quote:

Originally posted by IzzyBizzy:
SMom...do I need to check for soft spots in your head?

LOL. Maybe . . .

quote:

Originally posted by IzzyBizzy:

quote:

I was informed that I could lose my standing and be charged with plagiarism...against myself

LMBO monachus. You reminded me of one of my professors in my Ph.d program who was such a stickler. Same thing happened so I put in "self". He was soooo not amused.

LOL...that's fabulous!!

i would also like to humbly request the previously solicited email...my teepee's gettin' drafty

quote:

Worse things have changed before, and we survived... this crowd can do it.

Yes... yes we can. But what is the incentive.

S_S, do any of he people that make these decisions ever really read these boards?

Not just yellow triangles counter, not some bean counting pencil neck geek looking at bandwidth.

Real live people that know the product that they are making decisions about? Or is it just people sitting around a meeting table with folders full of statistics and future risk evaluations.

I've been in corporate for many a year. I know when those that create an idea and are running the show lose their passion and let those that focus on figures but haven't a clue about the product or what really drives their customers run the business. Run it in to the ground.

BTDT

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Opfor6,

quote:

Originally posted by SgtSchaeffersMom:


Did you know that you must even cite something that you have written yourself somewhere else?

Like, if you are writing a college paper, and you use part of something else you wrote in a different paper, that you MUST properly cite it? Seriously, its true.

Now, tell me, truthfully, how many here have cited themselves before?

Only when I tell people that "I told you so."

quote:

Originally posted by Opfor6:

quote:

Originally posted by SgtSchaeffersMom:


Did you know that you must even cite something that you have written yourself somewhere else?

Like, if you are writing a college paper, and you use part of something else you wrote in a different paper, that you MUST properly cite it? Seriously, its true.

Now, tell me, truthfully, how many here have cited themselves before?

Only when I tell people that "I told you so."

quote:

Originally posted by ArtMarsh:

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:
Does this include posting outside images??? If so, bye-bye bikini thread!

LOL! You just beat me to it... they are ALL outside links as are our avatars (for most people).

As for why they are being removed... I suspect that is strictly for reasons of revenue. They may be getting bills from other websites because of some of those links.

At least my avatar belongs to me but no Bikini Thread?

Wouldn't it be easer for Mil dot com to post the names, phone numbers and office addresses of any solicitors that are pestering it.

Someone can take care of them.

There isn't anything like a 7.62 ringing your doorbell from 600m just as you are putting your key in the doorknob.

Ding Dong.

quote:

Originally posted by SgtSchaeffersMom:
USAF, . . . how did you get SO smart?

He's a tool for the man. Part of the establishment. (I'd post a smiley right now but I'm not sure if I'm allowed. I guess I can try a generic :-))

quote:

Originally posted by USAF_76_2_80:

quote:

Originally posted by pken:
U.S.MilVets.com has no such rules. Many folks will go there......is that the mission?

Then it would be up to US.Milvets to deal with the lawyers, wouldn't it?

You think that free speech will out over profits when it comes to the news,information and entertainment entities that are taking web sites to court for infringement of copyright?

And to think at one time I wanted to be a lawyer....damn! Hi ya PJ!

quote:

I think if you do not hot link to a picture, and it meets the usual req. for posting in the 'kini thread (No watermarks, copyright/ownership marks, etc) there shouldn't be a problem.

Wrong. When you DON'T give credit back to the original author, artist, photographer is when you DO have a problem. They come along and see THEIR work posted and no acknowledgement...Mil.com going to have a problem and possibly the poster.

I have had several photographs kited by a site. Just happened to find out by accident. They sorta had to pay me a few bucks.

quote:

Originally posted by Locutisprime:

quote:

Originally posted by TrollhunterX:

quote:

Originally posted by Locutisprime:
Drive by, throw a bomb, light a flame and leave. Like some are already engaged in here, nothing to substantiate the absurd allegations or brazen insults, just the allegations and the taunts and the caveat "prove me wrong!"

I still don't see why the 'left' should be seen as the beneficiaries of the changes. There are imperfections on both sides, but the two worst examples of negative posting I can think of ofhand are rightwingers. Perhaps that's due to a mindset that says 'They will sink to any level to get what they want, so I must sink lower', but it's not healthy.

Which makes you a what?

Which is what I was a-feared of. The assumption that if someone challenges you, or any conservative leaning poster, it must always be a kneejerk reaction, rather than a considered appraisal. You should have noticed by now that I don't go in for the 'burns my butt' invective that some do, or assume that one side of an argument must inevitably be the scum of the earth because of the views they hold. It's not a syrupy screen persona, intended to hack off members who 'really' know how I feel, but believe what you will...

quote:

Which is what I was a-feared of. The assumption that if someone challenges you, or any conservative leaning poster, it must always be a kneejerk reaction, rather than a considered appraisal. You should have noticed by now that I don't go in for the 'burns my butt' invective that some do, or assume that one side of an argument must inevitably be the scum of the earth because of the views they hold. It's not a syrupy screen persona, intended to hack off members who 'really' know how I feel, but believe what you will...

i have seen plenty of this on both sides...sometimes hurled at me from both in the same thread the hit and run attacks, personal slanders, and all around hateful vitriol thrown around by all kinds of people...

...but people need to start seeing this for what it is and that is simply the straw-grasping attempt of someone who hasn't given thought to their positions and isn't intelligent enough to form a reasoned argument. people who do this sort of thing do so because they haven't a leg to stand on...

this is not a partisan issue...this is a human issue...some people are ignorant and ignorance is an equal-opportunity affliction.

quote:

Originally posted by USAF_76_2_80:

quote:

Originally posted by SgtSchaeffersMom:

quote:

Originally posted by USAF_76_2_80:
Many members who used to post on ITN are on the JIVE comment areas under the nice people who provide us with the news on this site.

USAF,

The downside to perusing the JIVE function, means that we are limited to the news articles posted by mil.com, correct?

Only if you want to provide a link.

Otherwise, input it so it doesn't automatically link.

Also, cutting and pasting ENTIRE articles will probably not be cool. I don't think they can stop anyone from brief quotes. That means one should go through the article and pick out some juicy bits that help make your point, not the whole thing.

This is what is sad, posting a few juicy parts and a link is what gets people to go to the other site and is not plagiarism.

what will happen now is larger parts will be posted and probably no attribution. This is plagiarism.

the brass has increased, not decreased their liability with this wonderful idea of theirs.

The no links period is what bothers me, no wikipedia? No government sites? How silly is that?

Is this actually a rule now or is it going to be a rule? I also don't understand the logic that linking will hurt the originator's business. If I link to a CNN article, for example, I will actually help CNN's business. People will click the link and visit CNN.com to read the article. How does that hurt CNN again? Just curious.

This is a bunch of sheisse!

quote:

Originally posted by Nucpolitician:
Is this actually a rule now or is it going to be a rule? I also don't understand the logic that linking will hurt the originator's business. If I link to a CNN article, for example, I will actually help CNN's business. People will click the link and visit CNN.com to read the article. How does that hurt CNN again? Just curious.

This is a bunch of sheisse!

The moment the world starts to make complete sense is the time you really need to worry.

quote:

Originally posted by Nucpolitician:
Is this actually a rule now or is it going to be a rule? I also don't understand the logic that linking will hurt the originator's business. If I link to a CNN article, for example, I will actually help CNN's business. People will click the link and visit CNN.com to read the article. How does that hurt CNN again? Just curious.

This is a bunch of sheisse!

There is legal precedent that hyperlinking is NOT copyright infringement. The concern some companies have is that by linking directly to a page and bypassing the home page reduces revenue. Court rulings have determined that it is not copyright infringement. It isn't about copyright infringment it is about more money for Monster. If they can get rid of links to outside webpages and only allow links to their own news stories, editorials, etc they increase their own revenue. It is all about money, under the guise of something else.

quote:

Originally posted by nspreitler:

quote:

Originally posted by Nucpolitician:
Is this actually a rule now or is it going to be a rule? I also don't understand the logic that linking will hurt the originator's business. If I link to a CNN article, for example, I will actually help CNN's business. People will click the link and visit CNN.com to read the article. How does that hurt CNN again? Just curious.

This is a bunch of sheisse!

There is legal precedent that hyperlinking is NOT copyright infringement. The concern some companies have is that by linking directly to a page and bypassing the home page reduces revenue. Court rulings have determined that it is not copyright infringement. It isn't about copyright infringment it is about more money for Monster. If they can get rid of links to outside webpages and only allow links to their own news stories, editorials, etc they increase their own revenue. It is all about money, under the guise of something else.

Well, what I think will happen (not saying I'll do it... or not) is that people will continue to link the way they always have until they get banned. Then Monster loses patrons (.... and money).

I wonder if Monster knows I skip their homepage to get to this discussion board. Perhaps they should make that against the rules as well.

Or perhaps they should lobby to outlaw "My Favorites". I skip all sorts of homepages because I have other parts of a site saved in "My favorites".

They should probably also forbid me from using my mil.com email. I get emails from all sorts of other web businesses. I might spend my money on them instead of mil.com.

Wow, how will Monster ever get this site up and running at full efficiency without all my money making ideas????

quote:

Originally posted by nspreitler:

quote:

Originally posted by Nucpolitician:
Is this actually a rule now or is it going to be a rule? I also don't understand the logic that linking will hurt the originator's business. If I link to a CNN article, for example, I will actually help CNN's business. People will click the link and visit CNN.com to read the article. How does that hurt CNN again? Just curious.

This is a bunch of sheisse!

There is legal precedent that hyperlinking is NOT copyright infringement. The concern some companies have is that by linking directly to a page and bypassing the home page reduces revenue. Court rulings have determined that it is not copyright infringement. It isn't about copyright infringment it is about more money for Monster. If they can get rid of links to outside webpages and only allow links to their own news stories, editorials, etc they increase their own revenue. It is all about money, under the guise of something else.

I almost forgot.... Provide link to the precedence please.

quote:

Originally posted by nspreitler:

There is legal precedent that hyperlinking is NOT copyright infringement. The concern some companies have is that by linking directly to a page and bypassing the home page reduces revenue. Court rulings have determined that it is not copyright infringement. It isn't about copyright infringment it is about more money for Monster. If they can get rid of links to outside webpages and only allow links to their own news stories, editorials, etc they increase their own revenue. It is all about money, under the guise of something else.

Well put.

Citing articles and such usually falls under fair use. Especially so when the source is linked to, rather than citing a substantial amount of the article. As the Wikipedia article above shortly explains, linking also increases the exposure of the originals (also contributing to fair use).

Of course, there is the issue of linking to images and especially videos. If the content that is linked to infringes copyrights, then it might be considered an infringement to link to it (in the US).

The new rules are more likely to increase copyright infringements (regarding text material). So I have to agree - this is just about increasing Monster's revenue.

quote:

Originally posted by Locutisprime:
I for one find this change of direction exceedingly curious. Especially in the middle of the current presidential campaign.

It strikes me as the doors are being flung open to a Dodge City style of unchecked and unsupported bias and name calling that leaves no room for challenge or substance or rebuttal. Other than biting kicking screaming rants back and forth and supported by nothing other that who will attempt to out last the other via personal attacks and the use of vitriol. And that doesn't even begin to consider the wolf packs and cliques that will form for supposedly savaging the individual unable or unskilled enough to protect themselves.

If that is the path that the supposed "powers that be" want this forum to take? Then I say, "You know what? It is their forum and they are more than welcome to do as they damn well please." Just don't be surprised when the forums here cease to be anything other than the soapboxes of the left and those whose only objective is to rant. Because that is precisely all you will have left.

Sounds like you will be right at home with your right-winged banter.

quote:

Originally posted by SgtSchaeffersMom:
USAF, . . . how did you get SO smart?

Check out the sheepskin in the lower center of the picture.....I think he bought it.



J/K How is that edjumacation going???

Oh for Pete’s sake people, you can still post your links and demand your proof; you simply cannot LINK to the cited source. Anyone can still cut and past the address into their browser, visit the page and check your source. Hell, it is actually easier to post a link this way than by using that damn URL feature. Simply put quotations or an asterisk around the link.

We have all had to support some dumb command decisions. That is what you are being asked to do here so just do it. We also have a voice. If you don’t like the policy, email Rob and tell him why you think it is a bad idea and offer solutions. If someone knows of legal precedent being set, tell Rob about it.

Finally, you can always leave. No one is compelled to visit this site. There are plenty of them out there. There is a reason you come here though, and it isn’t for the ability to link. The “fundamentals” of the message board ARE still strong. Take it or leave it (or ***** about it)

quote:

Originally posted by nspreitler:

There is legal precedent that hyperlinking is NOT copyright infringement. The concern some companies have is that by linking directly to a page and bypassing the home page reduces revenue. Court rulings have determined that it is not copyright infringement. It isn't about copyright infringment it is about more money for Monster. If they can get rid of links to outside webpages and only allow links to their own news stories, editorials, etc they increase their own revenue. It is all about money, under the guise of something else.

BINGO! Right on the money (sorry for the pun). Not really a guise, they are being honest to the Mods why they are doing this, we are keeping that to ourselves for now so as to not raise hopes only to see them dashed by lack of future action.

I work for a internet company. We do not have discussion forums per se but do have user content areas but we are doing similar with external links (out the door they go) on our website.

So this is not just a military.com thing. It's a trend on the Internet.

Roughly akin to a supermarket arranging it's floor layout so that you have to walk past all the nonsense items at the checkout. Placing higher priced items at adult eye level and lower priced items lower OR placing the sugar laden kiddie cereals at kid eye level.

quote:

Originally posted by ErichG2:

quote:

Originally posted by nspreitler:

There is legal precedent that hyperlinking is NOT copyright infringement. The concern some companies have is that by linking directly to a page and bypassing the home page reduces revenue. Court rulings have determined that it is not copyright infringement. It isn't about copyright infringment it is about more money for Monster. If they can get rid of links to outside webpages and only allow links to their own news stories, editorials, etc they increase their own revenue. It is all about money, under the guise of something else.

BINGO! Right on the money (sorry for the pun). Not really a guise, they are being honest to the Mods why they are doing this, we are keeping that to ourselves for now so as to not raise hopes only to see them dashed by lack of future action.

I work for a internet company. We do not have discussion forums per se but do have user content areas but we are doing similar with external links (out the door they go) on our website.

So this is not just a military.com thing. It's a trend on the Internet.

Roughly akin to a supermarket arranging it's floor layout so that you have to walk past all the nonsense items at the checkout. Placing higher priced items at adult eye level and lower priced items lower OR placing the sugar laden kiddie cereals at kid eye level.

Thank you for muddying the water for us. The fact that the mods know the reason for this and we don't really makes it much easier to swallow.

Reminds me of when my mom used to tell me "You'll understand when you're older".

If I was a deer your answer would be the equivalent of going from low to high beams.

quote:

One MAJOR change that is coming is that NO OUTSIDE LINKS WILL BE ALLOWED

THIS MEANS THAT UNLESS YOU are linking within Military.com, to a "dot-mil" website or to one found in our Military and Veteran Associations page, OUTSIDE LINKS ARE NOT ALLOWED.

That's very restrictive for our members to not be able to use news worthy reports from the press. There have been many verifable posts that do not make it to mil.com until days after like associated press, cnn etc even bbc a good example is the hurricanes that went through the gulf recently military.com did not carry many of those newsworthy articles and photo's if we the users may make suggestions to the administrators to consider before they input this policy it may be taken into consideration

quote:

Originally posted by 2nd_freedomfighter:

quote:

Originally posted by nspreitler:

There is legal precedent that hyperlinking is NOT copyright infringement. The concern some companies have is that by linking directly to a page and bypassing the home page reduces revenue. Court rulings have determined that it is not copyright infringement. It isn't about copyright infringment it is about more money for Monster. If they can get rid of links to outside webpages and only allow links to their own news stories, editorials, etc they increase their own revenue. It is all about money, under the guise of something else.

Well put.

Citing articles and such usually falls under fair use. Especially so when the source is linked to, rather than citing a substantial amount of the article. As the Wikipedia article above shortly explains, linking also increases the exposure of the originals (also contributing to fair use).

Of course, there is the issue of linking to images and especially videos. If the content that is linked to infringes copyrights, then it might be considered an infringement to link to it (in the US).

The new rules are more likely to increase copyright infringements (regarding text material). So I have to agree - this is just about increasing Monster's revenue.

I would think posting a link is, in fact, an intentional act of giving credit to the source, rather than any act of intentional or accidental plagiarism....the same as putting an end note/foot note in a research paper. How any site could consider such an effort to be copyright infringement is beyond me, since providing the link shows an intentional effort to give credit where credit is due.... My opinion is based on teaching Honors English/Research Writing for 30 years.

Sounds to me like somebody is running scared instead of getting the ACLU involved and going after someone on Constitutional grounds of fair use/free speech/public domain...

The public has the "right" to discuss any topic, ad nauseam, to determine all aspects of how it affects their freedoms, quality of life, etc. etc.; and that right supersedes any selfish/greedy cries of ownership on any topic... That is called "Freedom of Speech". All we want to do here is air our views in a public forum against the sounding board of other readers/contributors across the nation to get a sense of the public pulse. That is so essential to a free society, that I would think someone would be willing to stand up against censorship and tell them to go screw themselves!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

NNNaaaah!

quote:

Originally posted by SeaWitch1220:
Oh for Pete’s sake people, you can still post your links and demand your proof; you simply cannot LINK to the cited source. Anyone can still cut and past the address into their browser, visit the page and check your source. Hell, it is actually easier to post a link this way than by using that damn URL feature. Simply put quotations or an asterisk around the link.

We have all had to support some dumb command decisions. That is what you are being asked to do here so just do it. We also have a voice. If you don’t like the policy, email Rob and tell him why you think it is a bad idea and offer solutions. If someone knows of legal precedent being set, tell Rob about it.

Finally, you can always leave. No one is compelled to visit this site. There are plenty of them out there. There is a reason you come here though, and it isn’t for the ability to link. The “fundamentals” of the message board ARE still strong. Take it or leave it (or ***** about it)

Without any necessity to substantiate a statement, things are going to get sublime. Oh goody!

quote:

Originally posted by ss_287:

quote:

One MAJOR change that is coming is that NO OUTSIDE LINKS WILL BE ALLOWED

THIS MEANS THAT UNLESS YOU are linking within Military.com, to a "dot-mil" website or to one found in our Military and Veteran Associations page, OUTSIDE LINKS ARE NOT ALLOWED.

That's very restrictive for our members to not be able to use news worthy reports from the press. There have been many verifable posts that do not make it to mil.com until days after like associated press, cnn etc even bbc a good example is the hurricanes that went through the gulf recently military.com did not carry many of those newsworthy articles and photo's if we the users may make suggestions to the administrators to consider before they input this policy it may be taken into consideration

And some stories don't make it at all. Most important point!

I'm simply amazed that there have been so many comments!!