Yeah no automated stuff. Just genuine criticism/review/paraphrasing of an article is fine and falls under fair use and surely CM will not have a problem with that. As long as it's genuinely a user's summary of the article that's fine. We don't want to be sneaky about it, paraphrasing is genuinely fair use, automated stuff is not.That sounds like a really bad idea. The site owners aren't looking for a fight.
Exactly, like needing to scrape the bottom of the barrel so hard you need to come on to a site like this in order to break your writers block. I don't get paid to write this good and neither does anyone else on here, yet our shit is getting jacked by some untalented jerkoff getting paid a pittance serving one of THE worst human beings to ever walk this Earth, hiding behind wheelie bins to get the jump on people for a hot take that will no doubt be taken grossly out of context. And we're expected to pay for this shit.there’s an easy way to avoid that: don’t be a shit journo
That's not how copyright works. You can't buy a book and copy it word for word somewhere else. You can't buy a CD or movie and do whatever you want with it.As far as the paywall stuff goes , surely if someone sells you something it should be yours to do what you want with it.
Please tell me you will still tell me about the players personal lives and won’t be censored yourself I hopeIs this still Australia we live in, or North Korea? Feels like a form of censorship to me. You know, a suppression of speech and public communication/discussion, that kind of thing.
Don't get me wrong, I don't blame admin here for taking the stance you now have regarding non-publication of paywalled articles, as you seem to have little choice with threats of possible legal action being taken. I do worry however for BHQ though as during the off-season, it is primarily paywalled newspaper/website articles about club news/player signings/training updates etc that tends to generate a significant amount of discussion amongst the fans who congregate here.
The off-season just became that much longer, and a little more depressing because of this happening in my view. Will be a lot less activity and banter in here from now until gameday I suspect, unfortunately.
Exactly what I thought of it. I mean it's fine and it's their right, but you never win over people by being dickheads. I guarantee before they would have got many, many clicks which is ad revenue, maybe another interesting story on the sidebar which leads to more revenue, and occasionally convert some clicks into a subscription.CM's thinking: one article on Boyd gets 10 pages of comments on a fan site...
if we ban them from posting our articles they'll all come to CM and pay a subscription to read the articles = $$$
Reality: CM post article... fan site summarises and turns into 10 page thread... no one visits CM site... every fan on the site hates CM even more... Petey B fades off into obscurity because almost no one will be reading his actual articles
I used an online paraphrase tool an got this back?Yeah no automated stuff. Just genuine criticism/review/paraphrasing of an article is fine and falls under fair use and surely CM will not have a problem with that. As long as it's genuinely a user's summary of the article that's fine. We don't want to be sneaky about it, paraphrasing is genuinely fair use, automated stuff is not.
I drive trucks full of newspapers (and other things) so I can assure you that people still buy them, especially in rural communities. Why, I don’t know... Habit maybe?Just curious, how the hell does news still make money?
I haven't bought a paper in years, more than a decade at least. Everything I've seen In it seems to conjecture mixed with opinion, designed to appeal to only half the potential readership. Nobody has either with the exception of my 86 year old father (who has dementia)
I never heard of a single person who doesn't work in the media that prescribes to their online publications.
What do they pay their lawyers? Free prescriptions of Women's Day?