Effective Immediatly.... Cut-n-paste of whole articles in posts infractions

Discussion in 'Website Support & Announcements' started by Mark, Jan 8, 2011.

  1. Mark

    Mark ♤♡◇♧ Staff Member

    We have long held that copying and using snippets of news articles in part are ok at ID.

    Effective immediatly, any posting of whole articles for use in posts, by other sources, will result in infractions to that user up to and including being banned from ID.

    If a member wishes to use a portion not to include more than 50% of any outside publication, the quoted text MUST be enclosed in quote bbcode tags, and must reference the article source link as the source.

    Additionally, if anyone wonders or discovers that they may have previously quoted whole articles in their posts, please post a link here so staff can edit them down. This new policy is in effect immediatly and includes all posts made since ID's inception.

    This is very important to protect ID in light of recent litigation by a legal firm in Las Vegas named RightHaven.

    Questions and comments below if you have them.

    Thank you for your assistance.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Subdued

    Subdued Emotional Wreckage Premium Member

    17 U.S.C. § 107
    Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
    the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
    the nature of the copyrighted work;
    the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
    the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
    The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

    The articles we use always quote back the direct source. If the source is free to be viewed without any imposed fees, and this forum doesn't impose any fees on its members, shouldn't we plead fair use?
  3. Mark

    Mark ♤♡◇♧ Staff Member

    I know what you are saying Subdued, but RightHaven has found a loophole they are exploiting. And so far it is working. Even ATS, Drudge Report, PrisonPlanet, Ron Paul, and many others havent been immune. I think many just settle out to ovoid the cost of a federal case.

    But these guys are sharks, and their demands are for compensation as well as having the domain names turned over to them, or settle out for cash.


    Recently they have conceded to federal judges that they will stop taking out lawsuits for anything less than 75% copied, but their intent is the same.

    Until it is clear where we stand, I have set what we will allow our members to 50% of the original article, and no more.

    Righthaven is currently expanding the number of media outlets that they can buy old copyrighted material from to add to their lawsuits.

    I should add that IgnoranceDenied.com has not been served, and I wish to prevent the chance of this happening by the terms of the top post in this thread.

    Such a charge against ID would cause ID to be shut down. I just cant afford to even settle out let alone fight it as ID makes very little income from the ads we currently have as they are rarely clicked on, and as result any settlement would just end up coming out of my pocket directly.

    I just dont want us to be in the wrong side of RH's sights.
  4. Subdued

    Subdued Emotional Wreckage Premium Member

    But then, dear smirkley! - we can very easily resolve the issue. RightHaven has vested interest only in Las Vegas Review Journal, WEHCO media and Media News Group - all of which are completely unsubstantial, hillbilly newspapers, which no one reads anyway. As long as we cite the big ones - CNN, BBC, European or Asian media, we have zero to worry about. We don't have to cut off all articles, but just check if what we're quoting is not being owned by RightHaven (and no - they do NOT have the means to buy off BBC).

    EDIT: One more thing - people could also block the RightHaven owned sites on one of their browsers and use it while selecting articles for ID. Here's the walkthough: http://claytonecramer.blogspot.com/2010/08/how-to-make-you-dont-accidental-visit.html
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Mark

    Mark ♤♡◇♧ Staff Member

    First lets recall back in May of 2008, ID was very specific of intent of controlling the amount of 100% cut-n-paste that is and will occur.... We are now refining that statement...


    And please understand that it isnt about what 'hillbilly' news sites are quoted, as it could eventually be any of them.

    RH's sole existence is to buy old articles from affiliated media, and the rights, and then troll the internet for websites with copied content to sue.

    We dont want to 'restrict' what a quoted blurb is sourced from, we just wish to limit the potential of litigation.

    Currently, RH defends they will not sue for less than a 75% article-quote. We at ID feel 50% gives us a buffer zone for safety.

    RH isnt buying out media outlets, just select articles that are old and provide opportunity.

    Basically, and I need this to be understood and accepted by the members of ID, until which time precedent is substantially established, and our rights and/or obligations are more clearly defined, we need to take efforts with enough diligence in order to protect the website and it's ability to continue.

    I am serious about this.

    And finally, no, asking members to block certain websites from their browsers, does not resolve the concerns expressed by me.
  6. Subdued

    Subdued Emotional Wreckage Premium Member

    I completely understand. My point is - what if I quote only articles from media outside of the US, upon which courts have no jurisdiction and RightMedia no ownership. Would you allow me to do that?
  7. Mark

    Mark ♤♡◇♧ Staff Member

    My hopes are that the members of ID can quote from ANY source.
    But just dont quote the WHOLE article.

    Just quote the parts not to exceed 50% of the whole article, from parts you want to use in support of your thread or post.

    And of course, always provide some insight or commentary in your threads or posts where quoted article texts are included.
  8. freenina

    freenina Premium Member

    I'm glad you brought this up, Smirkley, and I like the proactive approach. We don't want to restrict our potential sources by any means, and this has the dual benefit of forcing posters to extract the most significant portions of an article when discussing it. Luckily, I think ID will have very little trouble with this new rule, since most of us are reasonable posters and we tend not to just copy and paste whole articles.
    My question, though, is whether the percentage of quoting is cumulative. If I quote 30% of an article in my original post, and someone else quotes another 30% of the article later in the thread to clarify or answer a question or make a point, has there been a violation? Sorry if it's an abstract question!
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Mark

    Mark ♤♡◇♧ Staff Member

    Interesting point freenina.

    Since the courts have only recently upheld that 75% is the trigger point of copyright violation in this loophole being exploited, and currently the legal attacks have been on the website owners only, I can only assume that cumulative in the same thread, even by different members of a website, does in fact count.

    While this doesnt normally happen, I can see it easily could in some occasions.

    I think since this scenario has not been specifically addressed by the courts, we at ID will just have to keep an eye on threads and address this as it happens untill which time the legal boundaries become more defined with further litigation.

    This is all new stuff that has been starting just last year, and is likely to only increase.
    With that increase, defining precidence will occur and we will have a better understanding of what we need to do.
  10. Mark

    Mark ♤♡◇♧ Staff Member

    Just to note, feel free to either post links in this thread for threads you may find that need to be re-edited to comply with our needs, or you may also post a relevent reply in the thread, bumping it to the top and showing up in my whats new page. I will then read it and edit it as needed. There may be a bunch in our forum, so do either as you find them as it will take time anyway.
  11. Mark

    Mark ♤♡◇♧ Staff Member

    Bump for review.