Links to outside news - Topic Powered by eve community

That's hardly a way to run a forum for debate is it?
Maybe I've misunderstood, but how can one provide evidence of a claim made in debate if the article/news report is offsite?
Can you clarify?

Posts: 4023 | Registered: Thu 08 December 2005

Ignored post by Squizzer posted

L0A1

Member

Posted

I think he is talking about STARTING topics from other news sources.

quote:
Originally posted by Squizzer:
That's hardly a way to run a forum for debate is it?
Maybe I've misunderstood, but how can one provide evidence of a claim made in debate if the article/news report is offsite?
Can you clarify?

Posts: 1747 | Registered: Sat 03 March 2007

Ignored post by L0A1 posted

Highly Experienced Member

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by RobRodriguez:
Greetings all,

I've been asked to pass on this request:

Please stop linking from this forum to outside news articles and/or doing a copy/paste of news articles not posted on Military.com. The articles not posted on our news pages do not belong to Military.com and we do not have rights to them. Please limit the discussion [in this forum] to the news topic posted on Military.com.

Thanks you.

Yikes! Are they getting blowback from Reuters or the AP? This seems extremely severe ... could you give additional clarification?

Posts: 10713 | Registered: Mon 05 June 2006

Ignored post by oldmole posted

Experienced Member

Posted

quote:
Please limit the discussion [in this forum] to the news topic posted on Military.com.

Is this to be an enforced policy? If so, why only in this forum? It seems to me that the argument you present is universal, not forum specific.

BTW - still waiting for the revisions promised over a month ago. Any status? Or are the powers that be just hoping the issue (and some of us with it) will just go away?

Posts: 3488 | Registered: Mon 09 July 2007

Ignored post by Jade_Gate posted

USAF_76_2_80

"ODDBALL"

HOT TOPICS MODERATOR

Posted

quote:
Is this to be an enforced policy? If so, why only in this forum?

Yes to the first question - We are working that out, and we will update everyone.

As to the second question, I do not have a clue.

"Never try to teach a pig to sing; It wastes your time and annoys the pig." - Heinlein

Posts: 7687 | Registered: Mon 29 November 2004

Ignored post by USAF_76_2_80 posted

Experienced Member

Posted

I smell a rat at military.com. I don't believe that there is an ownership problem as long as the article is linked to the source. I suspect the concern is lost advertising opportunity when a non-military.com article is used. When you begin enforcing it, that's it for us at military.com.

Posts: 3488 | Registered: Mon 09 July 2007

Ignored post by Jade_Gate posted

Squizzer

Suspended-60 days
7 AUG 2008
Silent_Surface

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Jade_Gate:
I smell a rat at military.com. I don't believe that there is an ownership problem as long as the article is linked to the source. I suspect the concern is lost advertising opportunity when a non-military.com article is used. When you begin enforcing it, that's it for us at military.com.

Certainly at the moment, and without real clarification, this seems the most likely scenario. I can't recall any other forum restricting offsite links as long as an article is credited to it's author.
It doesn't look good.

Posts: 4023 | Registered: Thu 08 December 2005

Ignored post by Squizzer posted

Highly Experienced Member

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Jade_Gate:
I smell a rat at military.com. I don't believe that there is an ownership problem as long as the article is linked to the source. I suspect the concern is lost advertising opportunity when a non-military.com article is used. When you begin enforcing it, that's it for us at military.com.

At least to the extent that if enforcement is extended to open source documents too ... what happens if the "news source" is a DOD, SIGIR, or State Department press release? If those are also barred, that seems more like censorship than looking out for copyright violations ... and I will have to find another place to camp too.

Posts: 10713 | Registered: Mon 05 June 2006

Ignored post by oldmole posted

Experienced Member

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Squizzer:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade_Gate:
I smell a rat at military.com. I don't believe that there is an ownership problem as long as the article is linked to the source. I suspect the concern is lost advertising opportunity when a non-military.com article is used. When you begin enforcing it, that's it for us at military.com.

Certainly at the moment, and without real clarification, this seems the most likely scenario. I can't recall any other forum restricting offsite links as long as an article is credited to it's author.
It doesn't look good.

I gave the site the benefit of the doubt ... and believed "fixes are coming" when the site introduced end-of-news-article commenting. It's been over a month since Rob promised our concerns were getting attention and changes were coming. Guess he didn't lie - but didn't expect that this would be the change.

... and I'm still interested in knowing why Rob said the restriction announced in this thread only applies "[in this forum]" ... seems what is "ethical" for ITN should apply to all forums at military.com ...

Posts: 3488 | Registered: Mon 09 July 2007

Ignored post by Jade_Gate posted

USAF_76_2_80

"ODDBALL"

HOT TOPICS MODERATOR

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by oldmole:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade_Gate:
I smell a rat at military.com. I don't believe that there is an ownership problem as long as the article is linked to the source. I suspect the concern is lost advertising opportunity when a non-military.com article is used. When you begin enforcing it, that's it for us at military.com.

At least to the extent that if enforcement is extended to open source documents too ... what happens if the "news source" is a DOD, SIGIR, or State Department press release? If those are also barred, that seems more like censorship than looking out for copyright violations ... and I will have to find another place to camp too.

As far as I know, they do not count as a news source.

"Never try to teach a pig to sing; It wastes your time and annoys the pig." - Heinlein

Posts: 7687 | Registered: Mon 29 November 2004

Ignored post by USAF_76_2_80 posted

Highly Experienced Member

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by USAF_76_2_80:
quote:
Originally posted by oldmole:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade_Gate:
I smell a rat at military.com. I don't believe that there is an ownership problem as long as the article is linked to the source. I suspect the concern is lost advertising opportunity when a non-military.com article is used. When you begin enforcing it, that's it for us at military.com.

At least to the extent that if enforcement is extended to open source documents too ... what happens if the "news source" is a DOD, SIGIR, or State Department press release? If those are also barred, that seems more like censorship than looking out for copyright violations ... and I will have to find another place to camp too.

As far as I know, they do not count as a news source.

I hope you mean "news source" in the sense of a "forbidden to link to" one, rather than as a legitimate starting point for an ITN thread. An additional point ... does this mean that any link to competing stories are equally banned? If there is commentary from, say the Christian Science Monitor on the thread subject, could you use it without directly linking to it? That would seem to subvert the stated intention.

Posts: 10713 | Registered: Mon 05 June 2006

Ignored post by oldmole posted

SLDO

If a tree falls in a forest and lands on a politician, even if you can't hear the tree or the screams, I'll bet you'd at least hear the applause.
Paul Tindale

Posted

Unfortunately, with such restrictions, there will be a dearth of interesting and compelling news stories not carried by momma mil. Many stories are over and done with in the real world. I posted a thread on the 25th on a story, and only today did momma mil pick it up.

Many stories may come from AP or other news organizations, then passed on throughout the internet on various web sites. So what if we just did a snipped of the story, or just the link. Surely that does not venture into the realm of copyright infringement?????

If in the end, we are compelled to only comment on mil.com stories, there could be a drastic drop off of posters and members. Sticking to only one venue is boring and not very mind stimulating.

Just my thought as long as it was brought up.

Have a good day!~!

Posts: 3106 | Registered: Fri 22 June 2007

Ignored post by SLDO posted

fmfdoc451

Member

Posted

Welcome back to the actuall military!! Remeber, when you agreed to serve the people of this great Nation, you also agreed to give up some of your rights!

Free Speech one of them! You cannot refer to anything heard,read,or posted, anywhere else!! This forum is only for what is spoon-fed us, by the "supreme military mind"!! They will tell what to discuss, think, and lead you toward "proper thiniking" .....

Where are you George Orwell???

Posts: 571 | Registered: Wed 01 August 2007

Ignored post by fmfdoc451 posted

Highly Experienced Member

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by SLDO:
Unfortunately, with such restrictions, there will be a dearth of interesting and compelling news stories not carried by momma mil. Many stories are over and done with in the real world. I posted a thread on the 25th on a story, and only today did momma mil pick it up.

Many stories may come from AP or other news organizations, then passed on throughout the internet on various web sites. So what if we just did a snipped of the story, or just the link. Surely that does not venture into the realm of copyright infringement?????

If in the end, we are compelled to only comment on mil.com stories, there could be a drastic drop off of posters and members. Sticking to only one venue is boring and not very mind stimulating.

Just my thought as long as it was brought up.

Have a good day!~!

Well, I see no reason to disband our merry band of regulars if it does so ... I suggest we start shopping for alternative venues. Keep in touch.

Posts: 10713 | Registered: Mon 05 June 2006

Ignored post by oldmole posted

SLDO

If a tree falls in a forest and lands on a politician, even if you can't hear the tree or the screams, I'll bet you'd at least hear the applause.
Paul Tindale

Posted

Mr. Blair, AKA George Orwell is currently a resident of the Graveyard at All Saints Church, Sutton Courtenay, England. No postal address available. No phone number available.

Posts: 3106 | Registered: Fri 22 June 2007

Ignored post by SLDO posted

Experienced Member

Posted

quote:
Well, I see no reason to disband our merry band of regulars if it does so ... I suggest we start shopping for alternative venues. Keep in touch.

Please let us know if and where you did a new mole hole ... just not in our garden, please!

Regards -

Posts: 3488 | Registered: Mon 09 July 2007

Ignored post by Jade_Gate posted

IHAWKER

Experienced Member

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by SLDO:
Unfortunately, with such restrictions, there will be a dearth of interesting and compelling news stories not carried by momma mil. Many stories are over and done with in the real world. I posted a thread on the 25th on a story, and only today did momma mil pick it up.

Many stories may come from AP or other news organizations, then passed on throughout the internet on various web sites. So what if we just did a snipped of the story, or just the link. Surely that does not venture into the realm of copyright infringement?????

If in the end, we are compelled to only comment on mil.com stories, there could be a drastic drop off of posters and members. Sticking to only one venue is boring and not very mind stimulating.

Just my thought as long as it was brought up.

Have a good day!~!

I second that fully.
It appears that mil.com is working overtime to kill this forum. If that is not the case, then they are definately missing a great opportunity.

Posts: 4341 | Registered: Thu 15 March 2007

Ignored post by IHAWKER posted

USAF_76_2_80

"ODDBALL"

HOT TOPICS MODERATOR

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by oldmole:
quote:
Originally posted by USAF_76_2_80:
quote:
Originally posted by oldmole:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade_Gate:
I smell a rat at military.com. I don't believe that there is an ownership problem as long as the article is linked to the source. I suspect the concern is lost advertising opportunity when a non-military.com article is used. When you begin enforcing it, that's it for us at military.com.

At least to the extent that if enforcement is extended to open source documents too ... what happens if the "news source" is a DOD, SIGIR, or State Department press release? If those are also barred, that seems more like censorship than looking out for copyright violations ... and I will have to find another place to camp too.

As far as I know, they do not count as a news source.

I hope you mean "news source" in the sense of a "forbidden to link to" one, rather than as a legitimate starting point for an ITN thread. An additional point ... does this mean that any link to competing stories are equally banned? If there is commentary from, say the Christian Science Monitor on the thread subject, could you use it without directly linking to it? That would seem to subvert the stated intention.

Mongo only pawn......

"Never try to teach a pig to sing; It wastes your time and annoys the pig." - Heinlein

Posts: 7687 | Registered: Mon 29 November 2004

Ignored post by USAF_76_2_80 posted

xerello

Member

Posted

Who decides what is news at Military.com?

There was an attempt on the life of the President of Afghanistan while dignitaries from the United States and other countries were watching a liberation parade. I never saw a news story on military.com and a quick search of the website turns up nothing. But the introduction of the M-16 in Afghanistan makes headline news!

I understand wanting to filter the news, it is a private site. But not allowing real news articles will diminish the standards of the site.

Posts: 1378 | Registered: Sat 27 May 2006

Ignored post by xerello posted