/she is making. One quickly learns which posters are getting their info from dubious sources.
It is sufficent to state that "...according to an article in (insert source) on (date) etc..."
That is usually good enough for me.

My father was a newspaper man and by the time I started kindergarten I understood the demand, "What are your sources?"

Perhaps in other households the query might have been, "Who sez?"

Right now there is considerable controversy on A2K as to whether buses were provided for evacuation in the poor neighborhoods of New Orleans.

Lots of opinions....few sources.

Another phrase from my parental stockpile: I rest my case.

Legal issues aside for a moment:

I can be very lazy. If the whole article is there, I will read it.

If I have to take the time to wait for a link to load, on a dialup, I may not bother.

Now if I am posting, and I feel that it is important for people to read the entire piece, I would really like to be able to post it, to encourage more people to read it.

Soz writes


Sometimes you get lucky and find precisely what you want right away. And sometimes the data is so crowded it can take some time. Admittedly some of you may be better at using Google than than I am. I use a different system myself that brings to surface information that I can't find on Google at all. And some things I've gone back to look for, I can't get get to come up no matter what I try.

But my woes with using search engines is not the issue other than the fact that not everything posted on the internet stays there and is accessible forever.

I just don't want to waste a lot of time on threads with a dozen posts complaining about 'unsubstantiated remarks', 'your link doesn't work', 'your post is a lie', 'you have nothing to base that on', yadda yadda yadda. I've always wondered why an opinion in print has more authority than an opinion on A2K, but when it comes to statistical data or direct quotes by people, the source is very handy to have at hand.

I just don't think that would happen with excerpts on the time scale you're talking about. Your examples are all about an ongoing discussion -- so that's maybe a matter of hours to a few days. Very few links expire that quickly.

But even so, it's very simple to do the following:

1.) Copy a sentence from the article.
2.) Paste it into the Google search bar.
3.) Put quotes around the sentence.
4.) Press return.

The chances are very high that you will find the same article hosted somewhere else.

And again, the excerpt can contain the meat of it, whatever it is that you're trying to substantiate.

If a discussion goes on for more than a day or two, however, and the authenticity or context of a quoted excerpt is called into question, the time frame may be less friendly to retrieve the piece. But it isn't important enough to belabor the point.