EMTCity being sued?

[akflightmedic]

OH WOW......

Oh wow what? The article? The situation? Or oh wow to the fact you never contribute more than 2 words or a smiley face to any given topic....just sayin.

[EMT City Administrator]

Although I cannot comment on the case in hand as I have not received any documents or notificaton related to it, I will speak to how sites like this are protected.

A forum is a an interactive computer service, much like YouTube and blog hosting sites.

As such, we are covered under Section 230 c

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

The site user is responsible for the content they publish, not the site owner unless the site owner publishes it or does not take action when alerted to copyrighted material.

With that being said, it is against the site rules to post any copyrighted material here.

To post a link to an article is ok, to cut and paste the whole article most likely is not. To cut and paste a relevant portion of the article for discussion may be OK under the fair use act, but these days I wouldn't do it. Those that post whole articles may be fair game to this type of legal action even if it has a link back and credits the articles owner.

Admin

[Just Plain Ruff]

Although I cannot comment on the case in hand as I have not received any documents or notificaton related to it, I will speak to how sites like this are protected.

A forum is a an interactive computer service, much like YouTube and blog hosting sites.

As such, we are covered under Section 230 c

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

The site user is responsible for the content they publish, not the site owner unless the site owner publishes it or does not take action when alerted to copyrighted material.

With that being said, it is against the site rules to post any copyrighted material here.

To post a link to an article is ok, to cut and paste the whole article most likely is not. To cut and paste a relevant portion of the article for discussion may be OK under the fair use act, but these days I wouldn't do it. Those that post whole articles may be fair game to this type of legal action even if it has a link back and credits the articles owner.

Admin

you know your mystery persona may be blown as a result of this.

but seriously, this sucks. This publisher since they cannot get those who posted the entire article they are going after the site.

I understand protecting your copyright and I even more understand news organizations who rely on almost all their revenue from ads in their printed papers are protecting their copyrights and rights.

But suing a forum like this is not the way to go about things.

[akflightmedic]

the funny thing is, the guy who posted the article here linked it from another ems website which published it first. That website was not mentioned anywhere...

[paramedicmike]

I'm pretty sure I know what thread is being referenced and the idea of a lawsuit makes absolutely no sense for the very reason AK mentioned.

The upside to this is that it should make it easier for Admin to avoid litigation should any papers related to any suit ever be served to him.

[Lone Star]

I'm not sure how the whole internet advertising thing works, but it seems clear to me that the more people that are drawn to a particular website out of curiosity, the more people will see an ad, and the greater the chance that the advertisers will have at increasing revenue (which is the sole purpose for placing the ad in the first place!).

How many (besides me) have 'scoped out' a particular news site because of the blurb that was published by 'News Bot' or other RSS feeds? I know that I've been to quite a few of those sites because I wanted to learn as much as I could about the story, or to figure out just where the story was originating from in the first place. Some of these articles only mention counties or 'small out of the way obscure towns'. Each time I check out a story, I'm increasing the chance that the advertiser is going to tempt me into buying something.

Because of the increased exposure, isn't that what the companies placing the ads are trying to do? By accomplishing this, how is the publisher of the article actually losing money?

I live in southeast Georgia; what lure does Podunk City, IA have that will tempt me to spend money? Hard to say...until I see an ad for some doodad that I found by following a news or article link.

Furthermore, if the author is given credit for the article (even if by nothing more than including the 'byline'), just how does that equate 'theft of intellectual property'? From what I've been taught about plagiarism, to take credit away from the original author by claiming that YOU 'wrote' the published work is theft.

Just because a poster who is not familiar with MLA (or other styles) of citations forgets to include ALL the information in a works cited page, doesn't mean that they're trying to take credit for the work. By including a link to the story, article or other 'intellectual piece', it gives the reader the location of the publication, date of publication and the original author. Isn’t that the whole purpose of citing the works that the information came from in the first place?

Additionally, with the increased traffic to a website, and greater exposure to the advertisers listed there; doesn’t that equate to higher profits for the host publication? If it does, how can they then make the complaint about ‘lost revenue’?

This smacks of nothing more than being a ‘revenue generating tool’ through malicious and frivolous use of the court system.

[chbare]

I'm not sure how the whole internet advertising thing works, but it seems clear to me that the more people that are drawn to a particular website out of curiosity, the more people will see an ad, and the greater the chance that the advertisers will have at increasing revenue (which is the sole purpose for placing the ad in the first place!).

How many (besides me) have 'scoped out' a particular news site because of the blurb that was published by 'News Bot' or other RSS feeds? I know that I've been to quite a few of those sites because I wanted to learn as much as I could about the story, or to figure out just where the story was originating from in the first place. Some of these articles only mention counties or 'small out of the way obscure towns'. Each time I check out a story, I'm increasing the chance that the advertiser is going to tempt me into buying something.

Because of the increased exposure, isn't that what the companies placing the ads are trying to do? By accomplishing this, how is the publisher of the article actually losing money?

I live in southeast Georgia; what lure does Podunk City, IA have that will tempt me to spend money? Hard to say...until I see an ad for some doodad that I found by following a news or article link.

Furthermore, if the author is given credit for the article (even if by nothing more than including the 'byline'), just how does that equate 'theft of intellectual property'? From what I've been taught about plagiarism, to take credit away from the original author by claiming that YOU 'wrote' the published work is theft.

Just because a poster who is not familiar with MLA (or other styles) of citations forgets to include ALL the information in a works cited page, doesn't mean that they're trying to take credit for the work. By including a link to the story, article or other 'intellectual piece', it gives the reader the location of the publication, date of publication and the original author. Isn’t that the whole purpose of citing the works that the information came from in the first place?

Additionally, with the increased traffic to a website, and greater exposure to the advertisers listed there; doesn’t that equate to higher profits for the host publication? If it does, how can they then make the complaint about ‘lost revenue’?

This smacks of nothing more than being a ‘revenue generating tool’ through malicious and frivolous use of the court system.

I pretty much agree. Thie is either people being hateful and going out of their way to find ways to spread the love, or these people figure they can shot gun and make q quick buck off all the sites who will simply settle. At a couple thousand a pop, it can potentially be a pert penny if a couple dozen sites pay up. Not to mention the additional press and media attention gained by this charade.

Take care,

chbare.

[FireMedic65]

I pretty much agree. Thie is either people being hateful and going out of their way to find ways to spread the love, or these people figure they can shot gun and make q quick buck off all the sites who will simply settle. At a couple thousand a pop, it can potentially be a pert penny if a couple dozen sites pay up. Not to mention the additional press and media attention gained by this charade.

Take care,

chbare.

hey that's what I said.. somewhere else... I am suing you!

[Richard B the EMT]

You can post a link without breaking any trademark/copyright laws, so feel free to do so.

I have no documentation as to the veracity of that statement, but likewise lack the same information to deny it. When I post anything from another source, if I am doing it with documentation, and not strictly from memory, will not only name the original source, but put in a link to the source.

[Chief1C]

Track backs. We have to find ppl that posted stuff that linked to here, and sue them too.