Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

What a bunch of gimps. Information costs nothing to replicate from one platform to the next. Pirate whatever you want people.

Never heard of IPR then, or just believe everyone else's hard work is fair game once its online?

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, MPH said:

 just for clarification...posting a full article is different to quoting 2-3 sentences from that said article isn’t it? @Mark

Just don't post the full article. They've been complaining about it since the beginning of the year and I've been removing the posts but they need to not be posted at all now..

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MarriedaLeicesterGirl said:

Speaking from no insider information at all (and I am an Athletic subscriber, but also an American, so it is more bang for the buck for me), I doubt it is Rob Tanner lurking. My guess is their legal department is visiting most football forum sites. 

or maybe Journalists are googling their articles after writing and seeing where they spring up then reporting back to the Athletics legal department

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, L3n9a said:

Just summarise in your own words if its really time sensitive news. A lot of their stuff is player exclusives & in depth and well worth the subscription. Copy & pasting word for word is just wrong. But if Ndidi picks up and Injury and Athletic are first to report, a thread saying "Bad news, Tanner has just mentioned Ndidi has an injury" is not breaking any copyright laws at all.

 

And Tanner usually tweets that stuff too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Never heard of IPR then, or just believe everyone else's hard work is fair game once its online?

Yep. Other than the silicon and the electricity needed to store and power said content there is no cost in replicating it, thus its value is near zero. The early internet pioneers like Napster and Pirate Bay did this until the media conglomerates destroyed a free market with their copyright laws.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Yep. Other than the silicon and the electricity needed to store and power said content there is no cost in replicating it, thus its value is near zero. The early internet pioneers like Napster and Pirate Bay did this until the media conglomerates destroyed a free market with their copyright laws.

 

"Yep" ... no way in hell should a musician, author or journalist expect to get paid for merely arranging bits and bytes into something of interest.  The absolute nerve  :rolleyes:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, KingsX said:

 

"Yep" ... no way in hell should a musician, author or journalist expect to get paid for merely arranging bits and bytes into something of interest.  The absolute nerve  :rolleyes:

All of those have made money for centuries by trading their content in commodities with scarcity. They're  called tour tickets, books and newspapers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, boots60 said:

Surely, once you have paid your money, then it's up to you what you do with the product you have just purchased. 

This goes for any product for sale.

 


 

its all in the terms and conditions you signed up to ( that few people actually read).

 

 

It will like say they you are purchasing access for you only and that sharing publicly is forbidden.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, boots60 said:

Surely, once you have paid your money, then it's up to you what you do with the product you have just purchased. 

This goes for any product for sale.

 

No, because there is something called 'intellectual rights' - you don't assume those rights because you bought access to read them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Yep. Other than the silicon and the electricity needed to store and power said content there is no cost in replicating it, thus its value is near zero. The early internet pioneers like Napster and Pirate Bay did this until the media conglomerates destroyed a free market with their copyright laws.

 

2 hours ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

All of those have made money for centuries by trading their content in commodities with scarcity. They're  called tour tickets, books and newspapers.

 

How much is a book or a newspaper worth? Guaranteed the new paperback you last read isn't physically worth the £8.99 you paid for it from Waterstones. The price covers all sorts of costs including the royalties that the author rightly deserves. A few quid a month for a regular slew of online articles is worth the money in my opinion.

 

You pay the licence fee for the BBC's news programmes on TV. If you watch ITV's news you may have purchased something advertised during a break. Either way you're paying for the content so why should we be entitled to quality online journalism for nothing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...