Hive talking bout Stingtalk post.....

[Ish]

semi-related topic: gapanther1 annoys the crap out of me

 

[JacketDan]

So poeple on the Insiders Board for every school are stupid?

If they did it, because they thought they were getting behind the castle walls for exclusive information then yes. If they did it because of :

What I want is the interviews mostly, plus as you said, not as many idiots in the conversation. I do like the reports from gp1 and others who talk with recruits and coaches and monitor practices, etc.

Then I find it understandable. The exclusive interviews and practice reports can make it justifiable for some and not others. I just don't like the attitude that some thing the Insiders subscription somehow means they are the only ones that get to learn things ever. Maybe they are the only ones that know early, but griping because information got out is just silly.

 

[odw]

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=140&f=2938&t=4435527


I can tell you to me the internet = free stuff. The wall street journal is the only thing on the net I pay for and that is under protest.

In fact I don't like paying for the internet, cable, and electricity.

I want higher quality at LOWER PRICES! :laugher:


If you do happen to pay for hive insiders I would expect you to come over here and help a brother out.

I equate that to when at the games (have headphone and listen to wes) and someone asks me a score I tell you the score.

Why would anyone want to pay for sports info? There are numerous people that will report on it for free b/c they support the team.

:twocents:


also another thread

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=140&f=2938&t=4434916

+1000. Totally agree. Call me cheap but I ALWAYS look to get out of paying money. I have more than enough stuff I HAVE to pay for.

 

[lonestarjacket]

I also understand that if those guys get the info, others can too, and that everything will be public knowledge pretty quickly. But just like ripping off copyright info is bad form, so is that.

Ripping off copyright material is not just "bad form"; it is illegal.

If you don't want people to pass on news they get on a board, then make it part of the terms of membership. Then give refunds and kick out those who don't abide. (I wouldn't participate under those terms because I don't want to track what I heard where and worry about it.)

Getting upset because someone else knows something you thought was "special" information is silly. Protecting the value of your product is not.

 

[law_bee]

What Cannot be Copyrighted?

• Works in the public domain:
  • Ideas are in the public domain.
  • Facts are in the public domain.
  • Words, names, slogans, or other short phrases also cannot be copyrighted. However, slogans, for example, can be protected by trademark law.
  • Blank forms.
  • Government works, which include:
    • Judicial opinions.
    • Public ordinances.
    • Administrative rulings.
  • Works created by federal government employees as part of their official responsibility.
  • Works for which copyright wasn't obtained or copyright has expired (extremely rare!).

http://www.umuc.edu/library/copy.shtml#no

It is ridiculous to think you can copyright basic facts? Have you ever heard of the Drudgereport? He became a millionaire reporting other people's stories and linking to there articles but HE LISTS THE HEADLINES ON HIS WEBSITE which contains INFORMATION!

There are numerous articles on the legality of "linking" and I can tell you that it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY the courts are ever going to have a problem with this.

I think what people are arguing is they pay for exclusive content however that is between them and that provider. It has nothing to do with Stingtalk.

ANYONE can read anything ANYWHERE and then come on stingtalk and say "I just read on the hive that someone got hurt or etc."

That is exactly what Drudge does even though the AP has stated they disagree I don't think anyone actually believes a court is going to say you cannot "link" or blog or comment or etc.

 

[ncjacket]

law, who said anything about copyriighting anything? Or about anything being illegal for that matter?

 

[ncjacket]

Ripping off copyright material is not just "bad form"; it is illegal.

If you don't want people to pass on news they get on a board, then make it part of the terms of membership. Then give refunds and kick out those who don't abide. (I wouldn't participate under those terms because I don't want to track what I heard where and worry about it.)

Getting upset because someone else knows something you thought was "special" information is silly. Protecting the value of your product is not.

Are you talking to me? I'm not upset...I just think it's bad form.

 

[lonestarjacket]

Are you talking to me? I'm not upset...I just think it's bad form.

No, I was just saying that one thing is illegal and the other may be "bad form."

I would understand the owner of a site wanting to protect content as much as possible to protect value. I don't understand "Insiders" getting upset because "Outsiders" get the same info at times.

It is up to the site owner to enforce the rules of the site, whatever they may be.

Some of the fonts complaining remind me of kids tattling who misbehaved to the teacher.

 

[floridajacket]

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=140&f=2938&t=4435527


I can tell you to me the internet = free stuff. The wall street journal is the only thing on the net I pay for and that is under protest.

Not that you need to pay for WSJ either. A little known legal hack: copy a headline, paste it in a google search. The Google News headline should be the first result and it will take you to an ungated article. WSJ does it so they're indexed on google news.

I liked the insider board a lot when I was there a few years ago and I was a lot more into recruiting. Maybe I could have gotten the information from scouring other places, but it was typically first on Insiders, at least back then. I only canceled because my interest in recruiting waned significantly.

 

[beej67]

Data wants to be free.