What is the correct netiquette regarding linking/pasting articles?

[Rick Nebiolo]

In my thread below "MMMMMM" (did I get the number of M's right?) complained that I should have pasted the entire article rather than just providing a link.

What is the correct netiquette and what complies with copyright law? In other words:

1) Providing a link seems like it would comply with both netiquette and copyright.

2) Copying an article wholesale seems to violate copyright and is questionable netiquette.

3) Providing a link and copying the article below *seems* like it would be good netiquette but I'm not sure that satisfies copyright.

As some of you may be aware, I always endeavor to follow "excruciatingly correct behavior", but sometimes I get a bit lost /images/graemlins/grin.gif Help me here /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

~ Rick

[GWB]

The policy at DU (Democratic Underground) and FR (Free Republic) is to link the article and quote up to 4 paragraphs of your choice. These are the largest liberal and consevative boards out there (2+2 is tiny in comparison), and thee standards meet muster with the online news sites' "fair use" standard.

At 2+2 I often post the entire article if the site requires registration (for ease of use for 2+2ers), unless only a part of the article is of interest. Because 2+2 is small and the number of linked articles are few, we are not of much concern to the online news providers.

Routinely pasting the entire article is probably a technical copywrite violation. Just like a book reviewer is allowed to quote a limited amount of the book, we are allowed to quote a limited amount of an article without fear of copywrite issues.

[Clarkmeister]

"Routinely pasting the entire article is probably a technical copywrite violation. "

Correct. Not only that, it costs the source websites hits (revenue) that they are entitled to.

[IrishHand]

Pasting an entire article is very poor netiquette. Link the article, provide whatever highlights and comments you desire and leave it at that. When you paste the article, you're screwing both the source of the article and every person who'd rather not waste time loading screens that are far longer than they need to be.

[MMMMMM]

I don't know, Rick.

I used to laboriously post excerpts but that seemed to make the discussions less whole than they otherwise might have been. There is also the problem with things being used out of context especially in debate style.

I used to post only excerpts specifically because of concern for copyright issues, but then the suggestion was made to post whole articles and it seemed sensible to me. It also seems to me that since we are posting excerpts or articles for discussion rather than for commercial purposes, it doesn't make me especially feel like anyone's work is being ripped off or anything like that.

Is it wrong, legally or otherwise, to post an article for discussion on Usenet, like on RGP?

Is it wrong to post a poem for discussion if the poem is still under copyright and express permission was not requested?

I don't know the answers and I suspect a lot of it may be somewhat gray area. Some of it may be technically a violation but no or little harm done--I just don't know all the details or implications.

When I post articles (or excerpts) for discussion I always include a link so anyone seeking more can go to the source.

I'd also bet that the authors of most political articles would be pretty happy to get their article and name more widely discussed and known. Some might not be, of course, but I can't imagine who.

The point someone raised about link-clicks being lost for the source is valid I would think.

Trying to discuss things by "excerpt only" is time-consuming, unwieldy and frequently an impediment to good discussion or debate.

Let's take that article you linked to. If we were to have an in-depth discussion about it, it would be far more unwieldy to do it by excerpt. Even if everyone went off and read it on their own, if it was a hot or controversial subject and generated a lot of discussion and references, not being able to post it in whole as part of the discussion would be really cumbersome and inducive to error.

Finally, is posting things for discussion in a public web forum actually the same as copying them in a book?

I don't know. I would suggest doing what you prefer or feel best about.

I also have a grudge against these sites that require registration. They generally don't have anything better or more exclusive than many other sources so to me it seems obnoxious of them to require it--as if people don't have enough crap and passwords to deal with already. Their site doesn't contain the secret to making billions of dollars, or the formula for the fountain of youth, or whatever. They don't even contain proprietary financial or technical information that is sold for a price. They just want to force you into their obnoxious mode of marketing. So yes part of my position is screw these obnoxious "registration required" news sites. But of course that is not the main issue.

[riverflush]

Always provide a link to the article and you'll never need to worry about whether what you're doing is "right" or "wrong" - it's been a long-established, generally accepted principle that pretty much anything goes as long as you link-back.

The whole idea of blogs and internet self-publishing is to provide multiple channels to similar content - redundancy. Mainstream blogs regularly quote entire articles, but credit is properly given and a link-back is always provided.

[Rick Nebiolo]

In the original "Not Another Soviet Union" thread 2+2 poster "wacki" wrote:

"just use

www.BugMeNot.com (http://www.BugMeNot.com) "

I've briefly looked at this link but wonder if in its own way using it violates netiquette.

Given most Internet access accounts include several email addresses, what I do (and what I assume most of us do) is keep a separate email address for all registrations and online purchases. This isolates most of the spam associated with registration. OTOH, why don't these sites make it easy to opt out of spam (and honor requests that you don't want it).

~ Rick

[MMMMMM]

Yes, I would think bugmenot violates Netiquette--but then I also think the W. Post and LA Times violate Netiquette, too;-)

BTW, Rick, sorry if my original post in response to your posted link was too blunt.

Anyway, I am now interested in riverflush's contention that blogs everywhere have long been posting articles in full and that if you also include a link you are not in violation.

Any rebuttals to riverflush, anyone?

[riverflush]

Most blogs will not post an entire article - but you will see it semi-frequently, especially when they are offering point-by-point rebuttals.

You are also on point when you say that the LA Times and Wash Post violate the spirit of the Internet by requiring registration...you won't get many arguments on that topic by bloggers. They HATE registrations. It's been a prickly issue since the late 90s.

If you want an "authoritative" answer to your questions on these issues, email Glenn Reynolds - the "Blogfather" - and ask him. Glenn publishes Instapundit.com (http://instapundit.com) - and is a University of Tennessee law professor.