Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Copyright violation. WSJ has a paywall for a reason.

There was no paywall when I was quoting those articles. Also, if this is now your criteria, how do you justify all of the other posts quoting portions of articles from other sources (WaPo, NYT, HuffPo, etc.)?

Please review the doctrine of "fair use":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Particularly Section 3:

3. Amount and substantiality

"The third factor assesses the amount and substantiality of the copyrighted work that has been used. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, the more likely the use will be considered fair."

You used a huge amount.

DP: someone in Politics constantly opens new threads simply linking to some NYT article and copying 4-5 paragraphs, with no other commentary added.

Is that fair use?

It all depends on the length of the original article. Keep in mind that this is all a judgement call because the laws don’t specify an amount that is allowed. I like to see no more than 25% copied.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Copyright violation. WSJ has a paywall for a reason.

There was no paywall when I was quoting those articles. Also, if this is now your criteria, how do you justify all of the other posts quoting portions of articles from other sources (WaPo, NYT, HuffPo, etc.)?

Please review the doctrine of "fair use":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Particularly Section 3:

3. Amount and substantiality

"The third factor assesses the amount and substantiality of the copyrighted work that has been used. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, the more likely the use will be considered fair."

You used a huge amount.

DP: someone in Politics constantly opens new threads simply linking to some NYT article and copying 4-5 paragraphs, with no other commentary added.

Is that fair use?

Anonymous wrote:
To be fair, a recent thread of mine was deleted because I had quoted an entire WaPo article.
Jeff used to allow this, and now he's enforcing the rules. As long as the rules are enforced for everyone, that's fine.

OP, please report any post that quotes long copyrighted passages, if it annoys you that your thread was deleted and not others.

Thank you, and I will. And I agree with the bolded.

To be fair, a recent thread of mine was deleted because I had quoted an entire WaPo article.
Jeff used to allow this, and now he's enforcing the rules. As long as the rules are enforced for everyone, that's fine.

OP, please report any post that quotes long copyrighted passages, if it annoys you that your thread was deleted and not others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Copyright violation. WSJ has a paywall for a reason.

There was no paywall when I was quoting those articles. Also, if this is now your criteria, how do you justify all of the other posts quoting portions of articles from other sources (WaPo, NYT, HuffPo, etc.)?

He loves those sources - LOL. Your article was probably more conservative-leaning.

Just ask the posters who posted copyright violations from those sources and have them removed as well. If you think that I am acting do to support for the publications, it would stand to reason that I would be more aggressive about policing publications that I support in order to protect their financial interests.

I guess it is not surprising that Trumpsters would find it hard to believe that someone who owns a website that publishes content would be concerned about the rights of publishers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Copyright violation. WSJ has a paywall for a reason.

There was no paywall when I was quoting those articles. Also, if this is now your criteria, how do you justify all of the other posts quoting portions of articles from other sources (WaPo, NYT, HuffPo, etc.)?

He loves those sources - LOL. Your article was probably more conservative-leaning.

Yep. I’ve seen plenty of the above sources quoted for miles.

Okey doke. I’ll repost the thread using less quoted text.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Copyright violation. WSJ has a paywall for a reason.

There was no paywall when I was quoting those articles. Also, if this is now your criteria, how do you justify all of the other posts quoting portions of articles from other sources (WaPo, NYT, HuffPo, etc.)?

He loves those sources - LOL. Your article was probably more conservative-leaning.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Copyright violation. WSJ has a paywall for a reason.

There was no paywall when I was quoting those articles. Also, if this is now your criteria, how do you justify all of the other posts quoting portions of articles from other sources (WaPo, NYT, HuffPo, etc.)?

Please review the doctrine of "fair use":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Particularly Section 3:

3. Amount and substantiality

"The third factor assesses the amount and substantiality of the copyrighted work that has been used. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, the more likely the use will be considered fair."

You used a huge amount.

jsteele wrote:Copyright violation. WSJ has a paywall for a reason.

There was no paywall when I was quoting those articles. Also, if this is now your criteria, how do you justify all of the other posts quoting portions of articles from other sources (WaPo, NYT, HuffPo, etc.)?

Copyright violation. WSJ has a paywall for a reason.

Why haven’t these threads been deleted then - surely there is an existing impeachment thread they could join? Or does that only apply to people who don’t identify as liberals?

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/831443.page

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/831214.page

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps Jeff thought you should have posted in one of the existing threads?

Perhaps Jeff can speak for himself?

Perhaps Jeff thought you should have posted in one of the existing threads?

I can’t link to it because you deleted it, but you know the one as it just disappeared.

I cited two items, complete with links, and I quoted the excerpts. I also included my own opinion. There is no reason you should have deleted it.