Pete Carroll / LA Saints / ESPN Insider Article

pakowitz · 12-20-2005, 06:04 PM

it has always been illegal to post articles that someone charges to view....

xan · 12-20-2005, 06:13 PM

It is not illegal to post quotes from the article as long as the source is cited, even if the source charges for viewing.

pakowitz · 12-20-2005, 06:28 PM

im not talkin about quotes im talkin about the complete article...

saintswhodi · 12-20-2005, 07:55 PM

Okay, so it's ONLY "illegal" if I post the whole thing. But I can post parts, as long as I cite ESPN Insider. Is that a fair enough description of this rule?

CheramieIII · 12-20-2005, 08:21 PM

"Fair is Fair, Billy Jean the movie.

xan · 12-20-2005, 08:32 PM

Yes, The same issues that online services face in copyrights are the same that newspapers, magazines and periodicals face. Portions, not complete articles, are allowed to be cited as long as the source is given. This does not mean that you can omit one word or letter and get away with publishing the bulk of the article; selective and specific references are allowed and supported by a large body of law.

Also, if I chose to pay for a service, I can give my password for access to another party for his/her viewing. It's just like passing the paper around once bought. That party just shouldn't copy the article. That would be wrong.

So who's going to give us the relevant passage?

pakowitz · 12-21-2005, 02:09 AM

ive discussed it with halo and he said he doesnt mind the posting of the insider information... as long as espn.com doesnt say anything about it...it is fine for now.... so go ahead... post all u want...

dont think that i was trying to be a ***** about this... i was just doing my job... even if no one else was saying anything about it....

saintswhodi · 12-21-2005, 09:39 AM

K.

xan · 12-21-2005, 01:20 PM

It would be wrong if B&G were charging for access to the site. Copyright law does allow the overwhelming majority of what this forum posts.

LordOfEntropy · 12-24-2005, 10:11 AM

Actually, I'm pretty sure it's illegal to post any, as well as just part of, copyrighted material from a pay site. It's ok to paraphrase, or sum up what they said, but to quote even snippets from one of those sites is illegal. That is, unless they give express consent for others to reproduce it. Which I seriously doubt they give....

It's been illegal all along.

12-20-2005, 06:04 PM	#11
pakowitz The Dark Overlord Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,450	it has always been illegal to post articles that someone charges to view....

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

12-20-2005, 06:13 PM	#12
xan Professor Crab and Site Donor 2014 Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Princeton Posts: 3,371 Blog Entries: 34	It is not illegal to post quotes from the article as long as the source is cited, even if the source charges for viewing.

12-20-2005, 06:28 PM	#13
pakowitz The Dark Overlord Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,450	im not talkin about quotes im talkin about the complete article...

12-20-2005, 07:55 PM	#14
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Okay, so it's ONLY "illegal" if I post the whole thing. But I can post parts, as long as I cite ESPN Insider. Is that a fair enough description of this rule?

12-20-2005, 08:21 PM	#15
CheramieIII Fan Since 1967 Join Date: May 2004 Location: Nomad Posts: 7,487 Blog Entries: 3	"Fair is Fair, Billy Jean the movie.

12-20-2005, 08:32 PM	#16
xan Professor Crab and Site Donor 2014 Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Princeton Posts: 3,371 Blog Entries: 34	Yes, The same issues that online services face in copyrights are the same that newspapers, magazines and periodicals face. Portions, not complete articles, are allowed to be cited as long as the source is given. This does not mean that you can omit one word or letter and get away with publishing the bulk of the article; selective and specific references are allowed and supported by a large body of law. Also, if I chose to pay for a service, I can give my password for access to another party for his/her viewing. It's just like passing the paper around once bought. That party just shouldn't copy the article. That would be wrong. So who's going to give us the relevant passage?

12-21-2005, 02:09 AM	#17
pakowitz The Dark Overlord Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,450	ive discussed it with halo and he said he doesnt mind the posting of the insider information... as long as espn.com doesnt say anything about it...it is fine for now.... so go ahead... post all u want... dont think that i was trying to be a ***** about this... i was just doing my job... even if no one else was saying anything about it....

12-21-2005, 09:39 AM	#18
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	K.

12-21-2005, 01:20 PM	#19
xan Professor Crab and Site Donor 2014 Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Princeton Posts: 3,371 Blog Entries: 34	It would be wrong if B&G were charging for access to the site. Copyright law does allow the overwhelming majority of what this forum posts.

12-24-2005, 10:11 AM	#20
LordOfEntropy 1000 Posts + Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Cary, NC Posts: 1,838	Actually, I'm pretty sure it's illegal to post any, as well as just part of, copyrighted material from a pay site. It's ok to paraphrase, or sum up what they said, but to quote even snippets from one of those sites is illegal. That is, unless they give express consent for others to reproduce it. Which I seriously doubt they give.... It's been illegal all along.