Basketball - Blue Ribbon Preview

[reeder]

Deleted the article.

 

I'm not a lawyer and don't want to get caught up in the legal conversations.

 

My excitement with posting it was that it was the only article that I read that provided a truly objective view of UA basketball (and AE basketball in general).

Edited October 27, 2004 by reeder

[olddog71]

Good, honest review of our potential.

 

It should be an interesting season.

 

Thanks, Reeder, for providing the review.

[Patch]

That was a nice article.

 

I think this will be the Danes "First" true DI team.

 

Brown seems very excited and positive.

 

It is great to have him say that "Der Big Man" is better than he expected.

 

"I love him," Brown said. "He's even better than I thought.

 

"Teams are going to have to play our perimeter guys one-on-one because we've got a 7-1 kid in the middle that's going to demand a double-team," - Brown

 

Let's hope Wilson, Jordan and Zoellner dispose of the rust from sitting a year and perform to their abilities.

 

Chemistry, Chemistry, Chemistry!!!!!!!!

[Dane Pound]

That is a great preview. The other stuff I've seen has been a waste of time compared to that.

 

If you can take Levine being described as a 4 as a hint for the starting lineup. It sounds like maybe Iati, Wilson, Jordan, Levine and Zoellner will start with Perry, Q and Wyatt the first ones off the bench.

 

Going from the roster weight on the website Wilson, Iati and Q have gained 10 lbs since last year.

Edited October 26, 2004 by Dane Pound

[BrindleDane]

thanks for the info that other people pay 3.95 orwhatever a month to read on espn.com ... most message bords dont let you post stuff like that if it wasnt free on another site.

 

one question: why is everything centered on this site? it makes it hard to read a long post like that. is that an optin I can turn off??

[Dane96]

Unfortunately it is not an option you can turn off. Technically, that Blue Ribbon post cannot be cut and pasted. It had to have been put in quotes (the whole thing) to get around reproduction copyright laws.

[BrindleDane]

actually since its a pay-service article, you cant copy it even with quotation marks. its copyrighted and you need to get permission to copy it regardless of citation. if you could link to it, you can quote a portion (not all) of the article, but since it's a pay service and you cant even link to it, you can't put any of it at all.

 

technically. i just looked it up to make sure. we learned this in a research class that i took, since the internet is being used as a source so often now

[Dane96]

Technically you do not. IP law my man, IP law! You know more than most though.

[BrindleDane]

thats untrue. you cant copy and paste an entire copyrighted work, even if you cite the author and quotation mark it.

 

you can only use a limited portion of the article, and you have to secure permission from the author even for that.

 

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_...ter6/index.html

 

Copyright infringement occurs whenever copyrighted material is transferred to or from a website without authorization from the copyright owner. Transferring information to and from a website can be done in a few ways. A user can take information from a website by copying or downloading. Or, material can be placed (sometimes called "uploaded" or "posted") from a user's computer onto the website. Any time copyrighted information is transferred to or from a website without authorization from the owner, the owner may have a copyright infringement claim against the copier, the website or both.

[BrindleDane]

Here is another site. i dont wnat the owner of this site to get into trouble:

 

http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article...5897F115FEEB097

[Dane96]

Guy, I dont want to argue with you, you seem alright but let me englighten you instead.

 

The BASICS:

Federal copyright law finds its basis in the Constitution. The Copyright Clause provides that: "The Congress shall have Power . . . To Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Copyright law as developed in the United States encourages and rewards creative expression.A copyright owner has the exclusive right to reproduce the work or to create copies. In the online context, reproduction is the creation of a copy of the online site content, whether a pictorial or graphic work, a musical work, an audiovisual work, a sound recording, or the Web page itself. Exactly how such a copy is effected via linking and framing raises interesting questions. Theoretically, because an individual's server makes copies of the original Web site, that user is infringing the site's copyright.

 

Fair use is a defense to copyright infringement.Courts consider four factors in determining whether an infringement is a fair use:(1) the purpose and character of the use; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work, including whether such use is of a commercial nature . . .; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

 

Only COPYRIGHTED INFO is infringeable. Just because a site publishes a report does not automatically give it protection. If that were the case, you wouldn't be able to photocopy a book, newspaper, magazine, etc.

 

Second, the law is not even established fully on the topic. US District courts are not bound to each others decisions, hence where the USSC (Supreme Court) comes in. The Supreme Court has not ruled conclusively on such an issue.

 

Third, the ESPN site is probably copyright protected. A "poorman's" way of getting around the protection is by quoting or linking. The links you provide are not law, they are "ideas" or general information sites to help the laymen. It is not conclusive of the law, hence a "quoted" portion of a copyright protected article could probably pass the courts muster of someone asking for the protection of the federal copright law. In essence, however, because the info was taken from a pay portion of the site, our friend here could get in a wee bit of hotwater....but not much.

 

Fourth, to get copyright protection you need to get a registration certificate....something lacking for 98% of web material. W/o that, you can copy all day long.

 

Fifth, linking does not protect you from a copright suit. In fact, at least one court has arguably created a First Amendment "right to hyperlink." All that means is that you can post whatever you want. The only reason you dont hear much about this legal right is because the hyperlinked site is benefiting by the free advertising.

 

Finally, the latest of a long line of protective acts is called the Digital Millenium Act. Interesting but long reading.

 

BTW, Brindle welcome aboard to our fun site. In case you were wondering, if all goes well I will be sworn in as a NYS attorney in a few weeks. If you want some intersting info on the topic I can direct you to legitimate holdings of the court.

[Dane Pound]

I appreciate both of your concern for the well-being of the site. I actually didn't know where the story came from and was probably better off. I suspect if Blue Ribbon or whoever were going to take action they would simply suspend whoever copied it from their site but I may be wrong.

 

I'll look into it but I hope I don't have to track down the source of everything posted here.