Men’s College Basketball Catch-All

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 92
  • Views: 2K
  • Sports 
rodoheel said:
No, you're not free to do whatever you want with content just because you paid to read it. That's the definition of copyright infringement. If I pay to buy a copy of a book or magazine I'm not free to copy the book or magazine and hand out my copies to people on the sidewalk. It's no different with a news article, whether it's from the paper NYT or from the website. IC long had a policy that you were not allowed to cut and paste entire articles from behind a paywall.

So as a legal matter you're not free to share anyone's content; WaPo or NYT or IC. As a moral/personal matter a lot of us have been IC subscribers and members for a lot of years, and I would personally be more hesitant to share their content (or any other small/independent media company's content) than that of a media behemoth like MYT or WaPo, but if you don't feel that way that's perfectly fine and understandable.
Click to expand...
I understand your point about copyrights. Let’s say IC premium reports Rasheed Wallace is in talks with Hubert Davis to become an assistant coach at UNC. If an IC premium member then tweets “there are reports that Rasheed Wallace is a potential UNC coach” (or as Donald Trump would say “people are saying…”) would you consider that a copyright infringement?

Again, I’m not sharing their content because I have never found that sort of information particularly interesting. I’m just discussing the principle.
 
farce said:
I understand your point about copyrights. Let’s say IC premium reports Rasheed Wallace is in talks with Hubert Davis to become an assistant coach at UNC. If an IC premium member then tweets “there are reports that Rasheed Wallace is a potential UNC coach” (or as Donald Trump would say “people are saying…”) would you consider that a copyright infringement?

Again, I’m not sharing their content because I have never found that sort of information particularly interesting. I’m just discussing the principle.
Click to expand...
1. It's only a copyright infringement if it's not fair use, and that would almost certainly be considered fair use.
2. It's only a copyright infringement if it reproduces the original work in some way. Partial reproduction can be actionable, but only if the reproduction meaningfully curtails the copyright owner's ability to financially gain. For instance, someone obtained a pre-publication copy of Ford's memoirs and published a short excerpt dealing with the decision to pardon Nixon. The Supreme Court held that this was the heart of the book (essentially saying nobody cared about anything else; I don't recall Justice Stevens' vote on the issue), and thus even a short excerpt violated copyright.

In the case of an inside scoop from IC, the heart of the work is the authorship by IC. So if the tweet refers to IC as the source, then it could be a copyright violation. If not, then it's more like a novel heavily inspired by an existing novel.
 
superrific said:
1. It's only a copyright infringement if it's not fair use, and that would almost certainly be considered fair use.
2. It's only a copyright infringement if it reproduces the original work in some way. Partial reproduction can be actionable, but only if the reproduction meaningfully curtails the copyright owner's ability to financially gain. For instance, someone obtained a pre-publication copy of Ford's memoirs and published a short excerpt dealing with the decision to pardon Nixon. The Supreme Court held that this was the heart of the book (essentially saying nobody cared about anything else; I don't recall Justice Stevens' vote on the issue), and thus even a short excerpt violated copyright.

In the case of an inside scoop from IC, the heart of the work is the authorship by IC. So if the tweet refers to IC as the source, then it could be a copyright violation. If not, then it's more like a novel heavily inspired by an existing novel.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's really not a copyright or a law issue at all -- at least not to the poster. It is more of an ethical issue of taking premium content and publishing it elsewhere. That has been considered morally wrong since premium internet sites first started popping up in the 90s. I mean, technically, once information is published the information is not really legally protectible. In this particular case, the poster reprinted it verbatim. Which is just tacky and BS.
 
farce said:
I understand your point about copyrights. Let’s say IC premium reports Rasheed Wallace is in talks with Hubert Davis to become an assistant coach at UNC. If an IC premium member then tweets “there are reports that Rasheed Wallace is a potential UNC coach” (or as Donald Trump would say “people are saying…”) would you consider that a copyright infringement?

Again, I’m not sharing their content because I have never found that sort of information particularly interesting. I’m just discussing the principle.
Click to expand...
A fair point. There is a difference between sharing *information* learned from a story and copying/posting the text of the story itself. The former does not present a copyright issue, though it does present a journalistic ethics issue (there has always been a lot of bickering between journalists online, in particular, about attribution when one reporter breaks a scoop and then a few minutes later a different person tweets it out with "reports say" without attributing it to the reporter who broke it). But I still would say, in response to your earlier post, that paying for access to a story does not give you the right to do whatever you want with it. If you want to modify that somewhat and say it gives you the right to share the information you've learned with other people, I would certainly agree with that.
 
Peppers49 said:
For as much as our fans complain on the message boards about the new transfer rules, our football and basketball teams really haven’t been negatively impacted at all by it. Ole Miss poaching Diego Pounds is really the only big loss that I can think of off the top of my head. On the flip side, we’ve brought in some big contributors from the portal over the last few years.
Click to expand...
yeah, i'm getting very tired of UNC fans griping about UNC's apparent inability to compete in NIL being the reason that football recruiting is down so hard. according to the scuttlebutt, UNC matched Ole Miss' offer to Pounds and he left. Maye was offered more money and stayed, as has been reported. Mack just said Hampton was offered more money and stayed. I believe Marcus Allen's dad has been on the boards talking about his son getting offers and deciding to stay. players aren't, by and large, mercenaries in this new age, no matter how much anti-player advocates want to paint them as such.
 
akillesheel said:
yeah, i'm getting very tired of UNC fans griping about UNC's apparent inability to compete in NIL being the reason that football recruiting is down so hard. according to the scuttlebutt, UNC matched Ole Miss' offer to Pounds and he left. Maye was offered more money and stayed, as has been reported. Mack just said Hampton was offered more money and stayed. I believe Marcus Allen's dad has been on the boards talking about his son getting offers and deciding to stay. players aren't, by and large, mercenaries in this new age, no matter how much anti-player advocates want to paint them as such.
Click to expand...
If I were pounds, I’d leave hoping for good coaching.
 
uncsig said:
From a text sent by a friend, apparently used ChatGPT to do a term paper. Honor Court got involved.
Click to expand...
I read that he made an unauthorized video of sex with his gf. I have my doubts about the ChatGPT story, because everyone is using ChatGPT these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top