quote:

Originally posted by SgtSchaeffersMom:
I thought that if you posted a link, that it was a GOOD thing, because then readers could click and get to the original site, where all the advertisers are. . . . thereby assuaging the original site's objections to using their materials, because they felt we were shortchanging their advertisers.

Yeah, mom, that is my thoughts too. With no more linking to sites permitted, will the hit count of those sites suffer? I'd think sites which should prosper with exposure would want as many links to them as possible...it's like free advertising for the site. I get the idea of plagerism and posting elsewhere without due credit and reward going to the original site being undesirable, but this truely mystifies me.

Just gotta rec'anize that money talks and BS walks. If the money in here finds they've taken a hit by instituting these changes, they'll change again. "Change is the only constant". Meanwhile, maybe, some of the BS will walk.

and I did send an E-mail to the administrator with my suggestions houw about you???

quote:

Originally posted by nspreitler:
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! We have a winner! Let's not forget the time that they came out and said that you weren't allowed to post hyperlinks in ITN ONLY. That it was fine anywhere else. And their reasoning......drumroll......COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

That is the exact reason.

OK, so no more outside linking, got it.

Didn't read the whole thread, but have a question...

What about posting pictures?

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.

Are you sure of that? Can yuou support that? Would you post a link....never mind.

quote:

Originally posted by Killswitch_Engage:
OK, so no more outside linking, got it.

Didn't read the whole thread, but have a question...

What about posting pictures?

If you use your own image hosting site, (imageshack, smugmug, photobucket, etc) shouldn't be a problem if you stick to the usual rules about no copyright marks, etc.

"Hot linking" (copying the the original site URL and posting it as an image) is probably against the rules.

What happened to the various Read & Heeds, as well as other warning stickies?

Has management decided to solely use the TOS as the guide to acceptable/unacceptable behavior?

I will mention again that LINKING is not going to be allowed. However, posting an ADDRESS is ok.
This is a link:
www.military.com

address:
military.com, or (www.military.com)

You can still give attribution, just don't type it in to the reply box so it is automatically formatted into a URL link

quote:

Originally posted by PhoenixDark:
What happened to the various Read & Heeds, as well as other warning stickies?

Has management decided to solely use the TOS as the guide to acceptable/unacceptable behavior?

Yep.

quote:

Originally posted by Silent_Surface:
As I said.... change is coming, and it's from the very top, so, we will deal with it and make the best out of it.

With this crowd, I am sure we can make it work.

I don't know about anyone else, but I reserve my right to snivel!!!

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.

Gotta agree with Loco on this one. All except the "soapboxes of the left" of course.

quote:

Originally posted by USAF_76_2_80:

quote:

Originally posted by PhoenixDark:
What happened to the various Read & Heeds, as well as other warning stickies?

Has management decided to solely use the TOS as the guide to acceptable/unacceptable behavior?

Yep.

I take it they didn't think the various rules for various forums was a good idea then.......

Back to the wild wild west.

quote:

How does that hurt CNN again?

Since advertising fees are based on web traffic, advertisers want to see proof (view counts) that the web site they are advertising on actually get looked at, or at least get clicked on.

A link is no proof someone actually looked at their site. Also, if the article/video/etc is reproduced in its entirety here, they have a pretty strong case for copyright infringment.

Fair Use covers brief quotes and summarization of an article, but does not allow for the ENTIRE article to be reproduced without permission.

Call it whatever you want, Monster being greedy or lawyer double-talk, the fact remains that the site directors want linking left out of posts on the discussion boards.

Send military.com a email (contact us) if you don't approve. I personally do not like it, but it is more from a resistance to change than an actual inconvenience.

I can remember when members were riled because milcom dropped the quick link to the discussion boards at the top of the home page. It didn't stop many from quickly adapting to the new procedure.

quote:

I take it they didn't think the various rules for various forums was a good idea then.......

Back to the wild wild west.

Actually, the Directors want uniform rules that apply to members board wide.

And as to "Wild West" don't be ridiculous. Tell me that everything is an old ladies garden party as it is now.

quote:

Originally posted by PhoenixDark:

quote:

Originally posted by USAF_76_2_80:

quote:

Originally posted by PhoenixDark:
What happened to the various Read & Heeds, as well as other warning stickies?

Has management decided to solely use the TOS as the guide to acceptable/unacceptable behavior?

Yep.

I take it they didn't think the various rules for various forums was a good idea then.......

Back to the wild wild west.

I think you can see by all the warnings and suspentions that something is not going well on the boards. If people had stopped the attacks on each other we wouldn't have made the changes. Not to mention the hyperlinks

Mainedawg
Moderator

Are mods still going to patrol the AO?

quote:

Originally posted by mainedawg:

quote:

Originally posted by PhoenixDark:

quote:

Originally posted by USAF_76_2_80:

quote:

Originally posted by PhoenixDark:
What happened to the various Read & Heeds, as well as other warning stickies?

Has management decided to solely use the TOS as the guide to acceptable/unacceptable behavior?

Yep.

I take it they didn't think the various rules for various forums was a good idea then.......

Back to the wild wild west.

I think you can see by all the warnings and suspentions that something is not going well on the boards. If people had stopped the attacks on each other we wouldn't have made the changes. Not to mention the hyperlinks

Mainedawg
Moderator

It's kinda starting to echo the Military. Somebody steps on it and We all have to suffer, except We don't get to have a blanket party.

quote:

Originally posted by USAF_76_2_80:
I will mention again that LINKING is not going to be allowed. However, posting an ADDRESS is ok.
This is a link:
www.military.com

address:
military.com, or (www.military.com)

You can still give attribution, just don't type it in to the reply box so it is automatically formatted into a URL link

That's actually not that bad (I guess I should've read the whole thread before posting). It'll just make it a bit more cumbersome and less likely that people will check the links posted - which I guess is the whole idea so users won't be directed outside.

Possibly a stupid question:

Why don't they just remove the URL-feature? So that when people type in an address when they post a message, it doesn't automatically create a link, and the URL-tag wouldn't do anything.

That way you wouldn't even have to make it a rule, or check for links in future messages.

quote:

Originally posted by USAF_76_2_80:

quote:

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

LOL, I am hardly that,...

Never heard of an AF guy saying THAT!

quote:

Why don't they just remove the URL-feature? So that when people type in an address when they post a message, it doesn't automatically create a link, and the URL-tag wouldn't do anything.

When the software for the site was produced, it was embedded because at the time (over 10 years ago) the copyright thing was not an issue, and the developers probably thought it would make things easier for members.

Unfortunately, it is something that cannot be modified, according to the gurus.

what's that other military sites address.

quote:

Originally posted by rpschnecksr:
what's that other military sites address.

You are leaving? Such a shame!

quote:

Originally posted by USAF_76_2_80:

quote:

Originally posted by Killswitch_Engage:
OK, so no more outside linking, got it.

Didn't read the whole thread, but have a question...

What about posting pictures?

If you use your own image hosting site, (imageshack, smugmug, photobucket, etc) shouldn't be a problem if you stick to the usual rules about no copyright marks, etc.

"Hot linking" (copying the the original site URL and posting it as an image) is probably against the rules.

GOTCHA ! No outside links- that should curb all the you-tube links I hate so much, but no 'hot-linking' to pic hosting sites is going to make everyone see ALL pics whether they want to or not, at least the hot-link gives one the option to view a particular pic.

Could monster enable 'shot' tags ? It'd be nice if a pic was postage stamp size until you clicked on the pic and would make some posts much easier to read.

Guess I'll stop using the 'url' and 'pic' tags and only post links as text (cut and paste to your browser as needed).

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

quote:

Originally posted by hooah71:

quote:

Originally posted by nspreitler:
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! We have a winner! Let's not forget the time that they came out and said that you weren't allowed to post hyperlinks in ITN ONLY. That it was fine anywhere else. And their reasoning......drumroll......COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

That is the exact reason.

This policy from Rob was first floated in ITN, and I thought it ludicrous there. And I stopped going to ITN or other forums where this policy was in place.

I've listened to a lot of things that have come down "from the very top" over the past 33 years. Some of it true, some of it not true, some of it good, and most of it not good. Especially bad were the snap decisions sourced from lawyers and announced from on high by "management".

There's a lot of "it's the law" going around when it's really "the money" and "the revenues"...that's my experience. Sometimes it's "the politics"....I wonder what the real root cause is in this action?

Here's the funny part, military.com provides the radio button to imbed links into a post, and then asks the moderators to clamp down on members that use that button.

I just checked, it's still there. If they were serious about this, then they would have immediately disabled the very tool that enables this "misbehavior". But that didn't happen.

Personally, I think this is a bad move on the part of "Management".

But that is what "Management" is all about, that's why they don't call it "Leadership".

I skeptically wait to see what the impact of this "new policy" will be, but I think I can guess.

"For it's Tommy this, and Tommy that,
An' "Chuck him out, the brute!",
But it's "Savior of his Country!"
When the guns begin to shoot."

(too bad I didn't include the link)

quote:

Originally posted by USAF_76_2_80:

quote:

Originally posted by Killswitch_Engage:
OK, so no more outside linking, got it.

Didn't read the whole thread, but have a question...

What about posting pictures?

If you use your own image hosting site, (imageshack, smugmug, photobucket, etc) shouldn't be a problem if you stick to the usual rules about no copyright marks, etc.

"Hot linking" (copying the the original site URL and posting it as an image) is probably against the rules.

But USAF_76_2_80, Silent Surface said the following in the original message:

quote:

Originally posted by Silent Surface: 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.

Unless I am wrong, ones own image hosting site, (imageshack, smugmug, photobucket, etc) are not part of the "Military.com, to a "dot-mil" website or to one found in our Military and Veteran Associations page" and should (according the this change) be considered an outside link. And since the new rule will be "OUTSIDE LINKS ARE NOT ALLOWED" this will include photos hosted on private image hosting sites.

Disregard all of this if image hosting sites such as imageshack, smugmug, photobucket, etc... are a part of the Military.com, a "dot-mil" website or one of our Military and Veteran Associations pages.

quote:

Originally posted by dmuhler:

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.

As usual, you miss the point entirely and purposely and in fact make my point for me by example. As for what it sounds like to you? Another example of the not listening tin ear syndrome pal. Try listening up and you will notice the absence of myself and others and the sound of crickets around here shortly.

quote:

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 think this comment has come closer to the mark than anything that I have seen in five pages or 24 hours of comments.


Do excuse me now friends, as I have some housekeeping of my own to attend to, as I have company coming.

I have enjoyed the banter on this site for several years. With this change to NO external links, the news and referrences will be limited to what the editorial board of military.com decide is either notworthy or approprate. When it is implimented I suspect I won't be the only member gone!

They’ve tried this before and it didn't pass the smell test then either:

Should "no topic post links to news sites" be adopted as P/CP policy?

http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/672198221/m/1110092181001/p/1

There is no "legal basis" for discontinuing the use of links to sites owned by other companies other than to drive up Monster's own revenues.

If there was even a hint that their copyright infringement reason was for real, the policy would be implemented immediately, and moderaters would be busy for weeks attempting to eliminate every link that had ever been posted in this forums.

They aren't, so what does that tell you?

I wish they had not permanantly banned Machiavellean, but they have... Mach knew exactly how linking to other sites (in the manner described by Military Advantage) was not a violation of any copyright law. Unfortunantly, I cannot find his old post regarding it. I'll keep digging.