info from paid sites

[gregmag]

I'm a little concerned about the site's policy regarding information from paid sources -- like BP subscription content. I bring this up because Brian just shut down a thread where someone asked for a summary of BP's Brewer health report.

 

IMHO, we sometimes go a bit too far in blocking discussions of this sort. If I buy a book, or pay to attend a play or a movie, no legal or ethical principle stops me from summarizing the content as part of a discussion about the content itself, some issue raised by the content, or the state of the world. Why, then, can't a poster here say something like "BP thinks the Brewers do the following six bad things and five good things to keep players healthy," and then discuss the information?

 

I certainly understand that we don't want to undercut paid sites or sources by reprinting large chunks of content verbatim. I'm not a copyright lawyer (and I don't know whether Brian's concern here is legal, ethical, or both), but on my limited understanding, the copyright principle that allows "fair use" of copyrighted material is designed precisely to avoid stifling discussion and critique, as opposed to mere parroting of protected content. If BP, or anyone else, says something interesting about the Brewers, I don't see sharing the essence of the information, and then discussing it, as an assault on BP's property. If I'm wrong about that, then I think our balance of private property vs. communal welfare interests is seriously out of whack.

 

If anyone else cares about this, what do you think?

 

Greg.

[squarepusher]

I fully admit that the thread I locked was very much in a grey area, and I was definately leaning towards caution. I'd be open to hear other people's thoughts on the matter as well.

[dadofandrew]

I've posted stuff at Ramblings and got a stern e-mail or two. That said, it's only when I've posted the whole article, and not summarized it. For the most part, anything except copying the whole article seems acceptable.

[colbyjack]

It's a fine line, because at what point do you say it has to stop? If one person provides one little snippet, what prevents the next poster from providing another, and so on and so forth? I think some of the subscriber content from Baseball America may apply more towards this, particularly pertaining to their top prospect lists. As soon as someone paraphrases what BA had to say about Freddy Parejo in the Arizona League, what is preventing them from paraphrasing what is said about Adam Mannon in the Pioneer League?

 

And it's different from using the generic examples to a book, movie, play, etc. because we have friends at places like BP & BA. I don't mean to say that either place has ever said anything to us, because they haven't as far as I know, but to me it's really out of respect and courtesy to them and to the people that spend their hard-earned money to be subscribers.

 

If it's a small blurb, I have no problem with it, and I didn't see the specific instance in which you're referring to. But I know I have encountered the same situation Brian did, and when dealing with a grey area, I also lean towards the side of caution.

[pogokat]

i'm pretty sure that you can quote, as long as you give a source...i mean, you can't shank the whole article, but i'm pretty sure that we are allowed a ton of space to crticize other people's work...

 

I have no doubt that you can summarize whatever you want...otherwise, there certainly wouldn't be critic's out there who give away the plot of books/movies...

 

I understand the worry Brian, but we are probably ok unless there is a wholesale reprinting of the articles...

[denny187]

BP is well worth the 40 bucks a year I pay (way more than the 70 bucks I pay for baseball america) and if someone wants to read an article...subcribe. i don't think its worth possibly getting brewerfan.net in trouble if some pay-site wants to be a jerk. i think brewerfan.net has come far enough (popularity speaking) that word would get out if posters started posting entire articles regularly.

[pogokat]

no one wants whole articles posted...that's obviously trouble...but summarization of key pieces is fine and dandy

[mothershipconnection]

I don't know what the locked thread was, but I see no ethical problem in saying things like "BP had Prince Fielder rated as the number one prospect in the system and projects him to be a .900 OPS hitter". I would say that without cutting and pasting, it's pretty much a no-harm, no-foul situation. It's not really the same as using a book and having to cite it, since these are pay sites, which are intended to only be read by subscribers, but Playboy is the same way, and I'd have no problem giving a summary of Lou Dobb's commentary on the economic impact of outsourcing that was in the issue I received today.

[ja002h]

I have no doubt that you can summarize whatever you want...otherwise, there certainly wouldn't be critics out there who give away the plot of books/movies...

 

I understand the worry Brian, but we are probably ok unless there is a wholesale reprinting of the articles...

 

I think that sums it up pretty well

[xisxisxis]

i mean, you can't shank the whole article, but i'm pretty sure that we are allowed a ton of space to crticize other people's work...

 

What about people's overuse of the elipses?

 

 

I think that taking small snippets as a point of discussion should be fine, copying whole or near whole articles or content should be a problem, and paraphrasing goes into a grey area.

 

It's not my decision, but it might be worth the new PR czar contacting some of these sites and asking what they consider appropriate. Normally I don't like to notify someone that is unaware of your activities, to your activities, but both BA and BP are aware of Brewerfan.net. Being proactive and asking them for "guidance" in policing your forums will definitely lead to more positive than negative consequences.

[ILBrewerFan]

I spoke with Will Lingo (Managing Editor for Baseball America) and he said that he feels it is appropriate for people to discuss the general theme of any article read on their site, however, extremely discourages people copying, claiming ownership, extensively paraphrasing, etc.

 

This still leaves a lot of gray area, but I think this whole issue comes down to common sense on the posters part. In order to stay in the good graces of these sites I would say that Brian has been doing a good job. It's easy to talk about the gist of the article without violating the conditions listed above. Lists/rankings get a little tricky because it's difficult to talk about lists without mentioning the list.

 

I could not reach anyone at BP, but this is right off their web-site:

Quote:

---

Fair Use is Permitted

 

Fair use of copyrighted material includes the use of protected materials for noncommercial purposes such as research, peer review, commentary and news reporting. Unless otherwise noted, persons and subscribers who wish to download or print PEV's text and image files for such uses may do so without PEV's express permission. Users must cite the author and source of this material as they would material from any printed work. By downloading, printing, or otherwise using such text and image files, users agree that they will limit their use of such information to fair use, and will not violate PEV's or any other party's proprietary rights.

 

Restrictions

 

You agree to not use the Service:

 

* to upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available (A) any content that you do not have a right to make available and any commercial publication or exploitation of the Service or any content provided in connection therewith is specifically prohibited and anyone wishing to do so must first request and receive prior written permission from PEV to do so; (B) any content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights ("Rights&quothttp://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif of any party; © any unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, promotional materials, "junk mail," "spam," "chain letters," "pyramid schemes," or any other form of solicitation except for vendors so authorized to do so; or (D) any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;[

---