MNGunTalk.com

http://righthavenvictims.blogspot.com/p ... apers.html


Do NOT blog or post ANY stories coming from these sources. These newspapers have aligned with Righthaven to sue bloggers, small businesses and non-profits in "shake down" lawsuits. We have been targeted because of a news story posted by a member.

The link contains places we do not want to utilize to eliminate future problems.


So do the following:

Provide a link to the story and a brief summary in your own words or copy the headline, 1st paragraph (at most) or the 1st sentence.

No one knows which publications will start suing in the future. Why not just post links for all articles regardless of the site from which they came?

From my quick research

Copy the headline and first paragraph or sentence then link to the story and we should be OK

or a summary in your own words and a link

JoeH wrote:No one knows which publications will start suing in the future. Why not just post links for all articles regardless of the site from which they came?

That is the simplest solution..........

hammAR wrote:

JoeH wrote:No one knows which publications will start suing in the future. Why not just post links for all articles regardless of the site from which they came?

That is the simplest solution..........

I thought you didn't DO links.

JoeH wrote:No one knows which publications will start suing in the future. Why not just post links for all articles regardless of the site from which they came?

I don't usually click a link to a story, unless I think I might be interested in it. Hard to tell with just a link.

PLEASE either post a quick summary or quote..

macphisto wrote:

hammAR wrote:

JoeH wrote:No one knows which publications will start suing in the future. Why not just post links for all articles regardless of the site from which they came?

That is the simplest solution..........

I thought you didn't DO links.

Couldn't find a "pulling you crank" smilie......
You are correct, I don't do links.......or name tags......

Unfortunately a lot of stories are discarded after a short period of time and no longer accessible from their original source. Re-posting the original article ensures it's available for reference in the future, and that it hasn't been changed since it was originally put online. It's a shame certain people want to limit and restrict the information that's easily available on the Internet.

gyrfalcon wrote:It's a shame certain people want to limit and restrict the information that's easily available on the Internet.

Isn't that the point? Trying to make it less easily available on the net?

So if I can ask a dumb question, what is the basis of the lawsuit? Copywrite infringement? What does "alignment" from the newspapers mean? Are they funding? Or if it's infringement, is it their copy writes?

Righthaven has purchased the copyrights to the material from those newspapers and is spam-sueing anyone who re-posts the articles.

Pitel wrote:So if I can ask a dumb question, what is the basis of the lawsuit? Copywrite infringement? What does "alignment" from the newspapers mean? Are they funding? Or if it's infringement, is it their copy writes?

A bit of an explanation here:

http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/20 ... c-and.html

This could change the interweb

C/P the text to something like this:
http://freetexthost.com/ (don't know how long they retain data)
link to them.

Liability shifted to user/texthost

gyrfalcon wrote:It's a shame certain people want to limit and restrict the information that's easily available on the Internet.

Just because it's "on the internet" doesn't mean it's legal - or free to use. They also are not restricting any information whatsoever.

The issue at hand is the verbatim copy and paste re-posting of articles, which is basically full on copyright infringement.

The news itself (the story) isn't copyrighted, so you can summarize it or rewrite it in your own words. So the information is not actually facing any restriction. Just their exact and specific writing and wording about it. Similarly, posting a few lines out of it (as you would when quoting a source) is also permissible.

Imagine if this was a mailing list instead of a forum and you needed to make reference to a news story. So you made photocopies of the newspaper and sent it out.
See how that's not really fair to the publisher? Same argument. It's really very cut and dry.

The only "new" thing here is that they are going after the small mom-and-pops which had been previously passed over not because of the legality, but rather that they simply don't have enough money to be worth their time. The change of strategy, likely, is that many people are starting to rely on blogs/forums exclusively and it's heavily eating into their advertising revenue.

So they sue a few people and maybe break even, but then also scare the bajesus out of everyone else.



The only truly scary/unfair part of this, is that DMCA safe harbor laws don't apply unless you have specifically designated and registered a contact. It appears to have been in the law previously, but this may be the first time it's been tested. It seems unfair to prosecute innocent service providers who have agreed to comply with the takedown request. It's at least an unintended side-effect, because usually it's not worth suing the small fry.

I heard rumors today that many of the large hosters are going to band together to fight this. that would create a legal entity that would have enough $$ to fight effectively. I think if host sites did form a trade association and go after this mellon head, they would have a very good chance to prove that the DMCA was intended to prevent this type of spam suits.



Oh, and Ea, Its good to see you back posting again. Was wondering what had happened to you.