- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 12/21/09 at 10:51 pm to ForeLSU
quote:
the ironic thing about the song "Ironic" is that none of the examples were really "ironic"
I remember there being a discussion, when the song came out, as to whether she really meant it to be that way because that would be a really good name for the song then.
But most of the reviewers shot it down saying that she lacked that subtlety.
Posted on 12/21/09 at 11:01 pm to ForeLSU
quote:
not really, a premium site reporting that Icatchya Touchbaque visited San Marcos U over the weekend can not be copyrighted because it is not an original work. Posting a direct copy/paste from a premium site, and claiming it is your own work, is a violation of a copyright.
This is a very obvious point that many people find difficult to understand.
Information - FREE
Presentation - copyrighted (with or without pay)
I can read the Economist and inform everyone I know about the current state of Gold.
This information was not created by the economist- it existed and they merely reported it.
Even if it were an interview with a recruit's parent it is the same as The Economist interviewing Richard Parsons of Citibank.
You can talk and discuss about the interview but you cannot cut and paste the content or copy the video.
Since it is copyrighted (and they sell it) I cannot cut and paste the information.
GOLD by The Economist = recruits by Rivals/Scouts.
Posted on 12/21/09 at 11:23 pm to CalTiger
Exactly ... those like the OP that are trying to be the Hitler of information are actually in a round-a-bout kind of way trying to hurt the subscribers of premium sites.
Subscribers to those sites pay the monthly fee specifically for the information. What they choose to do with that information is solely up to them, as they pay the price to receive that information in hopes they will get that info before the general public. As stated above, as long as they don't "copy and paste" that information verbatim, then there's nothing wrong with sharing that info, which will become general knowledge at some point anyway.
I understand the beneficiaries of those premiums (i.e. owners of the premium sites) certainly don't want the information shared, as they want as many people as possible paying those premiums. But they chose to get into the information-sharing business, so it should come as no surprise when, wow what a shock, people share that information.
Subscribers to those sites pay the monthly fee specifically for the information. What they choose to do with that information is solely up to them, as they pay the price to receive that information in hopes they will get that info before the general public. As stated above, as long as they don't "copy and paste" that information verbatim, then there's nothing wrong with sharing that info, which will become general knowledge at some point anyway.
I understand the beneficiaries of those premiums (i.e. owners of the premium sites) certainly don't want the information shared, as they want as many people as possible paying those premiums. But they chose to get into the information-sharing business, so it should come as no surprise when, wow what a shock, people share that information.
This post was edited on 12/21/09 at 11:27 pm
Posted on 12/21/09 at 11:48 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
Subscribers to those sites pay the monthly fee specifically for the information. What they choose to do with that information is solely up to them, as they pay the price to receive that information in hopes they will get that info before the general public.
Almost everyone thinks of only the first half of the equation, which is, receiving the information and not the second half which is the usage of said information(for which the price has already been paid).
quote:
I understand the beneficiaries of those premiums (i.e. owners of the premium sites) certainly don't want the information shared, as they want as many people as possible paying those premiums. But they chose to get into the information-sharing business, so it should come as no surprise when, wow what a shock, people share that information.
The problem here is that it is very difficult , if not impossible, to have a business built on only earlier availability of certain information. Because that data is bound to escape and disperse very quickly in this era of multiple modes of communication.
The sites should rely on content created by them and presentation of said content (both of which are copyrighted) and try to persuade folks to come to them for that reason.
Subscribers to these sites feel that they are paying for something that others are getting for free - this is not true.
1. You get the scoop before the others - you are paying only for time difference not the information itself.
2. You get to see quality presentation of this information (I hope it is of some quality)
3. You get to see Videos and other multimedia presentations and hence can derive satisfaction from that (this cannot be copied or obtained legally by the free sites/message boards)
Trying to be the Information Gestapo is silly if not downright unconstitutional.
Posted on 12/22/09 at 12:45 am to CalTiger
I'm thinking of getting a sub to all of them now just so I can share the stuff with as many people possible.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News