Error editing post! Your message is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters.










Fraid the article is gone from the link. Takes you to a general front page now.





well, I didn't dare cut and paste after being chastized about copyright violations.
There's a similar news blurb at and at ... however I hesitate to link to non-objective sources after being chastized about that as well.
Sigh.
A copyright question came up. I argued the copyright law and suggested an alternate approach. I also said I'm not going to mod out of my section(s).
As I understand from mod discussions, it's site policy, as established by Pryce, to not post articles in full here - which, to a logical reading, runs parallel to copyright law.
I mean, you can do what you want with that. I'm not trying to suppress any members' opinions here.





^^^ I understand the gray area re copyright violation, as well as Pryce's policy. However, when the entire article is only 4 paragraphs long and deals with one and only one piece of subject matter, it's really not possible to take 'snippets' and have enough of the author's point left for a meaningful discussion. I don't want to reignite the copyright discussion, other than to say that copyright law measures the percentage of the total copyrighted work being cited as one factor, but does NOT state that citing a copyrighted work in its entirety unconditionally constitutes a copyright violation in every case.
At any rate, I'll try to abstain from citing any similarly 'short and concise' articles again in order to create more 'safety margin'. But as you can see from this thread, linking to short and concise articles without reposting runs the risk that the link will disappear, while taking 'snippets' from more verbose articles on the same subject risks straying from the original concise point. This is because the more verbose articles tend to inject commentary of their own - and even if I don't snip one bit of that added commentary I'm still at risk of being accused of supporting its viewpoint if I link to them. In other words, this becomes a no-win situation.
I was on another message board with the same policy. It was pretty active. In that case, the members made their point and pointed to the article. Such as (tone included for demonstrative purposes - this isn't necessarily my opinion):
"You claim there's not a liberal bias? Over at the BBC, they commissioned a report to investigate whether they had such an issue. Now, since they commissioned it, the results are preordained that they're fair, right? Not so fast - according to their own report, they have such a bias!
"Any comments? Read about it here: *include website*
In that case, you've made your point, you've educated the readers, you've violated no copyright, and you've taken less time to do so than to protest the inability to cite the whole article.
I would note that in the other articles cited, they chose not to reprint the article in full - and in fact, one article made its point by using snippets from the BBC report.





^^^ then that other website had exactly the same problem after the website link 'disappeared' after the first day. No they had a worse problem, becaise a poster had attempted to make a somewhat controversial point, supported by evidence that disappeared after one day ... which then opens the door for other posters to claim 'bullS#it' or 'prove it'. Thus the situation goes from 'no win' to 'poster of controversial point loses' ... which serves as a strong incentive to not bother making the controversial point in the first place !
If it's not there anyway, what is the point of having the link? It is not a good citation, in that case (for all y'all who are insisting that citation is an adequate remedy); AND there is no way of verifying that the poster did not just invent the article. If you want to make your points you may quote parts of the story; it is not necessary to copy the whole thing.
I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth
I WASN'T CHASTIZING YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!
I just felt that that it wasn't up to your usual fabulous standard... and i think i was taking angst out on the site for what i felt was manipulative on its behalf...
thats all...
getting back on rail, who's the journalist? if you search their name and the article title with "UK Press" it will probably be in the public archives of at least one major paper (they're usually onsold at least once or twice to diff sources)





Actually, my comment about being 'chastized' re sources stemmed back to a former regular poster who attempted to make the case that ANYTHING published by the Washington Times had to either be biased or bull$#it simply because the WT was financed by the Rev. Moon.
In regard to your proposal about archives of major media, unfortunately this doesn't usually work either. If you go to the original publisher of the article thisislondon.co.uk and search their archives for the original article, a search for the original article comes up nada. If you go to other UK mainstream media outlets, you can find stories that briefly touch on the BBC bias study ... but all of them immediately get sidetracked towards Bob Geldof and Bono star pandering and almost totally ignore all of the other conclusions of the study. So if you want to find any 'remnants' of the other conclusions of the study, the only place that I have been able to find these still posted are as snippets on websites that have also inserted their own 'biased' commentary. Thus as I posted earlier this degenerates into a no-win situation once the original article 'disappeared'.
Bookmarks