Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dave Baker

No posting of reprints of articles published elsewhere

Recommended Posts

New policy:

No posting of reprints from articles published elsewhere.

Moderators, please delete any such messages.

Thanks,

Dave Baker

Administrator

But will reasonably-sized portions of an article be okay when given proper credit? Like, maybe a paragraph or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that an exception for reprinting sections of the regulations would be OK. That is often very useful.

Otherwise, I like Mr. Baker's policy. Reprinting copyrighted material generally requires the expressed permission of the author (or the publisher to whom the author gave the rights). There's no need for us to be messing with that.

The other issue is how to define "reasonably-sized." We've all seen certain reprints posted that are one paragraph long, but go for 40 lines or more.

Links get us to previously published material in most cases.

I don't know the reason for this new policy, but I can see a few reasons to support it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is great! It also points out the "L" part of Benefitslink.

Short comments that list the highlights of other articles or references are often more useful than a lengthy posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize for my arrogance -- I have the key to most of the buttons and levers that run the software, but it's everybody's community. Thanks for these great comments.

My frustration is with the continued frequent posting of the full text of articles that have been printed in magazines. First, I don't know whether the magazine publisher would permit it. Second, publication of articles is not consistent with the purpose of the message boards. Third, the articles that have been published tend to be have highly promotional aspects, which again is not consistent with the purpose of the message boards. Fourth, the articles generally are from past issues of the magazines, not concerning breaking news. And several users of the message boards have written to me to express their frustration and displeasure with what's been happening. Hence my goal in setting a "policy" is to be clear and public as to what's out of bounds, and to encourage moderators to enforce it.

So the proposed policy is:

"No posting of reprints of the full text of articles published elsewhere. (Government documents are not considered articles.)"

What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the original policy better when the clarification about government documents is included.

Delete one word from the article and it's not the "full text." And I think he'd play that game.

edit: typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll go along with whatever you decide because you "have the key to most of the buttons and levers that run the software". However: (1) It's nice of you to ask for input; (2) there should definitely be a policy related to posting of published materials; and (3) there need to be reasonable allowances when quoting another source is necessary. Seldom is more than a couple of paragraphs required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because BenefitsLink is a publisher, it's smart to be respectful of other publishers' property and rights.

On posting (rather than linking to) an article or other publication, perhaps BenefitsLink should limit that to a short excerpt that is within fair use under U.S. copyright law. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Another use that BenefitsLink might permit is if the poster is the author and still owns the rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Dave.

It is hardly "arrogance" on your part merely because you want to keep your message board from being carpet bombed with multiple postings of nearly identical articles across forums, repeated over and over again.

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
New policy:

No posting of reprints from articles published elsewhere.

If there is going to be a policy change, I would prefer the original new policy, with the clarification that government documents are not considered articles. But, I'm not as optimistic as others seem to be that the individual causing the problem will follow the rules.

Dave, It's your forum. Whatever you decide is OK with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, great rule Dave. It is still a copywrite issue if the author is posting his/her own article?

However, I was wondering, when a Sitewide Moderator executes their power and deletes, moves, or closes a thread, do you get notified?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, great rule Dave. It is still a copywrite issue if the author is posting his/her own article?

Generally not, but it is not uncommon for a publisher to require an author to assign his copyright to the publisher as a condition for publishing the work. (The publisher wants exclusivity, doesn't want a competitor also publishing the work, wants to know it's the first one to publish the work, etc.)

However, I was wondering, when a Sitewide Moderator executes their power and deletes, moves, or closes a thread, do you get notified?

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Kevin C, primarily because of the copyright issues.

If the new policy doesn't stop the carpet bombing, I recommend using "Ignore Posts" under My Controls (credit to Chaz for pointing it out). It's currently my favorite optional feature of the boards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, great rule Dave. It is still a copywrite issue if the author is posting his/her own article?

Then the author should provide and summary and then a link to the full article.

I don't see any purpose of posting full articles on a message board. Say what you want to say, and link to further clarification, expansion, opinion, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see any purpose of posting full articles on a message board.

The purpose is free, nearly effortless marketing. Spammers should be banned, whether their product is pension-related or fake Viagra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest VEBAPLAN

The silent majority have not spoken. They are the 2500 plus views to a post with an article that most of you people object to. By you people I mean 15 or so of you that sell or have friends that sell these scams and object to my posts. The facts are many of your members READ the posts and contact me for more information.

Either you people sell the scams, 419, 412i, captive insurance or section 79 scams, or you defend them, or your friends do. I own copywrites to most of my articles, and books so that point is moot. It is true that most publishers want to own them, but if they want my stuff they dont get to own it. Why go to a link when you can read it all. If it is too long dont read or look, and boy do my posts get looks, lots of them. I also get lots of call, emails and faxes, from your members that want more information. And I have NEVER charged any of them anything. This does not promote my business but HELPS your readers.

Many of your members have also helped me update the many CPE books that I write, and as a result they have gained lots of new business. Some of your members come to see me when I speak at conventions, and that does benefit me. I have however droped my speaking activities from about 60 per year to just a few because I am too busy with my new career of expert witness, my side has never lost a case. I even won for two different defendants that had sold these scams. I felt badly because they were just dumb, and didnt think that they were doing anything wrong.

You people may want to Google Lance Wallach. And I have my information listed in my profile, unlike most of you cowards. I have nothing to hide unlike many of you. I am not refering to Ron or Dave who are good men. It is Daves board and he can do what he wants. I have my board, www.financeExperts.org and I do what I want with limited imput from members.

Thanks for reading this long post, just like you ALL do with my long articles.

Lance Wallach who represents many of the BenefitsLink message boards silent majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there's the problem with the policy - nice idea, but it's not going to reduce the spam. At best it'll change the format - and that assumes voluntary compliance by the spammer.

The policy also doesn't eliminate the misleading use of the "friend" function. If you don't know what I'm talking about, click on the spammer's name and look at his/her profile. That's what the marks will see when curiousity leads them there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest VEBAPLAN

And click on lippys profile and see that he does not list that he promotes abusive tax shelters, he hides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
New policy:

No posting of reprints from articles published elsewhere.

If there is going to be a policy change, I would prefer the original new policy, with the clarification that government documents are not considered articles. But, I'm not as optimistic as others seem to be that the individual causing the problem will follow the rules.

Dave, It's your forum. Whatever you decide is OK with me.

After further review of the arguments against the policy, I continue to support the policy as Kevin C posted, and remain convinced that this policy is consistent with and promotes the purposes of these boards.

I stand with Dave.

For what it's worth, I do not sell or defend investment/insurance/tax shelter/pension/etc. products, including scams, and I have no friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whereas wanting to "educate" people about abusive tax dodges or illegal schemes or explaining the infield fly rule might be altruistic reasons for posting articles, to me, message boards are for just that: messages. Questions & Answers. Maybe some helpful information.

But if that helpful information is going to take up half or more of my screen real estate, it doesn't belong on a message board. Once again, summarize and post a link.

Even if posting entire articles were permitted, whose job would it be to verify the copyright holder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest VEBAPLAN

There are no stupid questions; there are only stupid people.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left.

Do you mind if I copy the above, or is it copyrighted? I have too many friends, want to buy any?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left.

Four lefts make you a NASCAR driver!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...