Please do not quote entire articles in posts

[Moss]

This is a reminder as well as a notification that we will be enforcing this more strictly in the future. In the OT Rules you will find this:

6a. When posting a discussion topic originating from a media article, you MUST post a link to the article as well give the context of what you wish to discuss. Posting a link and just "discuss" will result in a locked thread.

6b. For that same link, do NOT quote entire articles. Quote a few sentences, a paragraph or two, TOPS. This avoids copyright issues and helps give some focus to your thread. Initial offenders will be closed with an opportunity to retry. Repeat offenders will receive infractions.

OT moderators have not really been enforcing this rule, and will start to do so due to concerns over copyright infringement. As a positive byproduct, posts that pick out specific lines in an article that they want to discuss, or that highlight the point they are trying to make, are much more clear and easier to read.

Thanks!

Edit: Due to discussion, the rules have been changed slight. No longer is there a two-paragraph minimum and I clarified (hopefully) the point that the not being allowed to post links is exclusively due to copyright infringement issues. My opinion above about the positive byproduct of this rule, was just that, my opinion.

Newly stated rule:

6a. When posting a discussion topic originating from a media article, you MUST post a link to the article as well give the context of what you wish to discuss. This helps give focus to your thread. Posting a link and just "discuss" will result in a locked thread.

6b. For that same link, do NOT quote or post entire articles. Please only quote or post the amount of the article needed for the discussion you wish to have and the point you wish to make. This applies to all posts, not just OPs. This rule helps avoids copyright issues. Initial offenders will be warned with repeat offenders being more severely disciplined.

 

[Synobun]

How can a news article be copyrighted?

 

[JollyRoger]

I usually do not quote an entire article, but a paragraph or two tops often seems a bit restrictive - sometimes writers take more than that to just make the main point and there are often other key points I would want in the OP. I try to miniskirt what I quote, but leaving it at two paragraphs would often not be long enough to cover the essentials.

 

[TheLastOne36]

What about bolding the selections you wish to discuss in cases where the whole article is relevant?

 

[Moss]

How can a news article be copyrighted?

Yes. Articles are owned by the person/organization that wrote/published them. A New York Times article, for example, is the property of the New York Times.

One of the reasons we have this rule is due to actions by certain (albeit shady) lawyers and people. You can read about that here.

I usually do not quote an entire article, but a paragraph or two tops often seems a bit restrictive - sometimes writers take more than that to just make the main point and there are often other key points I would want in the OP. I try to miniskirt what I quote, but leaving it at two paragraphs would often not be long enough to cover the essentials.

I would say to use your best judgment. As long as it isn't the entire article, or most of the article, you will be fine.

What about bolding the selections you wish to discuss in cases where the whole article is relevant?

In this case, quote the sections for which you would have bolded, and then provide the link to the article. Bolding sections while still quoting the entire article is not allowed.

 

[Synobun]

Yes. Articles are owned by the person/organization that wrote/published them. A New York Times article, for example, is the property of the New York Times.

Owned, yes. But copyright against quotation? That doesn't seem very right at all. If a news organization posts an article, you are capable of quoting them on it. It's only infringement if you claim you wrote it yourself or didn't provide a link directly to the article

Ah well.

 

[JollyRoger]

Owned, yes. But copyright against quotation? That doesn't seem very right at all. If a news organization posts an article, you are capable of quoting them on it. It's only infringement if you claim you wrote it yourself or didn't provide a link directly to the article

Ah well.

You are entitled to fair use which is best construed as limited quoting and a link.

 

[Mise]

I think this is over-editorialising and will result in poorer quality threads. I'm very disappointed with this new rule. OPs that rely on articles are poor enough as it is without the poster deliberately leaving out parts of the article that might undermine their agenda.

Copyright issues aside, this will degrade the quality of article-threads in OT.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Well this is terribly inconvenient. I don't want to have to click a link in order to understand what the OP is commentating on.

 

[Defiant47]

You guys should probably be less disgruntled with the rule, site, and moderators, and aim your discontent towards the actual cause of this issue.

 

[classical_hero]

So basically we are allowing these jerks who abuse the system to get away with it.

If they come after this site, then we can use them to defend us. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/08/eff-seeks-righthaven-defendants

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Hmm. So if I want to read the entire article to get the whole context, I have to put up with ads, possible spyware, viruses, pop-ups, and spend more time digging crap out of my computer? No, thanks. I'd just skip that thread.

And what if the original article is on a subscriber-only site? Then if we don't subscribe, we CAN'T read it. Remember, Moss, some subscriber-only sites require MONEY. I'm not going to pay money just to read an article to comment on it here.

 

[Atticus]

I personally find it more pleasant if the OP isn't awfully long.

I don't also find it bad thing that people who write and publish articles don't want them to be openly distributed.

If the OP has link to a site dubious about spreading viruses, it's quite likely the thread will be closed for poor discussion quality too.

 

[LucyDuke]

As a positive byproduct, posts that pick out specific lines in an article that they want to discuss, or that highlight the point they are trying to make, are much more clear and easier to read.

That's very true. Context and depth make things harder to understand.

I think this is over-editorialising and will result in poorer quality threads. I'm very disappointed with this new rule. OPs that rely on articles are poor enough as it is without the poster deliberately leaving out parts of the article that might undermine their agenda.

Copyright issues aside, this will degrade the quality of article-threads in OT.

I hope it's still okay to quote entire Mise posts. Each line is vital to the message and few are capable of rephrasing the same points as eloquently as the original.

 

[azzaman333]

So, this means that quote snipping to say what you want it to mean is legalised then?

 

[Atticus]

That's very true. Context and depth make things harder to understand.

It may very well do so. Just take the OP of this thread, and picture it quoting the OT rules and the general forum rules:

Spoiler :

Here I quoted the OT rules and the general rules to get this message:

The following errors occurred with your submission:
The text that you have entered is too long (44802 characters). Please shorten it to 30000 characters long.

Or for another example, take this thread. I don't need the context of Kentucky's and Christianity's cultural history to read it. People can provide the context because this is a discussion forum, the OP doesn't have to be end-of-it-all presentation of the matter.

The link to the original article is also required for people to find out if the OP has been picking cherries. The rule doesn't forbid reading the original article fully.

If the article is for subscribers only and the issue is controversial and relies on things quoted, the thread will probably get closed anyhow.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I can sympathise not wanting to be sued and introduce this rule as a preventive measure.

But please, with exotic fruits on top, don't sell this as if this is a good or positive thing.

edit: Atticus, the "bad example" there is hardly representative of the articles usually posted here.

 

[Mise]

I can sympathise not wanting to be sued and introduce this rule as a preventive measure.

But please, with exotic fruits on top, don't sell this as if this is a good or positive thing.

Yeah, we're not stupid. If you had just said "Can you guys not post the entire article please? We don't want to get sued for copyright infringement. Sorry about this." and just left it at that, I doubt many people would have made such a fuss. Maybe also recommending that OPs provide more discussion content and unbiased context themselves, to make up for the lack of content provided by article quotes. But now, by telling us that eliminating the context and posting only facts that support your agenda is actually a GOOD thing, it makes me think you're all a bunch of idiots who have no idea what kind of OP leads to positive discussion and what type of OP leads to infuriating partisan bickering that drives people nuts and causes more infractions and hateful bile further on in the thread. It's not a good omen at all.

The positive by-product of that, of course, is that I now have much lower expectations of future moderator actions and rules. Given how vastly wrong you guys are about how important a contextually deep, unbiased and open-ended OP is, I don't really expect moderators to do the right thing, make the right decisions, or act for the benefit of OT, so you won't have to try as hard in the future. So really, me thinking less of you collectively is actually a GOOD thing.

OT moderation has got noticeably better over the past year, but it seems as though some moderators still don't "get it" yet.

 

[Atticus]

I should emphasize that what I've written here has been as a poster, not as a mod. I really do like concise OPs more than overwhelming. Bigger isn't always better, and you surely as a well educated man know how important it is not to write too much. Also, as I said, there always is the possibility to click the link to read the whole article -or at least should be.

BTW, I honestly also believe that less people think of me, the better it is. Well, to some extent, at least.

 

[bhsup]

Glad to see this, actually. I've never really liked quoting entire articles. NYT or whatever organization put the time into writing and publishing the article and they deserve to have it, if you want to read the whole thing, read on their site as they want it presented.

There is no 'entitlement' to quote entire articles just because you (the collective you) don't want to be arsed to click on a link. Yeesh people, you're proving more and more that you're the "gimme generation" I want it, I want it now, and because I want it, I am entitled to it...

(I hope this was sufficiently snarky for my first post back after my little vacation )