Message Board Rules

[Big Easy Vike]

No it doesn't. I know that most message boards have rules about posting insider information etc. but I'd like to know who's telling me what I can and can't do and if they have the authority to do so. Just because he has the same last name as the sites creator doesn't make him an authority on what can and can't be posted.

Hey, see ya' around. Keep in touch from your new board. ;)

[WCO]

IMO the site admins have been very lenient about people posting copyrighted material in all of the forums. Even if you provide a link, and credit the source, and it's a free site, it's blatantly illegal to cut and paste an entire article and post it in a message forum such as this.

clarification on this point please...IMO it's not...to claim anothers work, etc. is illegal, but if you provide the information, link and such it isn't...if it is "illegal" what law does it fall under? also each state has different laws governing information rights, etc.

however, KFFL does have THE RIGHT to limit what they want posted b/c it's their board...and they probably do no not want the legal hassle that come with the territory...so "the man" wins...so say it's illegal isn't entirely correct...

FWIW, if I would be paying for ESPN premium service and posting info here, it's the USER (ala the one who posted) who would be under penalty for violating the "user agreement"...

nonetheless, I agree it's wrong to post from a paid site...these guys just need to paraphrase more ;)

[tyke1doe]

Where oh where has common sense gone?

Why is this even a discussion?

If the information is from a paid site, you know you're not suppose to post it here.

If it's from a free site, just provide a link.

Sheesh.

BTW, good explanation, DonMan, as always.

[Rambulance]

The rules around here used to be much tougher concerning material from other sites. It was only a matter of time before they were enforced again.

[DonMan]

clarification on this point please...IMO it's not...to claim anothers work, etc. is illegal, but if you provide the information, link and such it isn't...if it is "illegal" what law does it fall under? also each state has different laws governing information rights, etc.

The law that is being broken is called copyright infringement, which I believe is a federal law, not state. Standard copyright clauses include wording such as "this material shall not be reproduced in whole or in part, by any means, including electronic..." It doesn't matter if the document is available on a free web site. It's still copyright infringement to cut and paste the entire document somewhere else, even if you provide a link. Courts have generally ruled that snipets which fall under the "two sentence rule" I mentioned above aren't significant enough to meet the standard of "reproducing" the document.

[Vin Lombardi]

Not true at all. Again, it is the site owners sole discretion to limit what is posted, but even quoting even large portions of a pay site in no way violates copyright law as we always fall under the Fair Use provision of Comment and Criticism. See http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyrigh...pter9/9-a.html

A. What Is Fair Use?


In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and "transformative" purpose such as to comment upon, criticize or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. Another way of putting this is that fair use is a defense against infringement. If your use qualifies under the definition above, and as defined more specifically later in this chapter, then your use would not be considered an illegal infringement.

So what is a "transformative" use? If this definition seems ambiguous or vague, be aware that millions of dollars in legal fees have been spent attempting to define what qualifies as a fair use. There are no hard-and-fast rules, only general rules and varying court decisions. That's because the judges and lawmakers who created the fair use exception did not want to limit the definition of fair use. They wanted it--like free speech--to have an expansive meaning that could be open to interpretation.

Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: commentary and criticism; or parody.

1. Comment and Criticism

If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work--for instance, writing a book review -- fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. Some examples of commentary and criticism include:

quoting a few lines from a Bob Dylan song in a music review
summarizing and quoting from a medical article on prostate cancer in a news report
copying a few paragraphs from a news article for use by a teacher or student in a lesson, or
copying a portion of a Sports Illustrated magazine article for use in a related court case.
The underlying rationale of this rule is that the public benefits from your review, which is enhanced by including some of the copyrighted material. Additional examples of commentary or criticism are provided in the examples of fair use cases in Section C.

2. Parody

A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to "conjure up" the original.

[DonMan]

Hmm, it seems that the "two setence rule" I listed is quite consistent with the Fair Usage Act you mentioned. However, quoting large portions of articles from a pay site in no way fits into any of the categories listed. This is the critcial section:

In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and "transformative" purpose such as to comment upon, criticize or parody a copyrighted work.

I don't think any reasonable person (i.e. judge) would consider cutting/pasting a large portion of an article into a web forum as falling into any of those categories. Rather, it's quite obvious that the purpose of copying large portions of material is instead to avoid the spirit/intent of the copyright law. You don't have to copy large portions of an article into the forum to comment on the article. You can provide a link, and only quote small portions (i.e. "two sentence rule") as needed for practical purposes.

There are other rules/laws being broken by quoting material from a pay site, as well. The site owners would typically licence the material so it can only be viewed by paying members at the site. Someone who copies that material into a web forum would be violating that licence, and the forum administrators, by permiting that activity, would also indirectly be violating the licence.

[tyke1doe]

Not true at all. Again, it is the site owners sole discretion to limit what is posted, but even quoting even large portions of a pay site in no way violates copyright law as we always fall under the Fair Use provision of Comment and Criticism. See http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyrigh...pter9/9-a.html

A. What Is Fair Use?


In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and "transformative" purpose such as to comment upon, criticize or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. Another way of putting this is that fair use is a defense against infringement. If your use qualifies under the definition above, and as defined more specifically later in this chapter, then your use would not be considered an illegal infringement.

So what is a "transformative" use? If this definition seems ambiguous or vague, be aware that millions of dollars in legal fees have been spent attempting to define what qualifies as a fair use. There are no hard-and-fast rules, only general rules and varying court decisions. That's because the judges and lawmakers who created the fair use exception did not want to limit the definition of fair use. They wanted it--like free speech--to have an expansive meaning that could be open to interpretation.

Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: commentary and criticism; or parody.

1. Comment and Criticism

If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work--for instance, writing a book review -- fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. Some examples of commentary and criticism include:

quoting a few lines from a Bob Dylan song in a music review
summarizing and quoting from a medical article on prostate cancer in a news report
copying a few paragraphs from a news article for use by a teacher or student in a lesson, or
copying a portion of a Sports Illustrated magazine article for use in a related court case.
The underlying rationale of this rule is that the public benefits from your review, which is enhanced by including some of the copyrighted material. Additional examples of commentary or criticism are provided in the examples of fair use cases in Section C.

2. Parody

A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to "conjure up" the original.

Nothing in that explanation negates copying and pasting from a paid site.

[Moriarty]

Nothing in that explanation negates copying and pasting from a paid site.

Not complete lists or articles, which people sometimes do, but it most certainly does allow for small portions of copyrighted material to be quoted.

[DonMan]

To clarify what I mentioned in my previous post, most/all pay sites probably include some sort of written provision, licence, or user's agreement that prohibits you from distributing any of the paid material to outside sources. That's above and beyond, totally separate from the copyright law. That's a contractual agreement between the buyer and the seller. If the buyer chooses to (illegally) post the material in a web forum, then the seller can then take legal action against the web site, since they are essentially acting as an agent for the buyer, allowing him to illegally distribute their material.

[Moriarty]

To clarify what I mentioned in my previous post, most/all pay sites probably include some sort of written provision, licence, or user's agreement that prohibits you from distributing any of the paid material to outside sources. That's above and beyond, totally separate from the copyright law.

I don't think so. The pay site I'm in doesn't have one that I'm aware of. And even if these sites made people agree to one, I doubt very much it would hold up in court. You can't take away people's right to comment on information and use small portions of the source, even when copyrighted, to illustrate/define/prove what they are commenting on - that's the entire spirit and intent of Fair Use laws.

[Vinny]

I'm the Admin for houstontexans.com's official message board and we only allow a quote with a link. We allow zero private content if we know about it. We could probably *get away* with more, but we respect the original work of others so we do not allow wholesale cutnpastes.

[Ryan R. Bonini]

Everyone,

Here is your clarification:

1) FREE ARTICLES/COLUMNS - If there's a story on another site you want to talk about; post the link to the story and make your comments about it. If you want to cite stuff from it, feel free to paraphrase or take small (1-2 sentences) and quote it as should be properly done. Do not post the entire story from another site.

2) PREMIUM/SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION - Any paid content from any premium site, KFFL or otherwise, is not to be posted in any means on the forums (yes, that includes being transfered through private messages). Yes, you may have paid for the subscription to premium site... however, that paid subscription does not give you the right to post information from that site elsewhere for others to consume for free.

Not sticking with those concepts will result in a ban from the website.

Finally, use the good old common sense factor; if you have to think about it or consider asking about whether or not you can post it, chances are high that you're not supposed to be doing it.