RE: Press Releases being copied, etc., there is what is known as the "Fair Use, etc." rule. Cite it and post without fear is what is what I've been advised. Trying to sell for financial gain of the thief is quite something else.
Old Murphy has been saying one thing and doing something else for many many months now, especially where SI is concerned. Why he'd cry foul now, and through a 3rd party no less, is a mystery. Especially since he has reaped financial benefit from his most ardent supporter. So to feign wrath and umbrance all the while being privtely grateful for such a Kling-on spreading the doctrine far and wide is no more justifiable than SI's capricious policy discussed below.
No one is asking you to be amused if someone breaks your copyright...that is the problem with copyrights...it is up to the owner to A) defend, and B) then prove financial damages.
Doubt seriously Reuters, API, UPI, WSJ, CNBC or any of the rest of them can A) waste hi-priced legal talent time charges to B) pursue frivolous suits by trying to C) prove financial damage from posting press releases, let alone by D) a foreign poster beyond the enforcement pervue anyhow.
You might be interested to know that SI is now trying to enforce a "no URL's in any SI post" policy, albeit capriciously, depending upon how much someone's ox is gored, in this case, theirs, of course.
And part of the reason they AREN'T discussing this latest "agenda item pursuit" is because they-SI- are now starting to add Advertisement-taglines to bottoms of certain posts for SI income generation, the only one I've seen so far is for Ameritrade, and I saw it ystdy on SI, but now forget which thread I spotted it on.
I find SI willfully aligning themselves, aka, accepting fee income for promoting Ameritrade, especially after Ameritrade was blasted so unmercifully by both eMailers as well as live commentary on CNBC just this past Thursday, just makes this whole currently SI-selective URL censorship campaign Terms of Use enforcement policy suspect.
Further, it is my understanding that SI's inconsistent and capricious URL censorship enforcement policy is based upon a hypothesis that all URLs are "advertising" because they point to a "non-SI" place where product or service or information is for sale, let alone banner advertisements bleating away constantly clamouring for additional "SI-membership draining???" income. Pursuing a no-URL posting policy for their own income agendae is going to be another death knell for this service and another "advertisement" for RB, WSI, YHOO, et al. It certainly is NOT being pursued for any lofty "anti-copyright" motivation.
It is a two sided issue, and when the benefits of one outweigh the detriments, then maybe Reuters will sue. Until then, especially with the implementation of "Fair Use, etc." rule, it is more akin to the 5mph over the limit policy employed by the radar totin' law enforcement-traffic personnel.
Besides, never knowing if or when I, or Reuters, or You are going to initiate "copyright protections" measures and make an "example/scapegoat" out of someone is one of our best defensive measures. Doubt ole Murphy gives a flyin' fig! And a good case of sympathy can be worked up for ole dougAK as a scapegoat for DoubleD/Enigma's frustrations, doing more harm than good to Murph's GADDABOUT cause.
For an example, remember a few months back when Disney came down hard on a couple of tiny daycare homes in the slums who painted crude facsimiles of Mickey Mouse on their windows?
Yeah, a real threat to Disney. And since then, Mickey Mouse in the Windows of Day Care Centers have sprouted like dandelions all over this nation.
I repeat, if the copyright owner doesn't consistently enforce his/her rights, and furthermore, win consistently, then what does it avail the owner to cry foul? American's in particular, love the underdog, the scapegoat, the wrong doer, even to the point of the perp now suing the victims in our society.
If you know where to draw the line, i.e., AND the copyright law, especially under the "Fair Use, etc" rule indicates it has to be tied to financial damage to the holder, then pursue away. Until then, we have to live with the Fair Use rule.
Besides, I've dealt very effectively with copyright infringement attempts with my books. And with distribution now belonging to a third party firm, it is THEIR problem, not mine to pursue enforcement and making examples of non-"fair users"
Regards,
O/49r
There are nations and people who think the whole copyright thing is indefensible and don't recognize them at all. What do you say to them?
|
