In partnership with CBSSports.com
The place to discuss inside information, the latest rumors and scoop on the Buckeyes
Anything and everything football related that has to do with your Buckeyes
If it's football recruiting, OSU-style, it's cussed and discussed here
Talk a little Buckeye basketball with your fellow Ohio State hoopsters
Bring it here for non-sports chatter that causes spirited, informed debate.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Our own staffer, Kirk, deleted a post this morning from the Dispatch.
This is where I'm confused.
I've posted stuff found on the internet that is not subscription based, including Dispatch, for a long time.
If it is scout, espn, rival... I don't give anything more than the tease that they release, and tell you the rest is behind subscription.
I've been told this morning that even though you can read it freely online, b(y witness the link provided to the Sullinger article) it's still considered premium content?
So, I'm confused on this.
Kirk said to take it to PM and I have, but don't feel I should be posting anything else for News until the Staff can sink it into my thick head just how I am supposed to determine what is "premium".
Seems common sense that if you can access it freely online, not blocked by subscription, then it is free, but there is other criteria to consider I guess.
Sorry for the distractions this morning.
This post was edited by gessig 18 months ago
Woody and Archie.................................. Alex being Alex, ....................................and Woody at Dennison
Agree with you. People constantly post "free" material from other sites on here all the time. I thought as long as you gave credit to the writer it didn't matter.
I believe the issue isn't whether or not information is free to access or not but whether or not it is copyrighted. For instance, even though an article from the Dispatch is free, it's still under copyright. So if you repost the article or perhaps even post a link you're making something available on another source that was NOT intended by the copyright holder.
IMO, as we go more and more paperless, there are going to be A LOT more issues like this. AND, media sources are going to be SUPER sensitive about this as this IS their source of income.
Just an opinion. Someone more informed, feel free to correct me.
I think we have a blurred line here over what is free and what is premium.
IMO - If anyone can view the material without requiring any specific credentials, then it is free. However, even if getting those credentials are technically free, if credentials are required, then I say it is premium content. So if the dispatch is providing that article to anyone without requiring any kind of login at all, then I consider it free.
As far as copyrights, I'm not a lawyer. But standard protocol has always been to cite your source and provide a link. This is the etiquette for most anything these days. Even with the internet. However, I can see that changing. As times evolve, content providers may want to secure where content is accessed.
My thoughts are that Bucknuts/247 has likely been contacted by content providers about this. Perhaps even the Dispatch. And despite the Dispatch providing the content for free, they may be upset about any lack of hits on the articles. That would be a dilemma. Bucknuts/247 not wanting to rock the boat institute this policy.
Here is how I am going to treat it. If you have been fair to tOSU, then I will respect your material. If not, I'm not going to shed a tear about you losing hits.
I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters.
- Frank Lloyd Wright (1868-1959)
You can't quote the news? I thought when something becomes public you can quote it, but provide the source. So-and-so said "..................." or "Here's the article from .........."
Claiming something, or inferring it originated from you is the problem. It seems to me anyone would want their work published in as many places as possible, as long as credit is given.
Answering the first 2 posts to this thread:
I think you and reserve mickey are saying the same thing.
I understand protection of copyright being a issue worth paying attention to.
I respect good writers and want them to get their due.
If it's copyrighted, and they don't want it duplicated, (I feel) they'd place it behind a subscription.
But I do try to do it as professional as a person can.
If I use their content here, I don't pick and choose in their piece, I post the whole content. I post their by-lines, the time and site it came from, and give the link back so that you can review the piece, knowing it's legit.
If Rights were totally the case, then every pic we post (where the warning says not to post anything that isn't yours, or that you don't have rights to), then all the babe and boodie pics, along with some of the stuff we use in sports threads, would not be allowed.
I've got to be careful so as not to upset 247, but it is a gray area for sure, (as playmea mentioned)
The problem here seems to be that Kirk cannot access the Dispatch site without being prompted for a subscription, yet I have never had that page placed in front of me when following a link to the dispatch from a search engine.
I think it was cause Kirk received a password request which caused confusion. I didn't go to the article but after reading his above post and the one he put in the other thread that is the issue.
I've never gotten that screen before when going to the Dispatch though. Strange. Maybe that is something new. Maybe your PC has something stored in cache that keeps you/I from getting that screen.
I don't have a membership there or anything.
If the direct link to the article prompts you to login, then its premium in my book. Whether its free or not. If you have to register to view it, its premium. Whether its free or not.
But... If the direct link to the article opens right away without any request to login, then its free and I think referencing the source is adequate.
If you click the link and go to some landing page soliciting a subscription, but can continue on to the article without registering or logging in, then its free content and referencing the source is fine.
But if Bucknuts is establishing a rule on content, whether its free or not, that you can't copy and paste it (regardless of whether you referenced the source and link) then that is the rule.
Maybe we just need some clarity. Are you saying from now on ALL content, from sites outside 247, must be linked to and you CANNOT copy and paste the content (with the exception of just a quote or two)? This applies to content regardless of whether its free or not?
I think it would be a good idea to just post a paragraph of any of the articles you post then post a link to the story itself. I know you post the links to the story but they're typically at the end of the article and if people have already read it why are they going to click the link? I understand everything you post is free but these stories are posted on sites that really need page views so they can get advertising dollars to keep their sites thriving. LGHL is a good example. They haven't been around for very long and the sites main writer (Luke Zimmermann) seems like a genuinely nice kid and posts good recruiting info bright and early in the morning. I'm not mad that you post all of this here by any means but I just think it would be nice if you directed everyone to where it was originally posted so whichever site it is that's linked will get the hits they need to keep posting their content.
This post was edited by Holtz 18 months ago
We actually agree on something....
I sent a couple of messages to Kirk inquiring about this, but it does make sense now.
I don't get any prompt when I go to the Dispatch, but I hardly go so I never see that screen show up. Ten articles a month for occasional viewing is more than I'd ever reach.
If you look at the screenshot though it clearly states that the article is considered by them to be premium content. That really is the end of discussion, it's right from the source.
The easy answer is to just post a link to the article. The majority of the people will be able to read it just fine or will have to get a subscription if they go a lot.
This certainly would clarify everything,
but the only reason I can see doing that is to get those hits for that other site. If that's the case... one entity protecting another entity's right to make advertising dollars (while expecting the same in return), then I guess it is what it is.
A gentleman's agreement between internet sites.
(I know what Urban thinks of those
That isn't just some thing that he can click through to view content for free after a prompt. For some people the link will show the article, but for others it'll show the page that blocks you. This is a new practice by the dispatch that negate your previous understanding of what is considered premium.
Couple of things.
I go to Dispatch every morning.
I reach that 10 article threshold in 3 days for sure, but have never gotten that page. Don't have a subscription either, and that's what is causing this confusion (as you said)
If I go to Google, type in Ohio State, use the News category to search, I get this article on Sullinger,
and it takes me right to the page http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/sports/2013/01/28/feeling-his-way.html
I'll bet I read dispatch about 40-50 times a month. There may be something quirky in my cookies.
The Dispatch seems unique here. I was actually agreeing with Kirk because I saw it prompted him to log in. But reading the screen shot more closely I see whats going on.
For someone like me who never goes to the Dispatch, I'll never see that prompt. It will take me straight to the article. But for someone who may go there more often, they will get the prompt and will be forced to log in.
This makes the situation challenging. I think if more companies do this, then the proposed protocol in my last post may be best.
Interesting that you don't reach the "limit" as far as the Dispatch site is concerned.
As far as Bucknuts policy goes I don't think it really matters other than explaining the confusion. If The Dispatch labels something as premium content, which they did in the page Kirk sees even if we didn't see it, then Bucknuts can't have it here. Whether or not they would take action there are legalities to it so it's not just some gentlemen's agreement.
If you clear your cache/cookies/history, the 10 article limitation disappears...
OP should just post pics of the naked womenz. That'll show em!!
Yes. Odd. And I am notorious for not shutting my comp down for days, but I DO have my cookies set to clear when closing Firefox.
Hmmm, wonder if it's in the browsers we use?
Either way, I'm going to not use Dispatch, which is a shame because they do offer a few articles most every day, on BB and FB.
We had a discussion in another thread where someone brought up how "behind" sites who were basically a Newspaper online, were.
Dispatch is one I feel is pretty darn current. Will be a loss of reading material not to use them.
I understand that posting the link is cool,
but the benefit for the readers on this forum, is that the content is onsite and just opening threads gives you your various news articles with your morning coffee.
Ahh.. I'm usually viewing on my work computer which clears cookies as well upon shut down.
"Tonight, my butt's sore." - Mike Krzyzewski 11-29-11
Follow me on twitter: @JWagner11W
Dispatch has changed their system for online articles and editions. Previously, if you had delivery at home, you had full access online. Now, even if you have home delivery, they want to be paid for anything online and grant a 10 article viewing allowance, during which you get the windows about the new system.
I think they started doing this about 6 weeks to 2 months ago.
It is copyright law, and Bucknuts has to follow it. To ignore it is to invite problems.
This post was edited by simpsonlegal 18 months ago
The closest that I will ever get to a Buckeye ring or Gold Pants. Saw it sold on e-bay April 29, 2011 for $8500.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports