Posted: 9/7/2014 11:04:40 PM EDT
|
am i remembering this right? 1. back in the day, ARFCOMers used to be able to post entire articles to foster discussion 2. a law firm called Rightshaven complained that they owned the copyright to some articles posted on ARFCOM 3. Righthaven sues ARFCOM (and around the same time, DU as well) for copyright infringement in the typical IP troll style looking for a cash settlement rather than an actual court decision 4. ARFCOM settles with Rightshaven for an undisclosed sum and users get a change in the CoC 5. DU calls Rightshaven bluff and goes to court. Judge finds that posting full articles is fair use 6. Rightshaven has a few other cases go to court and loses all of them 7. Rightshaven is found to never have even had the copyrights to the articles it sues over and as a result of costs of the losses, shuts down 8. ARFCOMers get to keep the restrictions of CoC #10 while DU still posts full articles anyone else around back then remember it that way? |
|
Quoted: Seems about right but if you owned this site and all it represents with all of the custom code involved, wouldn't you understand intellectual property and be willing to help others protect it? Yeah, except re-posting a linked article isn't the theft of intellectual property. |
|
Quoted:
Yeah, except re-posting a linked article isn't the theft of intellectual property. Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems about right but if you owned this site and all it represents with all of the custom code involved, wouldn't you understand intellectual property and be willing to help others protect it? Yeah, except re-posting a linked article isn't the theft of intellectual property. Website traffic was the point. |
|
Quoted: Website traffic was the point. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Seems about right but if you owned this site and all it represents with all of the custom code involved, wouldn't you understand intellectual property and be willing to help others protect it? Yeah, except re-posting a linked article isn't the theft of intellectual property. Website traffic was the point. the sites that originally hosted the linked to articles were not Rightshavens. Rightshaven claimed it held the copyright to articles that others had already published, after the fact |
|
Quoted: the sites that originally hosted the linked to articles were not Rightshavens. Rightshaven claimed it held the copyright to articles that others had already published, after the fact Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Seems about right but if you owned this site and all it represents with all of the custom code involved, wouldn't you understand intellectual property and be willing to help others protect it? Yeah, except re-posting a linked article isn't the theft of intellectual property. Website traffic was the point. the sites that originally hosted the linked to articles were not Rightshavens. Rightshaven claimed it held the copyright to articles that others had already published, after the fact |
|
Quoted:
am i remembering this right? 1. back in the day, ARFCOMers used to be able to post entire articles to foster discussion 2. a law firm called Rightshaven complained that they owned the copyright to some articles posted on ARFCOM 3. Righthaven sues ARFCOM (and around the same time, DU as well) for copyright infringement in the typical IP troll style looking for a cash settlement rather than an actual court decision 4. ARFCOM settles with Rightshaven for an undisclosed sum and users get a change in the CoC 5. DU calls Rightshaven bluff and goes to court. Judge finds that posting full articles is fair use 6. Rightshaven has a few other cases go to court and looses all of them 7. Rightshaven is found to never have even had the copyrights to the articles it sues over and as a result of costs of the looses, shuts down 8. ARFCOMers get to keep the restrictions of CoC #10 while DU still posts full articles anyone else around back then remember it that way? +1 |
|
Quoted:
I think it turned out that Righthaven was actually a front for the Stephens Media company. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems about right but if you owned this site and all it represents with all of the custom code involved, wouldn't you understand intellectual property and be willing to help others protect it? Yeah, except re-posting a linked article isn't the theft of intellectual property. Website traffic was the point. the sites that originally hosted the linked to articles were not Rightshavens. Rightshaven claimed it held the copyright to articles that others had already published, after the fact that is correct |
|
Quoted:
Website traffic was the point. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems about right but if you owned this site and all it represents with all of the custom code involved, wouldn't you understand intellectual property and be willing to help others protect it? Yeah, except re-posting a linked article isn't the theft of intellectual property. Website traffic was the point. So is the issue IP protection or traffic? Those are some nice wheels on your goalpost there. 
|
|
Quoted:
So is the issue IP protection or traffic? Those are some nice wheels on your goalpost there. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems about right but if you owned this site and all it represents with all of the custom code involved, wouldn't you understand intellectual property and be willing to help others protect it? Yeah, except re-posting a linked article isn't the theft of intellectual property. Website traffic was the point. So is the issue IP protection or traffic? Those are some nice wheels on your goalpost there. It is the same thing if you are Goatboy...and he made the rule. |
|
Quoted:
And I have no problem going to a link, better than acres of words in every thread, makes it easier for me to navigate through the discussion. I am the opposite. When I click on a thread, if the text consists of a link, I never click on it. Well, I guess I have if it is something I am really keenly interested in but most of the stuff on here doesn't fit into that catagory. |
|
Quoted: At the end of the day, that is all that really matters. The owner said so, that's why.  Quoted: Quoted: It is the same thing if you are Goatboy...and he made the rule. At the end of the day, that is all that really matters. The owner said so, that's why. We can live by a rule we don't agree with, or dispute the rationale for. Respect doesn't always mean agreement. Hence, this thread.
|
|
Quoted:
At the end of the day, that is all that really matters. The owner said so, that's why.
Quoted:
Quoted:
It is the same thing if you are Goatboy...and he made the rule. At the end of the day, that is all that really matters. The owner said so, that's why.
Now go to your room young man! 
|
|
Quoted: We can live by a rule we don't agree with, or dispute the rationale for. Respect doesn't always mean agreement. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It is the same thing if you are Goatboy...and he made the rule. At the end of the day, that is all that really matters. The owner said so, that's why. We can live by a rule we don't agree with, or dispute the rationale for. Respect doesn't always mean agreement. Hence, this thread. Is it the end of the world if the whole article can't be quoted in the OP? |
|
Quoted:
Hence, this thread. Is it the end of the world if the whole article can't be quoted in the OP? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It is the same thing if you are Goatboy...and he made the rule. At the end of the day, that is all that really matters. The owner said so, that's why.
We can live by a rule we don't agree with, or dispute the rationale for. Respect doesn't always mean agreement. Hence, this thread. Is it the end of the world if the whole article can't be quoted in the OP? yes it is. |
|
Quoted:
Why does it matter? Ain't no one reading the damn article anyway. ETA FWIW, I think "here's a synopsis, my thoughts, and a link" is the right way to do it anyway. Give me the bullet points and I'll decide if it is interesting enough to read the article. So there's more to creating a post on an internet forum than just adding a "+1" or "This" as a reply?
|
|
Quoted:
And I have no problem going to a link, better than acres of words in every thread, makes it easier for me to navigate through the discussion. Hell, I would be happy if half of the lazy shits around here would be considerate enough provide so much as a hot link that can be clicked on. 
|
|
Quoted: I used to be able to read before I joined ARFCOM. Now? BAM! Illiterate. Thanks alot, CoC#10.  Quoted: Quoted: Is it the end of the world if the whole article can't be quoted in the OP? I used to be able to read before I joined ARFCOM. Now? BAM! Illiterate. Thanks alot, CoC#10. It's a conspiracy. |
|
Quoted:
So there's more to creating a post on an internet forum than just adding a "+1" or "This" as a reply?
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why does it matter? Ain't no one reading the damn article anyway. ETA FWIW, I think "here's a synopsis, my thoughts, and a link" is the right way to do it anyway. Give me the bullet points and I'll decide if it is interesting enough to read the article. So there's more to creating a post on an internet forum than just adding a "+1" or "This" as a reply?
QFT |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: At the end of the day, that is all that really matters. The owner said so, that's why. We can live by a rule we don't agree with, or dispute the rationale for. Respect doesn't always mean agreement. Hence, this thread. Is it the end of the world if the whole article can't be quoted in the OP? of course not. it's just annoying that it was DU winning against copyright trolls on fair use grounds and not ARFCOM |
|
Quoted:
Hence, this thread. Is it the end of the world if the whole article can't be quoted in the OP? of course not. it's just annoying that it was DU winning against copyright trolls on fair use grounds and not ARFCOM Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
At the end of the day, that is all that really matters. The owner said so, that's why.
We can live by a rule we don't agree with, or dispute the rationale for. Respect doesn't always mean agreement. Is it the end of the world if the whole article can't be quoted in the OP? of course not. it's just annoying that it was DU winning against copyright trolls on fair use grounds and not ARFCOM Yet another difference between communists and capitalists? |