Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Sun 08/15/2010 View Sat 08/14/2010 View Fri 08/13/2010 View Thu 08/12/2010 View Wed 08/11/2010 View Tue 08/10/2010 View Mon 08/09/2010
1
2010-08-15 --Tech & Moderator Notes
Posting on the Burg -- reminders & changes
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Steve White 2010-08-15 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11135 views ]  Top

#1 See the Darfur post immediately below this one for a hint on how to rewrite and what to cut, such as the boilerplate.

In that rewrite I omitted a number of lines that really weren't relevant to the story of the abduction.

I strongly encourage you to rewrite. It does two things.

1) It gives the poster actual writing experience and Gawd knows we need more conservative writers.

2) It keeps bossman out of potential problems.

3) It drives liberals insane -- Jackpot!

I will be posting a lot more rewrites as time goes on, not just about Mexico. If anyone steps up to do the same, please let us know by posting at the O-club your plans, so we don't step on one another's toes. If you do decide to help out try to concentrate on an area such as Afghanistan, or Iraq, or US domestic politics.

Honest, you can actually keep your testicles if you help out by rewriting.
Posted by badanov 2010-08-15 00:29||   2010-08-15 00:29|| Front Page Top

#2 "certain issues out there with copyright and 'fair use',"

You're talking about those barratous assholes in Las Vegas. There's a law firm I wouldn't mind seeing drop dead from heart attacks. They're essentially abusing copyright law to extort money from web sites that cant afford the court costs.

I hope they die horribly in a fiery car accident after being hit by lightning burning to death in front of their families as they roast. It will give them a preview of Hell, where they are going once they shuffle off this mortal coil.
Posted by OldSpook 2010-08-15 00:51||   2010-08-15 00:51|| Front Page Top

#3 You do NOT need to say "Rest @ link" or something similar, we all KNOW that the rest is at the link.

Do we? A lot of times I just read the rantburg article and never click through. If it's interesting and the author says "more at link" then I'll go for more. There's no way I'm keeping track of which news sources are US and which are non-US. Hell, it seems most domestic US stories are posted from Iran Press-TV anyway these days.
Posted by gromky 2010-08-15 01:10||   2010-08-15 01:10|| Front Page Top

#4 Foreign major news services (e.g., AFP, Reuters, Guardian, Der Spiegel) should be treated as American -- trim extensively and in-line.

I am somewhat ignorant of what is what. It sure would be helpful to have a link that says "Posting Rules" that goes to a page that has these rules available for noobs, refreshers, and also I would think it would be good for legal protection to have these policies posted). It would be nice to have a link on that page that would pop up a list of news sources that are definitely not OK to copy from heavily.

"Rest @ link" / "More @ link"

I use this as code-speak for "Just click the effing link already because there is more good stuff there and I didn't want to get the bossman in trouble". If I see something better I will switch over, but my uninventive brain says it is sticking with this for now until it sees that something better for itself.

As for those those barratous assholes, I think heart attacks are too quick and painless. I'd like to hear about something more along the lines of having turned on the air conditioning in their car as they were driving along one moonless night, aggravating the nest of killer bees in the air ducts, flew off the cliffside into a lake far below, slowly sank because they couldn't get the doors or windows opened in time because the electrical system shorted out, and were found just about the time the bees had run out of anything to eat. Note: No killer bees were harmed in the making of this fantasy.

Lastly, I wonder if it wouldn't be a bad idea to incorporate this blog or something in order to remove Fred's personal pocketbook from the picture. Perhaps that alone would be enough to pi$$ off anyone who finds out that the only thing they are going to be able to get their hands on is an old 386 server with a lot of unflattering pictures of seedy politicians on it. Shortly after it was accidentally wiped.

"Are you telling me that you ran this blog from an old 386-based server?"
"Yep. Never had a need to upgrade."
"What's in the closet?"
"Nothin'. You got your server. Enjoy. Move along now."
Posted by gorb 2010-08-15 01:47||   2010-08-15 01:47|| Front Page Top

#5 who knew that insipid inline snark would become a virtue? My life is blessed
Posted by Frank G 2010-08-15 01:49||   2010-08-15 01:49|| Front Page Top

#6  If it's interesting and the author says "more at link" then I'll go for more.

The Rantburg Style Guide sez that if the person posting wants to indicate that, the proper phrase is, "The whole effing article is just great shit and you really should hit the link to read the rest, unless you want people to look at you as if you aren't wearing pants."

Then again, I might just be channeling Ace of Spades ...
Posted by Steve White 2010-08-15 02:04||   2010-08-15 02:04|| Front Page Top

#7 the proper phrase is, "The whole effing article is just great shit

Steven White, behave yourself! The Rantburg Style Guide says no such thing. Ace of Spades has their own, picturesque style.
Posted by trailing wife in Germany 2010-08-15 02:20||   2010-08-15 02:20|| Front Page Top

#8 Doc Steve? -- Just perfect!!!
Posted by Sherry 2010-08-15 02:26||   2010-08-15 02:26|| Front Page Top

#9 One of the great things about the Burg is that it helps disseminate news and information the MSM thinks you don't need to know.

An example from yesterday was that the Pakistan floods rather than being a natural disaster are in a large part a manmade disaster because of the lack of warning and preparation from the authorities even though they should have known days in advance a flood was coming for many locations.

Hence your own leading comment saying why this news is of significance would in many cases help people in deciding what is worth reading given everyones time constraints and such comment would provide a very solid copyright defence.
Posted by phil_b 2010-08-15 03:42||   2010-08-15 03:42|| Front Page Top

#10 These are probably good guidelines for any blogger at their own blogs as well. Thanks!
Posted by American Delight 2010-08-15 04:53|| http://moneyjihad.wordpress.com/  2010-08-15 04:53|| Front Page Top

#11 Warning, vocabulary police on patrol!

Thanks TW, "picturesque style" made me laugh. I'm pretty sure the word you were looking for is "picaresque", as in the manner of a rascal or rogue.
Posted by Scooter McGruder 2010-08-15 06:22||   2010-08-15 06:22|| Front Page Top

#12 Pretty courageous of you, Scooter, correcting TW.

Of course, you know she's in Germany...
Posted by Bobby 2010-08-15 09:10||   2010-08-15 09:10|| Front Page Top

#13 It might help to have an "obnoxious list", a text list of sources that are so testy that it would be best just to use a rewritten headline-link only.

They might even be auto-flagged by domain name, as a safety device. For example, any link from lvrj.com would be automatically abbreviated to link only, and maybe also flagged for mod review.
Posted by  Anonymoose 2010-08-15 09:52||   2010-08-15 09:52|| Front Page Top

#14 (just stumbled upon)

"AP claims copyright on rewritten articles. It also claims copyright of 'hot news' based on a 90 year old court case. International News Service v. Associated Press (1918) in which a rival news agency 'stole' and 'rewrote' AP news articles. Some states still uphold this approach; others consider it invalid. (The AP settled its most recent hot news case)."

"Legally, aside from the 'hot news' doctrine, the AP cannot stop you from taking the facts of an article and writing a new article using those facts. Also, if there are a limited number of ways to say something, you are permitted to express yourself in the same way as others without infringing (known as the 'merger doctrine')."

"The trouble with the merger doctrine, the right to use facts, and even fair use -- is that there are no clear lines. Since the AP is not afraid to file lawsuits you may want to proceed with caution especially if your work may be perceived as competing. If you're particularly paranoid about lawsuits, just take the facts."
Posted by  Anonymoose 2010-08-15 10:01||   2010-08-15 10:01|| Front Page Top

#15 May I request that posters please DO include a few paragraphs of the article and please NOT post only a title/link.

Thank you guys and gals for all your good work.
Posted by Parabellum 2010-08-15 10:14|| http://sidemeat.wordpress.com/  2010-08-15 10:14|| Front Page Top

#16 The case cited upheld the common law notion that facts are not copyrightable. The decision attempted to hint at a category called "hot news" in which a proprietary claim to facts would survive but for a brief time. This was never acted on further by either the courts or by legislature, albeit this Congress has suggested it may lay out such a right.

The fact is, is that Rantburg is not competing with anyone, not AP, not UPI, not Reuters and not AFP. We're not even competing with any Las Vegas newspaper, and until the hot news category is statutorily established, rewriting articles is an acceptable way to present news without violating anyone's copyright.
Posted by badanov 2010-08-15 10:14||   2010-08-15 10:14|| Front Page Top

#17 You're talking about those barratrous assholes in Las Vegas

Speaking of which, does Rantburg have a legal defense fund?
Posted by DMFD 2010-08-15 11:26||   2010-08-15 11:26|| Front Page Top

#18 Personally, I think AP is acting as a monopoly and should be attacked as such.
Posted by Willy 2010-08-15 11:41||   2010-08-15 11:41|| Front Page Top

#19 Speaking of which, does Rantburg have a legal defense fund?

The ACLU will cover the defence no doubt.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-08-15 11:54||   2010-08-15 11:54|| Front Page Top

#20 "The ACLU will cover the defence no doubt."

Best laugh I've had today, NS.
Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2010-08-15 12:00||   2010-08-15 12:00|| Front Page Top

#21 Does Rantburg need a legal defense fund, they coming after Fred?
Posted by OldSpook 2010-08-15 13:03||   2010-08-15 13:03|| Front Page Top

#22 #21 Does Rantburg need a legal defense fund, they coming after Fred? Posted by: OldSpook

I hope not, or I'll have to dig out the trusty old 10-gauge double-barrel. I only have 247 shells left, and they're old...
Posted by Old Patriot 2010-08-15 13:18||   2010-08-15 13:18|| Front Page Top

#23 Parabellum: I don't think a single mouse click, as an insurance policy, is too much to ask, especially in a climate where nasty lawyers are trolling for dollars.

Aha! I found a listing of complainers!

Excerpt and Link Only or Deny Posting List due to Copyright Complaints (Free Republic)
Posted by  Anonymoose 2010-08-15 13:35||   2010-08-15 13:35|| Front Page Top

#24 From Free Republic...
Also, do not post images from Corbis or Getty.

Posted by 3dc 2010-08-15 13:56||   2010-08-15 13:56|| Front Page Top

#25 I'm assuming straight links - no commentary, are still OK?
Posted by Mercutio 2010-08-15 14:42||   2010-08-15 14:42|| Front Page Top

#26 Any harm in writing in say... five letter groups....

IELKS SKWEI EKELW EJELW GHGKE?

Just asking. ;-)
Posted by Besoeker 2010-08-15 14:47||   2010-08-15 14:47|| Front Page Top

#27 Oh, and a list of McClatchy Co. newspapers, most of which have websites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_McClatchy_Company
Posted by  Anonymoose 2010-08-15 14:52||   2010-08-15 14:52|| Front Page Top

#28 As the stated purpose of the Las Vegas Trolls is to run a profit filing these lawsuits, it wouldn't hurt to do a little judgment proofing at the 'Burg and Fredville.
Posted by Iblis 2010-08-15 16:19||   2010-08-15 16:19|| Front Page Top

#29 Fair use:
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 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 — 
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) 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.
Posted by Fred 2010-08-15 17:35||   2010-08-15 17:35|| Front Page Top

#30 

And this time it is not censorship from the government or Google that is the problem. The problem is a profit-hungry “legal gentleman”. You can read about him here. He is buying up off newspapers the copyright to their back issues and looking for anybody who has reprinted any of the content concerned. He then threatens them with legal action for breach ofcopyright.
Posted by 3dc 2010-08-15 19:54||   2010-08-15 19:54|| Front Page Top

#31 "the non-profit" clause could get interesting.
The IRS is sending tax demands to all non-profits and churches along with demands to see proof of income and expenses for the last 3 years or loses non-profit status and incur steep fines.

It looks like the IRS is going to demand all potentially taxable amounts to be remit to them quarterly and then returned after the non-profit files and income tax report and is accepted as a non-profit.
This will happen forever with the IRS demand.
I guess fund drives and telethons can kiss their ass goodbye.
Posted by 3dc 2010-08-15 20:42||   2010-08-15 20:42|| Front Page Top

#32 First, as slow as it is today ... is the LLC doing a DOS attack on Rantburg?

Second in this comment link on facebook we see:

Val:

Here is a little Quid Pro Quo for you on the copyright lawsuits. Suspicions confirmed.



Ron
skip to main | skip to sidebar
THE BIG WOBBLE
Tuesday, 27 July 2010
Steven Gibson (RightHaven) the Blog and Forum lawsuit firm and the ties to Obama

Difficult time ahead for political blogger's as Obama's cronies tighten the knot

This RightHaven founder Steven Gibson is definitely a "Chicago Guy"...so I did a little digging in the public domain.....SHR




The man for Obama?





Steven A. Gibson

Born: Chicago, Illinois, December 11, 1963

School: Chicago-Kent College of Law
Degree: J.D.
City: Chicago
State: IL
Year: 1990
Honors: IIT/Chicago-Kent College of Law. Cum Laude 1990.

Prior to establishing his own firm, Mr. Gibson was an associate at Sidley Austin LLP a Chicago Law firm...

Just click on "Work History"
Steven A. Gibson

Another Chicago guy who was there at the time finishing up Law School along with....Barack Obama...maybe they crossed paths?

In late 1988, Obama entered Harvard Law School. He was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review at the end of his first year,[37] and president of the journal in his second year.[38] During his summers, he returned to Chicago, where he worked as a summer associate at the law firms of Sidley Austin in 1989 and Hopkins & Sutter in 1990
Barack Obama

Guess where Mr and Mrs Obama met....

Following law school, she was an associate at the Chicago office of the law firm Sidley Austin, where she first met her future husband.

>>>> And Guess what Michelle and Steven Gibson both did???
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW...AT THE SAME LAW FIRM...!!!

At the firm, she worked on marketing and intellectual property.
Michelle Obama

Obama Blames Blogs For Inability to Connect
Posted by 3dc 2010-08-15 20:55||   2010-08-15 20:55|| Front Page Top

#33 Things are getting very nasty out there and will get even nastier as the election heats up and the economy/dollar don't.
Posted by lotp 2010-08-15 21:42||   2010-08-15 21:42|| Front Page Top

#34 the AP cannot stop you from taking the facts of an article and writing a new article using those facts.

Of course the trick is to find the facts under all the opinion and spin of the typical AP (Or Rooters) article.
Posted by CrazyFool 2010-08-15 22:31||   2010-08-15 22:31|| Front Page Top

#35 It would be on the embarrassing side if it came out in a lawsuit that the facts put forth by the AP turned out to be spin.
Posted by gorb 2010-08-15 22:35||   2010-08-15 22:35|| Front Page Top

00:15 JosephMendiola
23:59 OldSpook
23:52 JosephMendiola
23:43 JosephMendiola
23:36 JosephMendiola
23:25 crosspatch
23:23 Broadhead6
23:22 Pappy
23:12 Glenmore
23:05 Goober Goobelopolous
22:35 gorb
22:31 CrazyFool
22:27 CrazyFool
22:18 Old Patriot
21:56 tipover
21:45 Black Bart Shick7973
21:42 lotp
21:29 Black Bart Shick7973
20:55 3dc
20:44 Barbara Skolaut
20:42 3dc
20:39 Bright Pebbles
20:30 Harcourt 1
20:25 linker









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com