Citing Professional Sources in Posts

[zoogs]

Ive read it before and still think its an absolute joke. Most of us are part of forums much bigger and much smaller than this one that have no qualms about posting articles. It's annoying to have to have to leave the forums just to read an article.

use chrome. the tabs are amazing.

Is there a modern browser that doesn't have tabs?

Guys, this is basic stuff. Hopefully you didn't struggle with those 9th grade english classes. Someone else's words - cite it. If you'd like to get into a discussion on how copyright law is unjust, feel free, but it will likely be a losing argument, and "I don't want to be bothered with it, can't you ignore it?" isn't a very compelling argument

 

[sd'sker]

Ive read it before and still think its an absolute joke. Most of us are part of forums much bigger and much smaller than this one that have no qualms about posting articles. It's annoying to have to have to leave the forums just to read an article.

use chrome. the tabs are amazing.

Is there a modern browser that doesn't have tabs?

Guys, this is basic stuff. Hopefully you didn't struggle with those 9th grade english classes. Someone else's words - cite it. If you'd like to get into a discussion on how copyright law is unjust, feel free, but it will likely be a losing argument, and "I don't want to be bothered with it, can't you ignore it?" isn't a very compelling argument

yeah, but chrome's are the best.

 

[NUance]

oh, will you look at that, nuance is visiting the 'humps' thread for the third time today. way 2 go, champ!

Ha ha! I probably hop around to every nook and cranny in HB three times per day. But I do sort of like this gif I posted in humps. LINK

 

[NUance]

Back on point re copyrighted material posted on message boards: The following is an answer to some mod on a different message board asking about posts with copyrighted material:

[The poster] could summarize the article in their own words – that's perfectly legal under copyright law. They can also copy small portions of the copyrighted material under the rule of "fair use" if they plan to comment on the excerpts. Finally, they could simply offer a link to the content rather than posting the entire thing on the message board.

LINK

Here are some Guidelines for Fair Use: LINK

The gist is, if you are creating a thread about an article only copy a small portion of the article. Say, 20% or less. If you copy over 50% it's probably not Fair Use.

On the other hand, even if everyone on HB plays by the rules and stays within the bound of Fair Use, the asshats at the OWH and LJS are still going to occasionally send nasty letters. But the mere fact that they claim to have intellectual property rights to something doesn't necessarily mean it's so.

 

[MLB 51]

This is the only place I post now. Please don't f#*k it up because you think you're to cool to follow the :rulez .

 

[Enhance]

The highest of fives to whoever is complaining about citing official information - you, sir, are a very special person indeed.

 

[Excel]

Back on point re copyrighted material posted on message boards: The following is an answer to some mod on a different message board asking about posts with copyrighted material:

[The poster] could summarize the article in their own words – that's perfectly legal under copyright law. They can also copy small portions of the copyrighted material under the rule of "fair use" if they plan to comment on the excerpts. Finally, they could simply offer a link to the content rather than posting the entire thing on the message board.

LINK

Here are some Guidelines for Fair Use: LINK

The gist is, if you are creating a thread about an article only copy a small portion of the article. Say, 20% or less. If you copy over 50% it's probably not Fair Use.

On the other hand, even if everyone on HB plays by the rules and stays within the bound of Fair Use, the asshats at the OWH and LJS are still going to occasionally send nasty letters. But the mere fact that they claim to have intellectual property rights to something doesn't necessarily mean it's so.

I'm a little late to the party on this one but I'll say my piece.

1. To people complaining about the time it takes to leave HB and read an article or the inconvenience of having to summarize and carefully quote one when posting,

a. Get over it, its not that big of a pain to click a link.

b. Yes, it would be easier to copy and paste an article's text but it isn't easier to read. Many journalists seem to think that word count alone will transform them into the next Hemingway so they bury a few interesting facts behind paragraphs of meaningless junk. I don't want to read that. If you pluck out the meaningful bits and provide some commentary your reader will appreciate it.

2. To NUance, I completely agree with you in that the OWH and LJS may not have all the intellectual property rights they claim but its important for HB and its posters to play ball because the only way we really learn the extent of their rights is through legal action. I doubt that the shadowy anonymous owner of HB wants to be disturbed from his smoke filled backroom poker game to deal with that. As newspapers transition to online pay-to-view models they could look to assert themselves in court using instances just like these, they could even bypass the forum owners and go straight for the users posting their content. The chances are pretty slim that they'd do any of that but the costs would be tremendous...I mean I certainly don't have the time or resources for it even if I won.