...

3. It was so sad to delete all that content. I understand the news outlets' positions, but many of them do not have any kind of publicly accessible archive of material. So now they still might pull ad content, but people will be forwarded to "Page Not Found". When deleting articles from 2006 (and, in some cases, articles from like a month ago), it was sad to realize that there is no longer any online versions of this information, unless you have access to a paid online news archiving service. It's just information that's largely lost forever. Frown-ey-face.

The Plain Dealer was happy to have forever lost their George Voinovich endorsement of mercury in coal-fired plant exhaust.

 

I contacted that newspaper months ago and tried to buy a copy of it from them.  It does not appear in any searches anymore.  I suppose I could go find the microfilm at the library.  It was from 2004 if I recall correctly.

 

I miss Sarah Hollander.  I wish they would fire that repetitive troll Kevin Obrien.

Another benefit of being a Premium Member!!  You have the ability to delete each of your posts with the click of a button!  A bargain at less than $4 per month!!!!

huh?

Premium Members get to delete their old posts.

That's it?  Well get to work on it!

I've finished mine!

Both of you - NOW is not the time.

Every bit helps :-)

 

Any word from the attorney's yet?

 

We have been given until Tuesday, Sept. 14th - that came from the folks who initially contacted us, and after we asked for more time. That said, that's very reasonable but it should be noted - if there are threads which don't follow guidelines, they'll be removed. Again - the red checkmarks next to each thread indicate that they've been cleaned up. Thank you all for helping us to resolve this - your efforts are appreciated.

 

I was wondering what the red check marks were all about. I thought maybe they were the one's that still

needed to be cleaned up. But it's just the opposite.

Anyway- now I know what they are all about.

Done....to the extent that I can tell....

I finished cleaning up my posts last night.  If there's any way I can help on other threads, let me know.  (On threads I was cleaning my own posts, I reported posts to moderator if I saw any full articles around mine.)

I know some of you have mentioned helping out; please keep checking back at this thread. We'll post any updates or if we have a need - thanks again! :-)

Fair Use on the Internet

May 21, 2002

 

Congressional Research Service -- The Library of Congress (public)

 

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31423.pdf

 

EXCERPT:

 

Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic,46 a recent case, involved a bulletin board

that posted the entire text of many news articles originally published on two

newspapers’ web sites. The purpose of the posting was to encourage BBS members

to add commentary and criticism. The newspapers sued for copyright infringement.

The BBS operator sought summary judgment on its fair use defense, which the court

rejected. The court found that the market for viewing articles online, for selling

copies of archived articles, and for licensing others to display or sell the articles

would be adversely affected by the availability of verbatim copies on the defendant’s

web site. Although the web site was non-commercial and promoted critical

comment, the defendant failed to show that verbatim copying of the articles was

necessary to achieve its purposes.

 

--*--

Hope this helps all readers at UO to understand the copyright issue.  It is not permitted to post entire articles that are owned by somebody else.  However, through selective editing, one can post smaller amounts of the articles such that marketing the original material is not adversely affected.

^but that doesn't say verbatim copying of the entire article. Posting an excerpt "verbatim" from the article sounds like it would also apply.

In the first sentence it mentions posting the entire text of news articles. An excerpt or quote from an article is considered fair use.

If an edited portion is only an excerpt, then it is not a "verbatim" copy.  Obviously, something is left behind: developmental material, references, etc. 

Boreal, you're dead on the money as far as I am concerned and thanks for finding that citation. I have noticed that the content that newspapers keep active online has dwindled to stuff like recipes and movie reviews. If you want to read something meaty online in content on most newspapers that is more than 90 days old, you get directed to a pay per article thing.

 

So copying the content cuts into their revenue. That's what I was thinking when this fracas started.

 

Personally, I have always thought it was kind of lazy and lousy style to post articles verbatim. I'd rather that someone summarize the article in their own words and give a link to the article online (which will admittedly be transient). There are too many too many resources available online to detect plagiarism.

Cleveland Public Radio reported on how the newspapers are suffering (financially).  The Sound of Ideas ® is a great radio show, weekdays at 9:00 A.M. on WCPN.

 

http://www.wcpn.org/WCPN/soi/27312 

 

Round table discussion: Can Copyright Save the News?

OK, say you've got a lemonade stand where you're selling at 50 cents a cup. Then your neighbor siphons off half your supply and starts selling it next door for 25 cents. Would you call that unfair competition? A local media attorney says that's exactly what's happening in the news business with websites "stealing" the content that news organizations paid employees to produce. Tuesday morning at 9, how a small change in copyright law might save the news business, at least until a new business model comes along.

 

 

Guests

 

David Marburger attorney, Baker Hostetler

Daniel Marburger economist, Arkansas State University

Terrence Egger Publisher, The Plain Dealer

Staci Kramer Co-Editor & Executive Vice-President, PaidContent.org

 

 

Additional Information

 

Check out a recent profile of Marburger, the proposal itself, some of the criticism it has received, the authors' response to critics, and what local columnist Connie Schultz has to say about the controversy this has generated.

 

http://www.wcpn.org/WCPN/soi/27312

 

 

 

Marburgers' LA Times op  ed: The free ride that's killing the news business

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-marburger2-2009aug02,0,2310077.story

 

EXCERPT:

 

Why? A big reason is what economists call free-riding. Practically anyone can start a website and get software that snags fresh online news from those who originate it. Website owners pluck the freshest, most interesting reports and quickly post condensed rewrites. That costs them little, and they then surround the rewrites with cut-rate ads.

 

When readers get to work in the morning, they can read fresh news on the newspaper's site or equally fresh rewrites on competitors' sites. The free-riders may link to the newspaper's report, but why click on the link to read the same story twice?

___\|/___\|/___\|/___\|/___\|/___\|/___\|/___\|/___

Of course, Urban Ohio is not a news aggregator, but we are viewed that way.  I lament that newspapers are the best news sources outside of public broadcasting.  Surveys prove that newspaper readers are better informed than those that watch TV news.  TV has scant budgets for research or reporting.  Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite are gone.  Fox News is just the Republican Party.  CNN hardly excels.

 

 

Finished my one...lol...i guess it helps! :-)

Finished my one...lol...i guess it helps! :-)

 

Every bit helps.  :)

um, i got all mine gone except for one thread i couldn't edit my posts

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2469.0.html

Tech giants offer ideas on charging readers online

 

Sep 11, 7:14 AM (ET)

 

By ANDREW VANACORE

 

"NEW YORK (AP) - Some of the world's most prominent technology companies are offering suggestions to publishers on how they can charge readers for news online."

 

 

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20090911/D9AL32CG1.html

Okay, we've made a LOT of progress on a LOT of threads but we still have some work to do.

 

If any Cleveland-area forumers (or those who pay a lot of attention to those threads) are available between now and Monday afternoon, and are REALLY detail-oriented, please send me a PM. What you'll be asked to do - review some of the larger threads (such as the Convention Center/Medical Mart thread - not ALL of it, we'll break it down and spread the work), and let us know if you see anything that isn't kosher. We can discuss details later, but just wanted to get a headcount. And if you're NOT available, no need to send a PM saying "I'd love to help, but..." - the sentiment's nice but right now we just need to know who CAN help. Thanks again everyone for pitching in!

To those who have offered help, thank you so much. Because of the volume, we may not be able to clean those threads you've worked on right away - but thanks to your efforts we should be able to get those threads back online quickly.

I explored the bounds of how much content a website considers to be "fair use".  I wrote to Salon.com and asked about a five paragraph excerpt I placed into the Obama Presidency thread.  Salon approved.

 

I expect that excerpts of this modest of a scale would be legal.  It is certainly not "verbatim".

 

Here is my exchange of letters, with the excerpt removed.

 

Hi

Thanks for asking. No objection as long as credit to the site and author

are given.

All best,

Mark Schone

 

> Hi,

> 

> I would like to keep the following paragraphs on a "thread" about the Obama

> presidency.  Does Salon.com object to my "use" of this material?  Thank you

very

> much for your time.

> 

> Boreus

> Kirtland, Ohio

This thread needs cleaned up:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,8513.msg124235.html#msg124235

^That thread's actually okay - the images are from studies, and the info posted is from press releases or other sources that are kosher.

 

Folks, if there's a press release, it's fair game, as are newsletter announcements (i.e. XYZ Development Corp. has announced in the recent XYZ Development Corp. newsletter that ____ are being built).

There are also some sources that allow people to copy/paste content -- such as Soapbox Cincinnati, and all of the varying blogs. The safest bet is if you have a question regarding the source and its copyright policy, just flag it and we can review it.

Opps, sorry Mayday, posted the wrong link...My 2 articles are cleaned up...

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,5774.msg302864.html#msg302864

I would be more than happy to edit my posts but I can't find the MM/ Convention thread. Anyone help me out?

Thanks for the offer but we needed it about a week ago - it should be back online soon.

I will most likely prune(delete) any thread that has not had a reply in the past 2 years.  This should take a quarter of the workload from us having to go through them all.  ...

Please don't delete thread that are idle for long periods.  The "Ferry to Canada" thread has gone without a new post for months.  However, I would hate for it to disappear, because the original content buy UO'ers is priceless.

 

I'm new here, but have lurked anonymously for a while. I want to second this plea to preserve as much as you can, if it's not too late.

 

I found this forum when I was looking for various Ohio related things, and wound up reading threads that were posted eons ago. I'm overwhelmed and excited by the volume of historical material here as well as the great old photo threads. I have the site earmarked for future visits so I can do some catching up. I also arrived here from deep links in places like Jeffrey's Daytonology blog, which he coincidentally and inexplicably has also announced an intention to delete all the posts from.

 

I don't understand this point of view that old postings, be they on a blog or in a forum, are pure ephemera, worthless and deserving to return to the ether once consumed by the immediate, intended audience. I'm routinely researching topics which lead me to Usenet and mailing list postings from the early '90s, preserved by packrats like me. You never know what content here is going to be valuable to someone someday, so just keep it all and make it accessible as long as you can for us latecomers, researchers, and deep-link followers. Sure, most of the visits will be from bots, but I'm a real person with a real interest in the things people were talking about, even if it's no longer relevant to them. Plus, it would be rather ironic if in the course of appeasing the newspapers, who routinely yank their online content after a short time and hold it for ransom, you yanked your content (not just the copyright infringing archival stuff) and outright deleted it forever.

 

Lastly, AccessMyLibrary is an option for folks who want to link to articles that have gone missing from the newspaper sites. One of the scary letter's signatories has 28,000 articles available there. Access is free and much of the content doesn't require registration to view. Some things do require registration, though, so if you try to view it they ask you to log in so they charge it to your local library. It's rather painless and weird; I don't see how they do it, but it's legit. I guess it's similar to services that are offered to college students and is paid for with tuition (e.g. ProQuest, LexisNexis Academic) but it's a little more basic and for the general public.

Who would like to help us clean threads to make them compliant?  If your a regular member and would like to help out, please pm me letting me know you would like to help out.  We will pick a certain number of people and will probably not pick everyone who volunteers. There are tens of thousands of posts to be edited....we need everyone's help.

 

I'm new here, but have lurked anonymously for a while. I want to second this plea to preserve as much as you can, if it's not too late.

 

...

 

I am in the same boat as mjb here, as far as being a new member.  This place is a goldmine of information for a person like myself who is fascinated by cities, roads and urban development, and it would be a shame for so much to be lost by people just deleting all their posts in a hurry.  I've spent hours today reading threads that date back to 2004  (and wondered why some stuff was missing, heh) just to catch up on some things that happened while I was gone from Ohio. 

 

richNcincy, I know you asked for a PM, but this has a chance in hell anyway :)  I have moderator experience on other forums and have the benefit of being completely unbiased as a new member, haha.

richNcincy, I know you asked for a PM, but this has a chance in hell anyway :) I have moderator experience on other forums and have the benefit of being completely unbiased as a new member, haha.

 

I'll take this into consideration and will let you know when we can use you.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/dmca-righthaven-loophole

 

Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a website enjoys effective immunity from civil copyright liability for user content, provided they, promptly remove infringing material at the request of a rightsholder. That’s how sites like YouTube are able to exist, and why Wired.com allows users to post comments to our stories without fear that a single user’s cut-and-paste will cost us $150,000 in court.

 

But to dock in that legal safe harbor, a site has to, among other things, register an official contact point for DMCA takedown notices, a process that involves filling out a form and mailing a check to the government. An examination of Righthaven’s lawsuits targeting user content suggests it’s specifically going after sites that failed to fill out that paperwork.

 

...

 

If you run a U.S. blog or a community site that accepts user content, you can register a DMCA agent by downloading this form (.pdf) and sending $105 and the form to Copyright RRP, Box 71537, Washington, D.C., 20024.

 

I thought this may apply here, and I hope I didn't trigger a takedown notice by quoting the article.  :evil:

Righthaven has been abusing the legal process by "scaring" websites into paying them a settlement for copyright infringement.  Websites do this for expediency, they pay off Righthaven company just because they fear being closed and losing their domain name.

 

Righthaven's method is based on having bought copyrights from a Las Vegas newspaper.

Righthaven's method is based on having bought copyrights from a Las Vegas newspaper.

 

It seems to be legally like buying a bad debt.

 

This seems similar to patent trolls that operate in the technology arena.

 

Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_Group#SCO-Linux_lawsuits_and_controversies

^acknowledged.

Democratic Underground Responds to Righthaven Copyright Troll Lawsuit

Commentary by Kurt Opsahl

 

Righthaven is attempting to make a business out of suing Internet websites for copyright infringement. It has filed 180 copyright actions so far —without ever first asking that a work be removed from the target website—in each case alleging “willful infringement” and attempting to extract settlements by threats of statutory damages (up to $150,000), attorneys’ fees and seizure of the domain name.

 

Democratic Underground -- represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Fenwick & West LLP, and attorney Chad Bowers -- was sued by Righthaven on August 10 for a five-sentence excerpt of a Las Vegas Review-Journal news story that a user posted on the forum, with a link back to the Review-Journal website.

 

Democratic Underground, a political message forum, refused to be intimidated by Righthaven’s action. They retained counsel and responded with a counterclaim that joined Righthaven’ affiliate and funder, Stephens Media, LLC (publisher of the Review-Journal), and laid bare the numerous defects not only in Righthaven’s claims, but in its business model itself. Not surprisingly, Righthaven now wants out—so badly, in fact, that it has moved to voluntarily dismiss its claim with prejudice in order to avoid a decision on the merits. However, Righthaven pleads to be let off the hook for Democratic Underground's fees and costs defending the lawsuit.

 

Democratic Underground responded to Righthaven's motion yesterday. DU agrees that this case should be over—indeed, it should never have started. But it should not end until Righthaven is called to account for the cost of the defense it provoked. To allow Righthaven to avoid compensating innocent defendants who refused to be coerced would be unjust and unsupportable. Accordingly, Democratic Underground asked the Court to deny the conditions Righthaven wrongfully proposed for the motion for voluntary dismissal and instead grant summary judgment in its favor.

 

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/democratic-underground-responds-righthaven

---

Any and all original material on the EFF website may be freely distributed at will under the Creative Commons Attribution License, unless otherwise noted.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/federal-judge-rules-las-vegas-firm-can-t-sue-over-copyright-infringement-123882024.html

 

A Las Vegas-based company does not have the right to file copyright infringement lawsuits over Review-Journal content, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

 

In a 16-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt dismissed a case filed in August by Righthaven against Democratic Underground.

...

"We're studying the ruling, which primarily affects Righthaven," said Mark Hinueber, the Review-Journal's vice president and general counsel. He declined to comment further.

 

In his order, Hunt also expressed his belief that Righthaven "has made multiple inaccurate and likely dishonest statements to the court."

 

This is of keen interest to virtually anyone who posts content to a web site or who runs a web site...