Copyright Stuff (and The Koon)

[Henges24]

<a href="http://www.popcorngif.com/1/mj/" target="_blank"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/agJIP.gif" border="0" alt=" Popcorngif.com" /></a>

 

[IrishLax]

OK so as for copyright rules, and dos/donts...

The truth is that it's a verrrrrry gray area on most stuff. I'll try to give examples ramping up from "do" to "don't", using a ESPN paywalled mock draft as an example.

If you paraphrase something you read and provide attribution, that's perfectly OK. "Hearsay" is not governed legally by copyright infringement laws... for example, in real life you read the insider mock draft and then went and talked yo your friends about what you read it would be OK. If you posted on the internet "Kiper has Zach Martin going 15th in most recent mock draft" then you're fine with or without a link.

Limited quoting with attribution is also generally OK. For example, if you say "Kiper has Martin going 15th and says (insert quote from mock draft about team fit or something)" and then provide a link to the full mock draft, that is typically OK.

Full paraphrasing is generally OK under the same legal umbrella as example 1, but can become a gray area. For example, if you list all 32 picks out that's probably OK depending on what detail you go into. If you list every pick and then also very closely paraphrase all of the supporting comments... that's a bit more questionable. With the paraphrasing game, it really just comes down to what level of replication you go into. It's a sliding scale.

Full copy and paste is where you actually cross the line into a no-no. If you provide attribution and a link it isn't so bad, but it's still not good. It's the difference between discussing what you read in the newspaper with your friends and taking the newspaper to the photocopier and distributing it to all of them.

If you do too much copy & paste and the offended party notices, then they can take legal action. This typically starts with a cease and desist letter. At that point if you cease and desist then it's basically all well and done. If you don't, then they can come after you for damages. To get to this point is rare and takes gross, repeated violations with no steps to address the issue.

 

[IrishLax]

I wasn't personally affected by it because I wasn't here.. But Pham pointed out that it has happened and that's why he doesn't allow it and doesn't want it to happen again.

I don't want it to affect IE, therefore I asked the question.

I asked a question that was legit for a number of reasons. If you or other posters get excited about that, there's nothing I can do about it.

But ok, thanks for explaining. I guess I'm in the thread title then.

Is that picture of Peter Dinklage/Tyrion Lannister in public domain? I doubt it, I bet someone ripped it off their DVR of the show that HBO owns the rights to. Any lawyers on this board know the specifics of public domain laws?

Technically, by using an unlicensed picture of Peter Dinklage/Tyrion Lannister without permission you're likewise exposing the board to similar issues that you claim to be sooooo concerned about.

You're completely full of it. Like Rhode Irish said, you were trying to play "hall monitor." The other couple times I did something similar you did the same thing and I gave the same response. If you were actually "concerned" you would've sent a PM to Pham, but that wasn't your goal.

 

[koonja]

Is that picture of Peter Dinklage/Tyrion Lannister in public domain? I doubt it, I bet someone ripped it off their DVR of the show that HBO owns the rights to. Any lawyers on this board know the specifics of public domain laws?

Technically, by using an unlicensed picture of Peter Dinklage/Tyrion Lannister without permission you're likewise exposing the board to similar issues that you claim to be sooooo concerned about.

You're completely full of it. Like Rhode Irish said, you were trying to play "hall monitor." The other couple times I did something similar you did the same thing and I gave the same response. If you were actually "concerned" you would've sent a PM to Pham, but that wasn't your goal.

Actually, that's not true. I saw you did this a couple of weeks ago and thought it was weird, but I let it go. Saw it again today, and said something because I don't want to get IE in trouble.

You really have no way of knowing my intentions, but if you want to convince yourself that I'm playing hall monitor, I can't stop you. It makes for a more dramtic story, so roll with it.

 

[Irish8248]

The fact you're not using it to drive a commercial benefit is a huge factor into determining If it's infringement. It's generally not enough for the vendor to be impacted financially as you have be gaining financially. Vendors throw out copyright infringement to scare those seeking to infringe but really the fair use of information significantly handcuffs an original authors work

 

[Whiskeyjack]

OK so as for copyright rules, and dos/donts...

It's also worth noting that direct quotes from players, coaches and recruits are never subject to copyright. Those can always be copied and pasted verbatim. Only original commentary/ analysis created by the writer is subject to copyright protection.

 

[Irish8248]

Actually, that's not true. I saw you did this a couple of weeks ago and thought it was weird, but I let it go. Saw it again today, and said something because I don't want to get IE in trouble.

You really have no way of knowing my intentions, but if you want to convince yourself that I'm playing hall monitor, I can't stop you. It makes for a more dramtic story, so roll with it.

No offense and I'm not trying to be a dick, but do you get off on this shit? I'm all for personal crusades from time to time, but it's far easier to live life not giving a shit about the improprieties of others actions. Unless it's substantially affecting you or is completely irritating to the point you can't take it, just sit back and brush your shoulders off.

Have an opinion, crack some jokes, laugh at people when they make ridiculous comments, but I think some people on these boards take their IE persona to a whole new level. Like they actually believe it's who they are (generally speaking)

 

[Emcee77]

Full paraphrasing is generally OK under the same legal umbrella as example 1, but can become a gray area. For example, if you list all 32 picks out that's probably OK depending on what detail you go into. If you list every pick and then also very closely paraphrase all of the supporting comments... that's a bit more questionable. With the paraphrasing game, it really just comes down to what level of replication you go into. It's a sliding scale.

That's an interesting hypothetical.

Copyright protects expression, not ideas. A well-known way of analyzing when a paraphrase is too close to the original is in terms of "patterns of abstraction":

Upon any work, and especially upon a play, a great number of patterns of increasing generality will fit equally well, as more and more of the incident is left out. The last may perhaps be no more than the most general statement of what the play is about, and at times might consist only of its title; but there is a point in this series of abstractions where they are no longer protected, since otherwise the playwright could prevent the use of his "ideas," to which, apart from their expression, his property is never extended. Nobody has ever been able to fix that boundary, and nobody ever can. In some cases the question has been treated as though it were analogous to lifting a portion out of the copyrighted work; but the analogy is not a good one, because, though the skeleton is a part of the body, it pervades and supports the whole. In such cases we are rather concerned with the line between expression and what is expressed.

Google Scholar

That's from a famous copyright opinion by one of the most famous, influential judges in American jurisprudence. #lawnerd

Full copy and paste is where you actually cross the line into a no-no. If you provide attribution and a link it isn't so bad, but it's still not good. It's the difference between discussing what you read in the newspaper with your friends and taking the newspaper to the photocopier and distributing it to all of them.

The rightsholder might care less, and I think that's all Lax meant by "it isn't so bad," but just fyi to people reading that, attribution wouldn't affect the determination of whether there is a copyright violation or not in the case of a full article. Copyright is concerned with unauthorized reproduction that might allow a consumer to use an unauthorized copy, from the use of which the author derives no compensation or other benefit, as a substitute for an authorized copy. If you copy and paste a full article, there's no question that is a copyright violation, whether you attribute/link it to the source or not.

 

[IrishLion]

I don't think "because fuck 247" is a legitimate reason to knowingly (potentially?) break copyright rules. And "I'm only doing it a few times" is.... well I don't know how to describe it but it comes off as pretty lame, in light of the Panda situation.

 

[koonja]

No offense and I'm not trying to be a dick, but do you get off on this shit? I'm all for personal crusades from time to time, but it's far easier to live life not giving a shit about the improprieties of others actions. Unless it's substantially affecting you or is completely irritating to the point you can't take it, just sit back and brush your shoulders off.

Have an opinion, crack some jokes, laugh at people when they make ridiculous comments, but I think some people on these boards take their IE persona to a whole new level. Like they actually believe it's who they are (generally speaking)

Big time.

No. I completely thought it was weird that Lax has been copy and pasting massive 247 articles the last couple of weeks, considering Pham just explained that the site's been shut down before for it, and Panada was just banned.

Like I said, I didn't say anything last time he did it, but thought it was weird. Saw it again, so said something.

I don't know why it's so hard I or anyone else was interested in why he'd do that considering the above. I asked him his reasoning, said it was interesting, and let it be. But if you want to paint me to be a drama queen, go with it.

At this point it's pretty obvious I couldn't care less, lol.

 

[IrishLax]

The rightsholder might care less, but attribution wouldn't affect the determination of whether there is a copyright violation or not in the case of a full article. Copyright is concerned with unauthorized reproduction that might allow a consumer to use an unauthorized copy, from the use of which the author derives no compensation or other benefit, as a substitute for an authorized copy. If you copy and paste a full article, there's no question that is a copyright violation, whether you attribute/link it to the source or not.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. If you provide a link, they tend to care less than just straight ripoff without any sort of sourcing back to them.

 

[Irish8248]

I think some are missing the point, Lax (correct me if I'm wrong) never said what he did was whole heartedly legal, he just said he didn't give a fuck for 247. We all know that's not a legal defense but as more of board justification as to why this situation is different than previous ones. It's not an endorsed standard but it's a personal risk that frankly doesn't impact IE until other serious actors get involved. If one of us non mods were to paste that same article I don't we'd get booted unless it's a continuous and repetitive practice

 

[Emcee77]

I think some are missing the point, Lax (correct me if I'm wrong) never said what he did was whole heartedly legal, he just said he didn't give a fuck for 247. We all know that's not a legal defense but as more of board justification as to why this situation is different than previous ones. It's not an endorsed standard but it's a personal risk that frankly doesn't impact IE until other serious actors get involved. If one of us non mods were to paste that same article I don't we'd get booted unless it's a continuous and repetitive practice

Exactly. There was no double standard. Much ado about nothing.

 

[Irish8248]

Big time.

No. I completely thought it was weird that Lax has been copy and pasting massive 247 articles the last couple of weeks, considering Pham just explained that the site's been shut down before for it, and Panada was just banned.

Like I said, I didn't say anything last time he did it, but thought it was weird. Saw it again, so said something.

I don't know why it's so hard I or anyone else was interested in why he'd do that considering the above. I asked him his reasoning, said it was interesting, and let it be. But if you want to paint me to be a drama queen, go with it.

At this point it's pretty obvious I couldn't care less, lol.

I guess my point was more towards continuously getting of topic posts. It's different when you shoot a short "hey what's up with this" or even a PM versus going into a lengthy diatribe of why and how you think said question is wrong. That's clearly posted to start a discussion not to clarify a question or point. Posting it in a specific thread not related to it's topic is almost guaranteed to derail it, especially when it's a challenging post.

So more like do you get off on knowingly pursuing personal crusades rather than posting questions that may or may not lead into off topic posts

 

[woolybug25]

Speaking of Panda... shouldn't he be back soon? I thought it was a month ban?

 

[IrishLax]

Speaking of Panda... shouldn't he be back soon? I thought it was a month ban?

Yeah I think he'll be back any day now.

 

[woolybug25]

I guess my point was more towards continuously getting of topic posts. It's different when you shoot a short "hey what's up with this" or even a PM versus going into a lengthy diatribe of why and how you think said question is wrong. That's clearly posted to start a discussion not to clarify a question or point. Posting it in a specific thread not related to it's topic is almost guaranteed to derail it, especially when it's a challenging post.

So more like do you get off on knowingly pursuing personal crusades rather than posting questions that may or may not lead into off topic posts

I think your continued use of large, bandwidth sucking, GIF signatures is more annoying than off topic posts in threads. Just sayin...

 

[woolybug25]

Yeah I think he'll be back any day now.

Sweet.

 

[IrishLion]

IE Fight Club Group is gonna be needed once fall rolls around.

I can feel it.

 

[Irish8248]

I think your continued use of large, bandwidth sucking, GIF signatures is more annoying than off topic posts in threads. Just sayin...

More reason to use it then, anything to keep you happy

 

[zelezo vlk]

Sweet.

I think we're all excited for the avatars.

 

[woolybug25]

More reason to use it then, anything to keep you happy

I'm just saying what many others have agreed. Don't throw stones in a glass house. Every single time you post, you mess up the thread for someone because of the bandwidth of your signatures. Nobody on this site can match that level of annoying.

So you wont get much sympathy when you cry about another poster making threads difficult for you to follow. You do that every single time you post.

 

[gkIrish]

Both of you guys are right, for sure. It's definitely in the no-no category. In no way am I saying that it's OK to do what I'm doing.

All I'm saying is that I don't care. Because it's not a frequent thing, and because I don't give a rip about 247. If Koon and company want to get out pitchforks over me grabbing two Hopkins articles and this one then so be it.

On top of that, as Whiskey said, you can legally quote a quote whenever and it isn't infringement. So in this case, it's not bad... and if we wanted I could edit out the Qs to make it all above board.

I understand that you don't give a fuck about 247 (neither do I) but this has more to do with not giving a fuck if Pham/IE get into any trouble than it does with 247. Obviously the odds that 247 or anyone else take any action are small, especially if it only happens once in a blue moon. But I hope you don't make it a habit.

 

[Irish8248]

I'm just saying what many others have agreed. Don't throw stones in a glass house. Every single time you post, you mess up the thread for someone because of the bandwidth of your signatures. Nobody on this site can match that level of annoying.

So you wont get much sympathy when you cry about another poster making threads difficult for you to follow. You do that every single time you post.

Im not looking for sympathy? What part of sit back and just enjoy the site did you not understand in my previous response?

But I get the same problem when signatures are too long and it distorts the formatting of a page or if someone has something under their avatar that pushes their post to a small margin all the way to the left... It's technology.

 

[Mr. McGibblets]

Should I most a vBook on the O/U # of posts before this thread is closed? Lets say O/U post 102.5.

 

[BeauBenken]

I didn't realize what you've posted were pay articles, Lax.

 

[IrishSteelhead]

The site was just interrupted for a few minutes. Any relation?

After the way IE gathered an army of villagers with torches and pitchforks attacking 247, I would guess 247 wouldn't take too kindly this thread.

 

[IrishLax]

I understand that you don't give a fuck about 247 (neither do I) but this has more to do with not giving a fuck if Pham/IE get into any trouble than it does with 247. Obviously the odds that 247 or anyone else take any action are small, especially if it only happens once in a blue moon. But I hope you don't make it a habit.

This is solid, and I should point out that I'm not approaching this recklessly. Short of Koon & Co. going to tattle to 247 nothing will come of this. The best way to think of it is like sun exposure... just a little bit and you're fine, more and more and you start flirting with a sunburn, tons and you're looking at vicious burns and cancer.

Regardless, I'm going to go cleanup the Hopkins posts from weeks ago and such just because it's the right thing to do.

 

[connor_in]

 

[Pachuco]

I like Notre Dame football.

It's cool.