First in Print-Cincinnati Enquirer's New Policy

[macro]

Originally Posted by Mario-Rijo

...if I want to quote something in the article I can't (I'm assuming)...

No, we can still quote parts of articles, as long as it's limited to two or three sentences or a paragraph or so and a link to the original is provided. It's the posting of entire articles (or even major portions of them) with no link to the original that we want to avoid.

I'll still allow RedsZone posters to filter the media for me and will contribute to the same if and when I can. There still won't be any need to bounce all around the Web sifting through stories about the Reds or whatever topic. If there is an article out there worthy of reading and/or discussion, chances are very good that somebody on this site is going to find it and make us aware of it. When they do, I can read the first paragraph or so here and then 1) decide that I'm not interested in reading further, or 2) make the extra click to go to the original source. The link should direct us straight to article without our having to sift through the rest of what's at that particular site.

The only thing that's changing for the reader is the extra mouse click and the extra open browser tab.

[Newport Red]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

No, you are exposing their website to people who otherwise would not see it. That is very valuable. Posting a link to an Enquirer article here on Redszone does wonders for their search engine rankings too. Restricting access to their content reduces the amount of money they make from their website.

Webmasters all over the world would pay dearly to receive the kind of exposure the Enquirer receives free of charge from Redszone.

I own multiple websites and make my entire living off the advertising revenue they generate. I know a little something about making money on the Internet -- and reducing your website's exposure is the worst thing you can possibly do.

The Enquirer management are resorting to a failed concept of reducing online content to try and get more newspaper subscribers. This is the 21st century. Paper news is ancient history. They need to accept that and move on to maximizing revenue from their website. Punishing people for using and sharing their online content is a surefire way to marginalize their business into obscurity. They should be thrilled that people here on Redszone care enough about their poorly written articles to bother posting them and linking back to their horrific website.

Having an article with a shelf life of 24 hours used by another site in return for a permanent link is a fantastic deal for the Enquirer. It raises their search engine "authority ranking" tremendously and also sends them a good amount of direct traffic.

Website owners distribute millions of free articles to online directories every day in the hope that another website will pick them up and post them on their sites with a link back to the author's site. Webmasters would pay thousands of dollars a year for the links that the Enquirer receives totally free from Redszone.

If my websites covered topics like baseball or other sports I would pay a lot of money to Redszone for the number and quality of links to my websites that the Enquirer is getting for free.

That's interesting. I know next to nothing about internet advertising.

Are the baseball websites that some Redzoners subscribe to making a mistake by not making their articles public on the web? Redzoners give the site and a sentence or two about the subject.

I don't see how the Enquirer's new policy is any different.

[Mario-Rijo]

Originally Posted by Chip R

Speaking only for myself, I don't think this will have much of an impact. If I choose not to read the Enquirer's stuff, I don't think my information on the Reds is going to be limited.

So is it just the enquirer? Does it not include the Dayton Daily News, USA Today, etc. Does it also include other non print media sources, say BA, BP? I just want to be clear what I can paste and copy and what I can't. Because it almost sounds like I might as well get use to not pasting anything here regardless of where it's from anymore sans 2 sentences and a link?

[Mario-Rijo]

Originally Posted by macro

No, we can still quote parts of articles, as long as it's limited to two or three sentences or a paragraph or so and a link to the original is provided. It's the posting of entire articles (or even major portions of them) with no link to the original that we want to avoid.

I'll still allow RedsZone posters to filter the media for me and will contribute to the same if and when I can. There still won't be any need to bounce all around the Web sifting through stories about the Reds or whatever topic. If there is an article out there worthy of reading and/or discussion, chances are very good that somebody on this site is going to find it and make us aware of it. When they do, I can read the first paragraph or so here and then 1) decide that I'm not interested in reading further, or 2) make the extra click to go to the original source. The link should direct us straight to article without our having to sift through the rest of what's at that particular site.

The only thing that's changing for the reader is the extra mouse click and the extra open browser tab.

I guess what I meant was say you provide the 2 sentences and the link. And then someone comes along and quotes something in the piece they want to touch on and so they quote that part of it (which is a different part of it from you) and it's more than 2 sentences and so on. If we didn't provide the link can we quote other parts of it and to what extent?

[Caveat Emperor]

Originally Posted by Mario-Rijo

So is it just the enquirer? Does it not include the Dayton Daily News, USA Today, etc. Does it also include other non print media sources, say BA, BP? I just want to be clear what I can paste and copy and what I can't. Because it almost sounds like I might as well get use to not pasting anything here regardless of where it's from anymore sans 2 sentences and a link?

Yup. Get used to it.

We're talking about work product that is subject to copyright. What we've grown accustomed to posting around here is the intellectual property of various news organizations. They make money because people either:

1. Buy the paper to read what's been produced
2. Visit the website to read what's been produced

When you take their content and republish it elsewhere, it negates the incentive to actually go over to the media source's website or buy a paper. From their point of view, you've taken their copywritten material and republished it to allow large numbers of people to use it without generating any revenue for the copyright holder.

Two or three sentence quotes likely falls under the "fair use" for the discussion purposes here on the message boards. As long as you limit yourself to quoting the articles in that regard, you shouldn't have a problem. If you feel the need to quote a different part of the article in a later post in a thread, that's fine too. The issue is wholesale republication, which we're no longer allowing.

I know this inconvenient and I know a lot of people think this policy sucks, but it's done to protect the site (and the site's owners, who have attached their names to the domain and registration) from liability for copyright infringement. Even "innocent" infringement can result in damages being assessed. You wouldn't pay those, but Boss & GIK would -- and I'm sure it would be "Adios" to RZ if that happened.

[Unassisted]

The original item that prompted this move said "In an attempt to track down such content parasites, the Enquirer and Cincinnati.com now employ technology that scours the media landscape for illegal use of our content." And yet photos aren't included under the new policy?

I just noticed that this thread includes photos from this week from the Enquirer. In addition to appropriating their content, inline photos are consuming their bandwidth. It's kind of like stealing a lamp from a store and leaving it plugged in to the store's outlet so it uses their electricity while it's on your table. Just like following the lamp cord would be an easy way for the store to find the stolen lamp, "scouring the media landscape" wouldn't be a big challenge for the Enquirer to do to find inline photos here.

[RosieRed]

CE, thanks for so clearly explaining what the problem is with stealing original content from other sites and posting it here in full.

What's hilarious, to me, is how many people are all "I'll pay $30 to support this site!" in regards to RZ, and then are complaining that they should be able to post articles from other sites here, because those articles are "free."

If it costs money to run this site, which it obviously does, how much money do you think it takes to run an entire news organization and its site?

[frenetic wave]

Originally Posted by RosieRed

CE, thanks for so clearly explaining what the problem is with stealing original content from other sites and posting it here in full.

What's hilarious, to me, is how many people are all "I'll pay $30 to support this site!" in regards to RZ, and then are complaining that they should be able to post articles from other sites here, because those articles are "free."

If it costs money to run this site, which it obviously does, how much money do you think it takes to run an entire news organization and its site?

Agreed 100%!

[macro]

The death of print newspapers would affect many facets of our existence:

http://www.theonion.com/content/vide...e_end_of_print

[frenetic wave]

Are we allowed to post videos? Does it not waste the Onion's bandwidth?

[macro]

Originally Posted by frenetic wave

Are we allowed to post videos? Does it not waste the Onion's bandwidth?

Posting a link that requires the viewer/reader to visit the original site that owns the content is okay.

[frenetic wave]

Ah, I get ya. Just making sure.

[edabbs44]

Question...I have noticed that Fay has been posting excerpts from Reds related articles from other sites as of late and he has been exceeding our threshold of two sentences, in some cases blowing through it with two paragraphs. Are we holding ourselves to a more stringent standard than others, including those who are directly affected by this?

See link:

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/201...ack-and-ahead/

[Unassisted]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

Question...I have noticed that Fay has been posting excerpts from Reds related articles from other sites as of late and he has been exceeding our threshold of two sentences, in some cases blowing through it with two paragraphs. Are we holding ourselves to a more stringent standard than others, including those who are directly affected by this?

He works for a company that has deeper pockets and more attorneys than RedsZone.

[Boss-Hog]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

Question...I have noticed that Fay has been posting excerpts from Reds related articles from other sites as of late and he has been exceeding our threshold of two sentences, in some cases blowing through it with two paragraphs. Are we holding ourselves to a more stringent standard than others, including those who are directly affected by this?

See link:

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/201...ack-and-ahead/

Regardless of what the Enquirer is doing, did you by chance see this thread?