See:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum1/HTML/002076.html

and it too, was continued! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Yet, please note that the WWAA thread alluded to and started by the tree "has legs" however, and so doubtlessly will outlast the LP thread(s), IMHO, at some point in the future! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Having said all this, so what? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif Who really cares? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/redface.gif Not me! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/tongue.gif

Although it will take a long time before all the 1,000,000 LP miles are used up..... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Well, I really hope I'm not opening (or, rather, reopening) a can of worms here, but since I don't usually frequent this forum, I'm a bit late to the party.

First off, I will say that I believe everyone has a right to express their views, badge or not badge. This is a Web site of discussion boards, after all. I will add that there is proper way to do that.

While perhaps there is no posted agreement as to how we should conduct ourselves (the FT FAQ barely touches on it), there are some fairly obvious, though not explicit, rules.

One is that we should not use profanity. How do we know this is a rule? Well, certain words will be nabbed by the computer and then appear as asterisks (****) if people try to use them. Fine.

Another is that while every thought or tibdit may belong somewhere on FT, that doesn't mean that they belong anywhere or everywhere on FT. How do we know this? Well, because those who run the site have elected to set up different boards for different topics.

I'm sure other rules can be gleaned, as well, but these seemed most relevant to what we're discussing.

Anyone who's been around FT at least a little bit probably has noticed that doc tends to post a lot. They've also probably noticed that most of his posts are items that quote, to various extents, news reports about airlines.

Both of these these things have been called into question by various FTers (and with various degrees of tact), and both have gotten my attention, as well.

For the sake of honesty, I will lay it out on the table. About a month ago or so, I wrote to FT about doc's posts. I thought the fact that he posts so many news items, and not in the "In The News" forum, was troubling, as was the fact that he sometimes quotes big chunks of the stories, even entire reports.

I suggested that perhaps FT could send a friendly reminder to doc to post in the appropriate forum and to respect the copyrights of news organizations.

I don't know what, if any, action FT took, but I received no response. Looking back, perhaps I should have sent a friendly e-mail to doc and relayed my concerns to him directly. But as I still considered myself an FT newbie, I thought contacting the site administrator was a better way to go.

Now, I find many of doc's posts to be interesting and informative. What I take issue with is him starting news threads in other forums. While an occasional news thread in an "airline program" or "credit card" thread shouldn't ruffle any feathers, and even may be quite relevant, I think doc tends to overdo it. After all, we have the "In The News" forum for a reason.

It is also my opinion that doc infringes on copyrights of various news organizations. As a professional newspaper editor, my opinion is an informed (though not authoritative) one. There are proper ways to relay news that others are reporting, and I'd be happy to give advice on that to anyone who is interested.

While infringing on copyrights is not an explicit FT rule, it is an illegal practice, and thus we can safely assume that FT would not approve of it. I certainly don't doubt that doc has good motives with his news posts, but that does not make it OK.

What I suggest is that doc use much more discretion when he starts news threads outside the "In The News" forum; that he restrict his quoting of copyrighted material to no more than 2 or 3 sentences; that he give credit to the author of the story; and that he then post a link the full version.

Any comment that he chooses to make on such topics would be quite appreciated, as doc seems to be a knowledgeable guy about the subjects we discuss at FT.

I hope my post won't start a nasty situation here, but I think I presented my point of view in a clear, respectful way.

Thanks,
Matt

Good advice for us all Matt. When I started, I think I tended to quote verbatim, then I started to shorten and highlight.

We are all learning web etiquette and legalities. Flyer Talk seems to be one of the more restrained sites so I still enjoy it, even though there are occasional "diversions", many posts are informative, some of them funny (or in fun), some of them irritating, but very few downright nasty.

I think we had some real jousting going on in the early days (e.g. Merry and Baobab) but it was mostly in good fun. Hope we can keep it mostly in that realm.

You tell 'em, guys!!!

Thanks for the comment(s) motnot/Matt.

To say that this has been discussed before would be putting it quite euphemistically. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Just one recent sample: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum1/HTML/002345.html

You are, of course, entitled to your opinions and they are to be respected. As you noted, "Looking back, perhaps I should have sent a friendly e-mail to doc and relayed my concerns to him directly" would have been a good idea. With the possible exception of one other e-mail that questioned if I thought that my number of posts/day was perhaps excessive, it would have been the very first "critical" email I'd have ever received.

FWIW, I do not knowingly infringe on copyrights of any of the various news organizations. As I'd noted, it is unclear to me where the line is and I've responded to expressed concerns by posting links and do not post entire stories.

I too have asked if there is a broadband "problem", or whatever, and am not yet aware of any. Randy will please correct me if I'm wrong.

Whatever we bring to the forum that is factual may be deemed to be in a sense "news" of some kind, and as you suggest I have used my sense of discretion when starting news threads outside the "In The News" forum. I have been attempting to restrict quoting of copyrighted material to no more than 2-3 sentences or a paragraph. I've tried to generally give credit to authors of stories when available or appropriate and post suitable links to the full version.

If I did not think that my very small "contribution" to FT was legal and appropriate and that it helped to make FT a somewhat better place, then needless to say, I would not be posting the material. I definitely do not wish to produce any problems or irritations for Randy & Co or for FT'ers.

As you may know, I'd formerly offered to stop posting news items altogether, to post no more than 7 times per day, and so on and so forth. Yet it seems that no one approach would satisfy everyone. I've received enourmous numbers of emails urging me to continue to post as I'd been doing in the past. I have no idea if any of these folks have written to Randy & Co, but in view of your e-mail, I hope they have.

So I continue to post these items only to please the great majority as I understand it. As you know, I get absolutely nothing for my time or posts except for the satisfaction of trying to aid others. Oh, and an occasional flame! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

However, I do think I tend "to overdo it" and actually sometimes spend far too much time distracted by FT.

I would be most pleased to stop if there is a "problem" here. I'd lose little personally and surely gain quite a bit of extra time! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

As usual, I've said more than I'd originally intended. Sorry!

Mark

Well, Doc's posts are often VERY interesting to me. And VERY useful. I certainly do not read 20 news websites a day to pick up on all this stuff, nor does anyone else except him methinks. That's my 2¢ worth. If the heading line does NOT interest me, I simply do not click on to it. All of us clearly has that option.

If Randy had to pay a staff member to glean all these news type posts relating to airlines, aviation, hotel chains and rental car firms etc, I am sure he would prefer not to. The fact he appears to have no problem with Doc posting them, and the fact Randy alone is paying for the use and bandwidth of this board indicates to me his clear approval and endorsement of the postings. Randy Petersen is of course the host of this board. We are simply guests in his house here, and he calls the shots. This is a community, and we all gain something from being here.

Some provide input, others simply take that input and contribute nothing. And others for some reason unknown to me seem simply to delight in bi*ching about the input of others which clearly takes 100's of unpaid hours a month and which is of interest to MANY.

That is what communities are about. We are all different. Vive the difference, and my compliments to Doc (and many others) for their amazing efforts to share knowledge and news.

I too have always worked in newspapers and publishing magazines. And do so to this day. There is a small range of my copyright articles published here:

http://www.GlenStephens.com/column.html

I feel certain the news journals mentioned or linked in Doc's posts will have NO copyright or legal objection whatever to a non revenue raising use of their own topics they themselves post on web pages for that reason. There is NO legal restriction on doing this to my knowledge, PROVIDING you do not charge a fee for the information or otherwise try to profit from it.

That reason being to advertise their journals and sites to as many persons as possible AND to have you click on the numerous advertising Banner links theron. Those links generate BIG revenue. Why are those sites free? For that reason and that reason alone basically.

Go to www.Google.com or any other decent search engine and type in "United Airlines" or "Hilton Hotels" or "Hertz Rent a Car" or "Boeing Corporation" etc. You'll will get several 1000 web "hot links" to sites and news articles about these publicly listed firms.

Do you suppose for one second that Alta Vista or Google or Yahoo pay one CENT in user fees or copyright or licence fee to any of these newspapers or journals? No way. This is the web .. FREE exchange of useful information. That is what it does, and that is why it was set up. And long may it prosper. And Randy, and Doc and all others who assist in making THIS site a wealth of fabulous information for people all OVER this globe. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif



[This message has been edited by ozstamps (edited 07-10-2000).]

motnot: Doc and Randy have both been given fair warning several times in several forums. And BTW, even if they hadn't, ignorance is not and has never been a defensible excuse for breaking the law.

One day (hopefully far in the future) Webflyer (dba FT) will be sued for copyright infringement (whether you agree with the legal interpretation of the plaintiff or not, e.g., Metallica vis a vis Napster, a lawsuit need not be airtight to be filed and are often prohibitively expensive to defend). Then FT will disappear. We will have no one to blame but ourselves and our cavilier attitudes. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

[This message has been edited by kokonutz (edited 07-10-2000).]

If you will kindly permit a small note of clarification/dissagreement Mr. Koko:

As motnot remarked above,

<"What I suggest is that doc use much more discretion when he starts news threads outside the "In The News" forum; that he restrict his quoting of copyrighted material to no more than 2 or 3 sentences; that he give credit to the author of the story; and that he then post a link the full version.">

I have done just that as I understand it. I am excruciatingly aware of the fact that Randy & Co serve as our beneficent host and I most assuredly respect any and all the rules and wishes to be imposed! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I have always been somewhat sensitive to and responsive to criticism, particularly when it is polite, constructive and factually correct, in my view. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Any unbiased review of my posts by all including the most unenlightened among us will easily and surely reflect this.

I used to initially never copy, verbatim, any part of any article/release, etc., nor did I ever provide any links, because I was personally concerned about the legality and possible implications. As I recall, it was inlarge part because of the others on FT that had "so infringed" so egregiously before me, that I eventually posted anything verbatim and acquiesced to providing any links, (as well as the ongoing court case which presumably had taken a turn toward suggesting that it was perhaps okay to use such links). http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Having said all this, I may well be somewhat if not nearly totally ignorant with regard to certain specific applicable facts and particularly legal "fine points." http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

I'm listening! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Again, as I'd noted above, "I would be most pleased to stop if there is a 'problem' here. I'd lose little personally and surely gain quite a bit of extra time!" http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Kokonutz. Please READ my posting immediately above.

No-one can have legal action taken against them by posting links to the free web provided info that we are talking about here. There is NO commerical gain involved by Doc, Randy or Flyertalk etc.

The only gainer is the site to whom the web hotlink relates as it gains them potential click-thru advertising income! THAT is why these info sites exist!

I think they were warned with regard to
doc's quoting of entire news stories, which is copyrighted material, not for posting links. Fortunately, doc doesn't do this anymore.

Selfishly, I'd still like to see him post of his posts in "In The News." I don't have time to read all the airlines' different forums, but being the news junkie I am, always wonder what news I'm missing out on. I scan the wires usually every day at work for airline-related news, but doc often posts things I don't find.

Hey, it is his time! But I personally seldom read "In The News". That probably is the best spot for a GENERAL piece like a new Boeing or Airbus PR announcement. But if AA announce a new flight route or policy, or UA announce Premier Plus seating, or Starwood are running a Summer Special room rate deal or Avis are doing a 5,000 mile bonus, etc surely THOSE specific boards are the most obvious spots for those to go on? That seems to be the current situation. Gets my vote.

I really don't want to rehash the legal arguments, but if you don't think that Webflyer is a profit-making venture, well whatever. Besides, in a copyright suit the question is loss (or potential loss) of revenue by the plaintiff, not gain of profit by the defendant.

If you really want all airline (and/or travel) news all the time, why not just do what Doc does and subscribe to some free and/or for fee news e-mail services. Yahoo, microsoft, the online booking agents and http://airlinebiz.com/main/ all offer such servcies. Doc draws largely from the e-mail service from www.wsj.com which is a fee service, but IMHO, worth it.

I have nothing against "Doc's News" personally (other than that I've typically read most of them already by the time he posts them since I have taken my own advice) and agree that the links and summaries are more appropriate if still questionable.

But belive me when I tell you that the folks ozstamps is referring to PAY for their news stories...either directly paying writers or through a subscription to the AP wire services.

In any case, I hope my dire prediction never comes true, but I will not be surprised if it does...

Well, I just clicked on the www.wsj.com site. I saw a flashing IBM banner ad. IBM are paying WSJ MEGA bucks for me or you to see that. Same page also offered FREE trial sub to their info sites. Of every 1000 who sign for those a % sign on like you and Doc and pay.

If you asked the WSJ whether a site like this pointing to their stories was tolerated I know what their answer would be methinks. The more click-thru traffic off hot links like this, the MORE they love it, as SOME bucks clearly goes their way as a result, even indirectly.

Agreed. And that is precisely why they copyright their news. So that you will have to go to THEIR site and be bombarded by THEIR advertisers to read the news THEY write...that's why they'll thank you for posting their link, but sue you for posting their news.

See how nicely we can come to a mutual understanding from divergent viewpoints!!! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif