COPYRIGHT - This Is Serious!

[Steadygain]

I hope you don't mind Steadygain, but I am going to slip this email I received into the top post so it is easier for all to see.
Thanks,
Tom
Your site or a user of your site has posted copyrighted articles belonging to Military Times Media Group. Some examples of such unauthorized use can be found at the following urls:

Headline: New TSP options likely
Link: http://tsptalk.com/mb/...... (http://tsptalk.com/mb/......) (post deleted)

Military Times Media Group has the exclusive rights to these articles. Please remove all such articles from your website immediately and cease and desist from posting entire articles. Any continued posting or use will be considered willful copyright infringement.

While we object to your lifting of entire articles, you are free to hypertext link to articles on our Web sites so long as you display no more than a headline and/or first paragraph. Our terms of service also prohibit framing and inline linking, in which our content is lifted from our sites and displayed on your site. For more information, see our terms of service at www..... (http://www...../) For more information about requesting permission to reproduce and/or distribute our content, please contact .....

Within 24 hours of your receipt of this email, you should reply to this message by confirming that: 1) each and every posting of [Newspaper] material has been taken down and 2) you will not engage in any further unauthorized copying of [Newspaper] materials.

If you do not take the steps outlined above, this matter will be turned over to our attorneys for further action.

Sincerely,
......



Tom,
If you can DELETE all posts I've made - please do. I have made comments they would no doubt find 'offensive'.

TOM - Please DELETE all my stuff - as even though I have never used any related 'articles' I have most certainly expressed 'facts' and made expressions they would not care for.

I don't want this site 'closing down' on my account.

So PLEASE feel free to delete anything and everything from me.

Delete this one too please - I knew this day would have to come as 'Censorship' took control.

[Birchtree]

Hey, I've never, ever, had anything to do with those guppies - so they can just KMA.

[Murphys_Law]

I'm proud to be part of the big tsp conspiracy. They are onto us.

[Birchtree]

Steady,

I think you are over reacting - they are primarily concerned about how we haven given tribute with respect for the recent war deaths. I don't think they have any legitimate claims of disrespect. They will only sully their own reputations in my opinion.

[JTH]

Thanks, I didn't need much of an excuse to unsubscribe from them. Tom, I have no idea what links I've posted over the years, feel free to delete what's already yours. I know I havn't posted anything in my blog, so please leave that one alone.

I'm guessing you're sure this isn't a hoax being played on you?

[tsptalk]

It is a pain, but I have been warning about this for a long time. They are going back to old posts, probably using search features. They are mainly concerned with the posting of entire articles, or large portions of them. They don't mind a short excerpt with a link, but there's no way I can go back and check 300,000 posts, so they all have to get deleted.

I just went into the database, did a global delete of any post that had those site's mentioned (assuming they were spelled correctly :)). I don't know the exact extent of the damage because any time the first post in a thread is deleted, the whole thread gets deleted. And if the first post had one of those site's names, then I assume the whole thread talked about it, so that's probably OK. I think it affected about 200-300 posts out of the those 300,000.

By the way Steady, it is not really censorship on their part, it's copyright problems. They don't care what you say, as long as it is not taking the material from their sites,and I see their point. Unfortunately that means I have to censor our readers. It probably means no more links to their sites as my scripts will likely flag and delete the posts. Also Steady, deleting your 6100 posts would do too much damage for many reasons, including it affecting many other posts after yours. As Birchtree suggested, that won't be necessary.

If anyone sees their sites being mentioned, please let me know. Also, if you see articles posted that are more than just a few sentences, please PM me. Thanks for helping!

Here the email I received, and this is the 2nd one:


Your site or a user of your site has posted copyrighted articles belonging to Military Times Media Group. Some examples of such unauthorized use can be found at the following urls:

Headline: New TSP options likely
Link: http://tsptalk.com/mb/...... (http://tsptalk.com/mb/......) (post deleted)

Military Times Media Group has the exclusive rights to these articles. Please remove all such articles from your website immediately and cease and desist from posting entire articles. Any continued posting or use will be considered willful copyright infringement.

While we object to your lifting of entire articles, you are free to hypertext link to articles on our Web sites so long as you display no more than a headline and/or first paragraph. Our terms of service also prohibit framing and inline linking, in which our content is lifted from our sites and displayed on your site. For more information, see our terms of service at www..... (http://www.....) For more information about requesting permission to reproduce and/or distribute our content, please contact .....

Within 24 hours of your receipt of this email, you should reply to this message by confirming that: 1) each and every posting of [Newspaper] material has been taken down and 2) you will not engage in any further unauthorized copying of [Newspaper] materials.

If you do not take the steps outlined above, this matter will be turned over to our attorneys for further action.

Sincerely,
......

[Buster]

Sorry to hear Tom that you got all this extra work to do now..Seems that the Military rag has more time on their hands than reporting about training honorable sound minded troops, but to peruse little web chat forums....Pathetic waste of or tax dollar resources, to read forums all day.:mad:

[Steadygain]

Steady,
I think you are over reacting ...

Thanks Birch !!

This is like the only place I can spill my guts and say anything I want to say -- even at the risk of possibly offending a wide variety of very decent and honorable Members and guests.

Now would be the absolute 'worse time' for me to lose that - and all the more I'm very much appreciative for all the interactions we have - even if I'm just reading what others say.



By the way Steady, it is not really censorship on their part, it's copyright problems. They don't care what you say, as long as it is not taking the material from their sites,and I see their point. Unfortunately that means I have to censor our readers. It probably means no more links to their sites as my scripts will likely flag and delete the posts. Also Steady, deleting your 6100 posts would do too much damage for many reasons, including it affecting many other posts after yours.

Copyright stuff - I totally understand Tom - and that's true across the board. All of us 'need' to avoid that.

I'm sorry about my response - as long as it's not 'Big Brother BS' then I'm cool and all the more I very much appreciate you giving us a place to vent our feelings and share our thoughts and stuff.

[Steadygain]

Sorry to hear Tom that you got all this extra work to do now..Seems that the Military rag has more time on their hands than reporting about training honorable sound minded troops, but to peruse little web chat forums....Pathetic waste of or tax dollar resources, to read forums all day.:mad:

My feelings exactly --- whoever this cat is -- that posted this.

I think it's the: ok now we're mad and we'll give you 5 minutes to get it done THAT all the more got to me.

Wish there was more I could do to help -- and I'm sorry you have to go through all this. You're the best Tom - you always have been.

[Afishegg]

Tom, what was the "exact" post/article they had a "problem" with? What exactly was the infringement here? Did someone just copy and paste an entire article from the military times site? have you PM'd said individual so they know to stop it? Any info would be appreciated. (just curious)

[JTH]

Just so we are clear, the Military Times is NOT a government organization, they are owned by Gannett Co., Inc.

[tsptalk]

Tom, what was the "exact" post/article they had a "problem" with? What exactly was the infringement here? Did someone just copy and paste an entire article from the military times site? have you PM'd said individual so they know to stop it? Any info would be appreciated. (just curious)
It was an entire article so I can understand their concern, but it was from about 18 months ago so I had not really pounded the table on this issue yet. They seem to be scanning the site looking for any article, no matter how old. They may find a few more, but I think I have deleted any obvious articles.

[tsptalk]

Just so we are clear, the Military Times is NOT a government organization, they are owned by Gannett Co., Inc.
I think that is correct.

[tsptalk]

Sorry to hear Tom that you got all this extra work to do now..Seems that the Military rag has more time on their hands than reporting about training honorable sound minded troops, but to peruse little web chat forums....Pathetic waste of or tax dollar resources, to read forums all day.:mad:
Thanks Buster. As much as I roll my eyes when I know I have extra work to do, I do like to play in the database. Writing scripts to find and delete particular posts was close to being fun. :) But the hassle of policing this and possibly getting into trouble is the obvious concern.

As JTH said, it is more likely a private company (as you may know) and I do understand their concern. As a website owner, you don't want people reading your material on another website. Unfortunately for them, this means I will likely have to delete any mention or links to their websites unless I can make the scripts smart enough to see they are just excerpts.

[Afishegg]

Ahh, They aint gonna do nothin! Just delete all posts like you are, start over, and BAN immediately anyone from here on out who clips an "entire" article in a message (that'll learn em) and it will be fine.....

[crws]

Thanks Buster. As much as I roll my eyes when I know I have extra work to do, I do like to play in the database. Writing scripts to find and delete particular posts was close to being fun. :) But the hassle of policing this and possibly getting into trouble is the obvious concern.

As JTH said, it is more likely a private company (as you may know) and I do understand their concern. As a website owner, you don't want people reading your material on another website. Unfortunately for them, this means I will likely have to delete any mention or links to their websites unless I can make the scripts smart enough to see they are just excerpts.

So- to search, they must have obtained a membership, yes?
Although I understand their position, it is one more reason to do new membership verification checks with .gov addresses only, and/or change site viewing permissions from public to private.

[tsptalk]

So- to search, they must have obtained a membership, yes?
To use the board's search feature, yes, but there are other ways like search engines.

[Rod]

Awww Man... there goes my post count.:p

In all seriousness, Tom has been warning about this FOREVER.

Now, his hands are tied and he has to TCOB.

Let's take care of Tom and TSP Talk, guys & gals.

Hope it wasn't too painful, Tom...

[JTH]

I think that is correct.

Its posted on their web site under the about section. I'd post a link but I'm too pissed at them. I will NEVER buy another one of their papers again. I hold grudges for decades...

Mr. Long, you still suck!

[jdphx]

Tom,


I for one didn't like their tone in the final line of the email...


"the matter will be turned over to our attorneys"


Nice threats Gannett... I know you can't, but I kinda wish you
would have told them to pound sand. I hope that wasn't their first
email, with the threatening language, instead of just asking you
to comply.

I'm with Birch, they can KMA :cool:

[Buster]

I too didn't like that BS threat at the end of their letter..If I didn't think it would cause Tom anymore problems..I would like to also say what they can do with their POS propaganda rag...

And since I'm no longer in TSP..I would like to also tell Mr Long to take a flying leap off a short dock......:mad:

[crws]

To use the board's search feature, yes, but there are other ways like search engines.

Many boards using vbulletin will show some search results, but require membership to actually read posts, as they are designated "private".
That goes back to new members submitting a .gov address for admission, otherwise there is the real possibility of many non-tsp holders diluting the user base.
I get the copyright thing, btw.
It's just that as a site grows, the ability to manage data gets harder and harder, unless the mods are constantly on the hunt for offending material.
Then it becomes alot like work.
We ran an Amiga-based BBS in the early 80's that was overrun by people in Europe on dialup u/l'ing porn, and as the word spread it became so prolific we shut it down rather than get busted.
It was crazy.
I'm thinking a poll to go private might be interesting....
just a thought.

[tsptalk]

I'm thinking a poll to go private might be interesting....
just a thought.
What do you mean?

[SkyPilot]

It is really short sighted on their part. A result of being quoted or referenced is likely people visiting their site for other articles. I would not be suprised if this is a low level functionary who is pursuing this, and will be admonished once the appropriate supervisor is notified.

However, if they prefer that I do not read their stuff... fine by me.

Small minded. Short sighted. Self important.

[PessOptimist]

ATPC is indeed privately owned. One way to find out about an organization is to click on their employment link. In this case http://www.airforcetimes.com/employment/

I see the point and concern of ATPC about their copyright rights.

I don't know all the ins and outs and Tom doesn't have to tell but if this was the first contact about the matter, they are being a bit heavy handed considering many members of this message board do have interest in their various publications.

The rag was useful to me during my time in the Air Force for publishing promotion lists and pay charts. I also now find it useful to pass the time in AAFES checkout lines, along with all the other tabloids and magazines on display.

[Steadygain]

In all seriousness, Tom has been warning about this FOREVER.

Let's take care of Tom and TSP Talk, guys & gals.

Rod, you're wife looks like the perfect match for you. That's by far the best ativar (pic) you've displayed.

Once the rham hits the fan - all the more Tom will know how hugely supported he is. But I guess this serves as a significant warning.



I'd post a link but I'm too pissed at them. I will NEVER buy another one of their papers again. I hold grudges for decades...

Mr. Long, you still suck!

I appreciate your comments last week too. In fact over the weekend checked on a variety of investments to see if that 'company' might be inclued.


Tom,


I for one didn't like their tone in the final line of the email...


"the matter will be turned over to our attorneys"


Nice threats Gannett... I know you can't, but I kinda wish you
would have told them to pound sand. I hope that wasn't their first
email, with the threatening language, instead of just asking you
to comply.

I'm with Birch, they can KMA :cool:

:D


I too didn't like that BS threat at the end of their letter..If I didn't think it would cause Tom anymore problems..I would like to also say what they can do with their POS propaganda rag...

And since I'm no longer in TSP..I would like to also tell Mr Long to take a flying leap off a short dock......:mad:

You're a cool dude Buster - I like that.



Many boards using vbulletin will show some search results, but require membership to actually read posts, as they are designated "private".

That goes back to new members submitting a .gov address for admission, otherwise there is the real possibility of many non-tsp holders diluting the user base.

I get the copyright thing, btw.

It's just that as a site grows, the ability to manage data gets harder and harder, unless the mods are constantly on the hunt for offending material.
Then it becomes alot like work.

We ran an Amiga-based BBS in the early 80's that was overrun by people in Europe on dialup u/l'ing porn, and as the word spread it became so prolific we shut it down rather than get busted.

It was crazy.
I'm thinking a poll to go private might be interesting....
just a thought.

Very impressive.

Crws, you're very solid, well thought out, and express yourself very skillfully. You'd be good 'leader' material - a very positive addition.

The 'Private' is an excellent idea - as far as you and me and all the others who have found the endless 'benefits' and 'wonderful quality' this site has offered. No doubt - most of us would say 'count me in'.

Draw Backs - are to the potiential 'new members' that are yet to come. I'm concerned a 'private' would keep a lot of people from joining in and we may be too confined to the same members. I guess I see the Site as an ongoing entity - that is supposed to be evolving and 'Changing' as new members become more active and some of the older disappear.

Using a gov. address - and your Excellent expression is very appreciated. I'd have to say that I've been 'outraged' a few times before when it seemed someone was here simply to insult and degrade the USA and the soldiers and all Military connections ...

Then again - I have to admit I have my 'hot buttons' and he just happened to an 'expert' at both finding them and pushing them.

The main problem I find with that is - some of the 'members' that have hugely impressed me and been incredibly wonderful contributors are here because their wife or husband is a fed. employee - so we don't want to keep them out.

I think you're comment about as 'the site grows - the need for the Mods to constantly be on the hunt is the most outstanding - because in this expression is the 'Best Solution'.

All of us - and I mean everyone of us FIRST has to make a point of not 'goofing up' with copyright material. I mean that can't be too hard when we have to know - we are obviously expressing data that is NOT ours.

BUT - Even beyond that, for the occasional - and perhaps 'unintentional mistakes' -- then everyone of us should be noting posts that appear questionable. It 'shouldn't be the Mods job' - it's something everyone of us should feel 'comfortable' pointing out without the fear of 'being offensive' or feeling like a RAT.

I think the main thing is KNOWING it's the integrity of this Site and keeping things good.

You're good -- really good -- and if you would become a Mod -- I would want you to 'enjoy it' and not be over burdened.


It is really short sighted on their part. A result of being quoted or referenced is likely people visiting their site for other articles. I would not be suprised if this is a low level functionary who is pursuing this, and will be admonished once the appropriate supervisor is notified.

However, if they prefer that I do not read their stuff... fine by me.

Small minded. Short sighted. Self important.

Always a pleasure my friend. Hope all is going well.


ATPC is indeed privately owned. One way to find out about an organization is to click on their employment link. In this case http://www.airforcetimes.com/employment/

I see the point and concern of ATPC about their copyright rights.

I don't know all the ins and outs and Tom doesn't have to tell but if this was the first contact about the matter, they are being a bit heavy handed considering many members of this message board do have interest in their various publications.

The rag was useful to me during my time in the Air Force for publishing promotion lists and pay charts. I also now find it useful to pass the time in AAFES checkout lines, along with all the other tabloids and magazines on display.

I think that's what got me so stirred up. I mean I understand the copyright stuff too - but it could have been expressed in a manner that made us all 'cheer for them' and 'hugely respect them'.

There are a lot of members with very significant 'military service' and a lot that are actively serving now.

Well, I'm thrilled the Site is still here.

[FLTSPWatch]

Sorry to hear Tom that you got all this extra work to do now..Seems that the Military rag has more time on their hands than reporting about training honorable sound minded troops, but to peruse little web chat forums....Pathetic waste of or tax dollar resources, to read forums all day.:mad:

Just to clarify, the group of pubs known as Military, Army, Navy, etc., Times is not a government entity.

These pubs are owned by the Gannett Corp, a $2.8 billion diversified media company that owns, in addition to USA Today, more than 140 community, metro and international newspapers, broadcast stations, outdoor advertising and more. To see the list go to gannett.com>About Gannett>Map of Gannett Sites.

Not only are they not affiliated with the US government, the are part of a publicly held company that is fighting for it's life in the new digital world and will no doubt commit what ever it needs to to protect it's corporate interests.

This information is not meant to disparage either MT, Gannett or any of their affiliated holdings. Only to inform so that any concerns can be directed appropriately and not at a government agency.

[alevin]

Well, here's something afoot that could impact this site if Tom got hit with copyright infringement accusation again-and this bill passes.

Please read the whole article-ignore the hosting website, irrelevant. internet censorship hits all of us.


The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3804) (COICA) was introduced just one week ago, but it's greased and ready to move, with a hearing in front of the Judiciary Committee this Thursday. COICA creates two blacklists of Internet domain names. the Attorney General would have control over the second. Internet service providers and others (everyone from Comcast to PayPal to Google AdSense) would be required to block any domains on the first list. They would also receive immunity if they block domains on the second list.

The lists are for sites "dedicated to infringing activity," but that's defined very broadly.

There is a link in the article where you can sign a petition against the act passing-if you think passage of the act would be detrimental to freedom of the internet and potentially this site if we and Tom are not ultravigilant and careful about what gets posted here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-segal/stop-the-internet-blackli_b_739836.html

[tsptalk]

Stop the Internet Blacklist! (http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/)

[tsptalk]

Not only are they not affiliated with the US government, the are part of a publicly held company that is fighting for it's life in the new digital world and will no doubt commit what ever it needs to to protect it's corporate interests.

This information is not meant to disparage either MT, Gannett or any of their affiliated holdings. Only to inform so that any concerns can be directed appropriately and not at a government agency.
Understood.

[Steadygain]

I knew this day would have to come as Censorship' took control.

Alevie,
The reason I responded the way I did 'initially' and did NOT see the specific copyright issue - by a specific company - is because I had personally taken the time to research the extent by which our Government and especially the President (and former Presidents) have increasingly taken 'censorship' to higher and higher levels.

It is only because all this information was so HUGE and forced me to see and deal with such an 'enormity' of reality that completely struck against everything I believed was 'really true'.

Obama - is the worst - and I thought it better to keep quiet and let others keep whatever peace and comfort still exists.


Well, here's something afoot that could impact this site if Tom got hit with copyright infringement accusation again-and this bill passes.

Please read the whole article-ignore the hosting website, irrelevant. internet censorship hits all of us.



There is a link in the article where you can sign a petition against the act passing-if you think passage of the act would be detrimental to freedom of the internet and potentially this site if we and Tom are not ultravigilant and careful about what gets posted here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-segal/stop-the-internet-blackli_b_739836.html

Thanks Alevie -- this says a lot for you.


Stop the Internet Blacklist! (http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/)

I wish we could. I hope we can.

You have to know that many of us are in your corner.

[Frixxxx]

Ladies and Gents,

The Internet Blacklist is for those sites and unscrupulous people who "Counterfeit" goods and services on the Internet. This mainly covers many of the "phishing sites" that "pretend" to be something they're not. When identified, a court order MUST be initiated and approved to instruct the ISPs to block these sites.

Example, consider walking down the street and there are two buildings right next to each other that say "Bank of America". One is legit, the other isn't, but you as a consumer would not know. You can do the exact same thing in each building, but one is a "counterfeit." You would expect that a goverment agency would shutdown the counterfeit site. Wouldn't you?

The problem is there are things we can do IN our country and things we CAN'T do out of the country.....This basically stops things from happening on the wire to protect the masses from fraud.

Hope this helps!:cool:

[Gumby]

Ladies and Gents,

The Internet Blacklist is for those sites and unscrupulous people who "Counterfeit" goods and services on the Internet. This mainly covers many of the "phishing sites" that "pretend" to be something they're not. When identified, a court order MUST be initiated and approved to instruct the ISPs to block these sites.

Example, consider walking down the street and there are two buildings right next to each other that say "Bank of America". One is legit, the other isn't, but you as a consumer would not know. You can do the exact same thing in each building, but one is a "counterfeit." You would expect that a goverment agency would shutdown the counterfeit site. Wouldn't you?

The problem is there are things we can do IN our country and things we CAN'T do out of the country.....This basically stops things from happening on the wire to protect the masses from fraud.

Hope this helps!:cool:

And it may not help at all.... Denninger has different ideas.
MORE (http://market-ticker.org/cgi-mt/akcs-www?post=170873)

[Frixxxx]

And it may not help at all.... Denninger has different ideas.
MORE (http://market-ticker.org/cgi-mt/akcs-www?post=170873)
Denninger scope is DNS focused and limited.... It is nightmarish on enforcement, but the scope of the bill is what needs clarification before we can even broach the scope of enforcement.

I think it will not go far until everyone has a chance to look at it!:suspicious:

[FAB1]

There is no benefit to the public on TSPTalk that I can see.

All the content on this site doesnt need to be public. The whole site or parts of it can be privately accessed.

The forum is for participants in the TSP. Members should require a .gov email address.

If anyone in the TSP is really interested they will register and join the forum.

This will keep out prying eyes and eliminate these kinds of silly problems as the folks at Gannet will not be able to stick their corporate nose in here.

Personally, I dont like their attitude. I will make an effort to BOYCOTT any and every product they have.

[JTH]

Some things to consider, many folks stumble unto this forum through search engines like Google, so a privatized forum could hinder Tom's growth. Also there are a certain number of lurkers out there who will refuse to register for privacy reasons. And lastly this could also cut down on the huge wad of cash Google is paying me for my blog-tied Google Adsense account.

[Steadygain]

Denninger scope is DNS focused and limited.... It is nightmarish on enforcement, but the scope of the bill is what needs clarification before we can even broach the scope of enforcement.

I think it will not go far until everyone has a chance to look at it!:suspicious:

Frixxxxx, We totally messed up not bringing you to Moderator status way before it did happen. You've got soooo much more Integrity -- are so incredibly SOLID and very well 'thought out' ....

You're something else man !!!

I'm really glad you're comming to life.



There is no benefit to the public on TSPTalk that I can see.

Personally, I dont like their attitude. I will make an effort to BOYCOTT any and every product they have.

Then you're missing the most valuable and irreplaceable aspects.

The 'public' is most 'benefitted' by acknowledging the people that interact here. It's way more the 'BONDS' that people reflect and the enormity of what they represent:

BIRCH: - Solid ROCK - Total Integrity and Honor - Commitment to being and remaining who and what he is.

CB: Ditto 'Birch' -- but here FAMILY and all those aspects that make him everything he is

BUSTER: - He's totally a rascal -- but he's about as deep as you can get and you F up -- he'll be the first to jump in your face.

SQUALE, ALEVIN, LADY, JIM, COOLHAND, FRIXXXX, YOU -- and many others (and I mean Many others)

The 'public' very much Benefits from all of 'us' - cause 'we are what the F ing USA totally stands for


Some things to consider, many folks stumble unto this forum through search engines like Google, so a privatized forum could hinder Tom's growth. Also there are a certain number of lurkers out there who will refuse to register for privacy reasons. And lastly this could also cut down on the huge wad of cash Google is paying me for my blog-tied Google Adsense account.

I'm liking you more and more.

Tom's growth -- is (and always will be) the top priority.

[wwwtractor]

This is why I post a sentence or two to show the gist of an article and use the "delicious.com" public bookmarks as a collecting device to group information links.

The links are always there in my signature so it makes it easy to follow back to the details. Happy posting.

[Steadygain]

This is why I post a sentence or two to show the gist of an article and use the "delicious.com" public bookmarks as a collecting device to group information links.

The links are always there in my signature so it makes it easy to follow back to the details. Happy posting.

Perhaps we should Discuss this as Posting Articles and Copyrighted Materials may have elements of fun and be entertaining. :p:suspicious::worried::cheesy:

[BooDog]

No problem here. Good luck you guys. I know this area has got to be a pain for many forums.

[FAB1]

So is it permissable to post a few sentences or a paragraph - just not an ENTIRE article?

[nnuut]

So is it permissable to post a few sentences or a paragraph - just not an ENTIRE article?
The first paragraph or two or three small ones if it's a large article should be OK.:)

[tsptalk]

The law says something about fair use, but it's not very clear.

According to copyright.gov (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html)

"The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission....

"The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

"When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney."

[FAB1]

The law says something about fair use, but it's not very clear.

FiguresitsFederagoobermentgobbledygook. :blink:

Now what Nuutt said I can understand!

thanks again Nutt youdaman!

[Viva_La_Migra]

The law says something about fair use, but it's not very clear.

According to copyright.gov (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html)

"The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission....

"The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

"When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney."
That's why I usually just link to the article and make my own comments.

[FAB1]

Then you're missing the most valuable and irreplaceable aspects.

The 'public' is most 'benefitted' by acknowledging the people that interact here. etc...

What I meant was non-TSP users, by not being able to participate in TSP cant derive the benefits from the site like we can, Steady. I see your point concern the public exposure but I wasnt focusing on that in my post and I dont always make detailed indications - especially when the gist of my post was about the copyright issue, and what incredible twits that Gannett or whatever is, are - you know. :D