« Prev Page 15 of 15 13 14 15 Please log in to reply 372 replies to this topic

[Crushdepth]

Quote

You might be unclear about what you can or can't print, but trust me, they are not, and they know that they can't restrict you from access to information or from referencing or citing an article, as long as you don't reprint it.

I won't quote your whole post, but you were exactly right. It's the reprinting of whole articles (or substantial portions thereof) that has been the issue.

[Somtamnication]

Unbelievable that some people cannot wait for an update to this meeting between TV and BP before defecating through their fingers. Patience!! TV shall rise and be a winner (or is that wiener?).

[vanalli]

Did you teach how to use paragraphs?

HowardV, on 2009-10-07 12:43:16, said:

Do not misunderstand the restriction.  Bangkok Post cannot own information.  Nor can any publisher print material and then claim to have the rights to the information within the article.  They have the rights to the words and the phrases they use, but not the information itself.  I speak from experience.  I've worked at a newspaper as a reporter, editor and columnist, taught journalism for the past five years, and my family owned a publishing company back in the states for a while.  Quotes are quotes are quotes.  If a newspaper puts a person's words into quotation marks, it means it's a direct quote, straight from their mouth.  That quote doesn't belong to the news agency which printed the quote, the quote still belongs to the person who said it.  Five reporters all hear the same guy say the same thing, just because one newspaper prints it first doesn't automatically mean the other publishers can't use the information.  I could take a direct quote from a person quoted in a Bangkok Post article and credit the person who said it, not the publisher who printed it, and I could post that anywhere and no law could ever penalize me for it because there are no intellectual property rights on quotes, sorry to say.  And if you ever have any questions about this, just contact the person being quoted and ask them, "did you say this ..." read the quote, and if they say yes, you've now verified it outside the publisher and you can use it without having to reference the publisher.  However, ALL of the article -- outside the quotes -- all the wording, phrasing, structure, vocab, etc. are the property of the author and/or publisher.  If I reprint that, I am liable.  Second, a link to an article cannot be illegal.  You can cite references and paraphrase or summarize content and no one can do a thing about it.  That would be ridiculous, as if information could ever be proprietary.  We are entitled to the information, we just don't have the right to reprint it -- if they give us the right to reprint it, then they can also dictate the terms of reprint, as they have done with this RSS restriction.  So they are saying that you may not reprint any of their articles in whole or in part unless it complies with the RSS policy, and they have this right.  However, I can still paraphrase, I can still make reference to the Post, and I can still use a direct quote that's in quotation marks.  The Bangkok Post has the rights on their articles, but not the rights to information or the rights to sole ownership of a quote, simply because they heard it first or printed it first.  A newspaper knows this better than anyone.  You might be unclear about what you can or can't print, but trust me, they are not, and they know that they can't restrict you from access to information or from referencing or citing an article, as long as you don't reprint it.  Hopefully this clears things up for you all.  Peace.

[webfact]

HowardV, on 2009-10-07 04:43:16, said:

Do not misunderstand the restriction.  Bangkok Post cannot own information.  Nor can any publisher print material and then claim to have the rights to the information within the article.  They have the rights to the words and the phrases they use, but not the information itself.  I speak from experience.  I've worked at a newspaper as a reporter, editor and columnist, taught journalism for the past five years, and my family owned a publishing company back in the states for a while.  Quotes are quotes are quotes.  If a newspaper puts a person's words into quotation marks, it means it's a direct quote, straight from their mouth.  That quote doesn't belong to the news agency which printed the quote, the quote still belongs to the person who said it.  Five reporters all hear the same guy say the same thing, just because one newspaper prints it first doesn't automatically mean the other publishers can't use the information.  I could take a direct quote from a person quoted in a Bangkok Post article and credit the person who said it, not the publisher who printed it, and I could post that anywhere and no law could ever penalize me for it because there are no intellectual property rights on quotes, sorry to say.  And if you ever have any questions about this, just contact the person being quoted and ask them, "did you say this ..." read the quote, and if they say yes, you've now verified it outside the publisher and you can use it without having to reference the publisher.  However, ALL of the article -- outside the quotes -- all the wording, phrasing, structure, vocab, etc. are the property of the author and/or publisher.  If I reprint that, I am liable.  Second, a link to an article cannot be illegal.  You can cite references and paraphrase or summarize content and no one can do a thing about it.  That would be ridiculous, as if information could ever be proprietary.  We are entitled to the information, we just don't have the right to reprint it -- if they give us the right to reprint it, then they can also dictate the terms of reprint, as they have done with this RSS restriction.  So they are saying that you may not reprint any of their articles in whole or in part unless it complies with the RSS policy, and they have this right.  However, I can still paraphrase, I can still make reference to the Post, and I can still use a direct quote that's in quotation marks.  The Bangkok Post has the rights on their articles, but not the rights to information or the rights to sole ownership of a quote, simply because they heard it first or printed it first.  A newspaper knows this better than anyone.  You might be unclear about what you can or can't print, but trust me, they are not, and they know that they can't restrict you from access to information or from referencing or citing an article, as long as you don't reprint it.  Hopefully this clears things up for you all.  Peace.

paragraphs in long posts are welcome on Thavisa

[dkstoney]

RSS feeds allow them to control the original publication. I suspect it's so they can change the information presented in the original at the government's whim and not have any proof of what was printed earlier circulating around the internet. They can just turn off access to the article at their discretion. Keep cutting and pasting their articles. There is no law.

Edited by dkstoney, 2009-10-08 04:41:09.

[animatic]

I like short paragraphs, then you actually can read them and your eyes don't glaze over.

[cyb]

animatic, on 2009-10-08 07:53:22, said:

I like short paragraphs, then you actually can read them and your eyes don't glaze over.

It also makes it easier to differentiate between crap and fact.

[HowardV]

For the record I like short paragraphs, too.  Many of mine are single-sentenced, in fact.  

I'll admit that I don't know how to use paragraphs in HTML formats, and it annoys the heck out of me because my posts always come out looking like blocks!  

It also bothers me because what I wrote would clear up most of the issue, if anyone would read it.

I suppose this editor probably works like a normal Word-type editor.  I will try the Enter button more often.  Thanks for your sarcasm, my friends.  I think it's important to remember that no one was born knowing everything and some people have to learn as they grow.  Some folks just don't appreciate the value in being nice.

[Marvo]

Paragraphs:

The.

Shorter.

The.

Better.

[webfact]

We are very well aware of paragraphs...
therefore I suggest to continue with the topic discussion

[HABITAT]

Did anyone on the forum perhaps 'step' where they should not have?
Not necessarily that there was a cultural clash, but more along the lines of professional etiquette.
Because there is a large degree of perceived anonymity on the net these days - forums, blogs, chatrooms, facebook, etc
it might be that there was some possible mild transgression that has since grown out of all proportion.
Of course it is difficult to quantify, with time, but it might be worth looking at, as a policy.
Personally, I dislike the C&P crowd, appreciate opinions and debate, plagiarism is always to hand, simply to complicate matters.

edit - news piece -

Of course there is a new cry from Newscorp, Murdock, to simply pay for all content - this might also be a
partial reason for preempting the local TV ban, as it is passed down. Wonder how much BBC paid, if any.

Rupert Murdoch has said it is time for internet search engines and other websites to start to pay for any news reports they currently take for free.

Mr Murdoch, owner of media giant News Corporation, said such sites would soon have to pay for any content taken from his firm's many new providers.

He was speaking at the World Media Summit in Beijing, where his comments were backed by some of his competitors.

Associated Press boss Tom Curley said news providers were being "exploited".

'Act decisively'

"The aggregators and plagiarists will soon have to pay a price for the co-opting of our content," said Mr Murdoch, whose company owns newspapers including the Sun and the Times in the UK, and the New York Post and Wall Street Journal in the US.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ess/8298507.stm

Edited by HABITAT, 2009-10-10 01:39:59.

[Syawillim]

I have a web site of my own for people 'living expat', not specifically for those in Thailand but expats generally anywhere. I wonder how Thaivisa would respond if I were to re-post some of the information from the Thaivisa forums on my site?

[tmark]

Syawillim, on 2009-10-10 11:54:10, said:

I have a web site of my own for people 'living expat', not specifically for those in Thailand but expats generally anywhere. I wonder how Thaivisa would respond if I were to re-post some of the information from the Thaivisa forums on my site?

I imagine if they were to be 100% fair and follow the "what's good for the goose etc philosophy" then they wouldn't have any response at all.

[opalhort]

george, on 2009-10-07 12:47:34, said:

Update:

Thaivisa and Bangkok Post will meet and discuss later today. I hope to have an update for you by tomorrow.
Thanks for your patience!

Any news yet, George?

opalhort

[tmark]

opalhort, on 2009-10-10 12:41:45, said:

george, on 2009-10-07 12:47:34, said:

Update:

Thaivisa and Bangkok Post will meet and discuss later today. I hope to have an update for you by tomorrow.
Thanks for your patience!

Any news yet, George?

opalhort

He asked you to be patient. The update's only 2 days late! !

Maybe on Monday .. "Thai Time" and all that.

Edited by tmark, 2009-10-10 13:08:26.

[cyb]

tmark, on 2009-10-10 13:05:48, said:

opalhort, on 2009-10-10 12:41:45, said:

george, on 2009-10-07 12:47:34, said:

Update:

Thaivisa and Bangkok Post will meet and discuss later today. I hope to have an update for you by tomorrow.
Thanks for your patience!

Any news yet, George?

opalhort

He asked you to be patient. The update's only 2 days late! !

Maybe on Monday .. "Thai Time" and all that.

George did say he hoped to have an update,  Not that he would have one.
The fact that george has not replied yet shows that maybe things are a little more difficult than he envisaged.

When george has a definate answer for us i am sure he will be here like a shot.

[sbk]

Negotiations usually take some time and yes, negotiating.

[Maestro]

A n onsensical, screaming (all capitals) post has been deleted.
--
Maestro

[Maestro]

A nonsensical and off-topic post about ads and the replies to it have been deleted.
--
Maestro

[Plus]

Even if they agree on general terms, technical application might take time for webmasters to say it's even possible, let along implement it.

Thaivisa has to tweak forum software bought from Invision and it's no small task, and BP has to outsource tweaks on their side, too.

[Kan Win]

Hi Folks,

Would it be possible to say

Quote

I read the news today, oh boy "Reality cheque" in the Bangkok post.

Yours truly,

Kan Win

P.S. Lyrics from the Beatles 'A day in the life'

[Scott]

Prior to the request by BKK Post to prevent stories being downloaded, we were free to use links to the Post.  I subscribe to the Post and routinely posted from the BKK post.  We are not 'pressured' by our sponsors.  At least as a moderator, I've never been asked or instructed to use them.  

There is a problem, IMO, with censorship in Thailand and this causes a lot more concern for the media than a lot of other considerations.  Even the newspaper that appear to have an obvious bias do print the opposing point of view, it's just shorter and not necessarily located where it's easy to find.  

The other issues which concern me, as a resident, is the laws on Lese Majeste, libel and defamation.  But, for now, that's what we all have to live with.

[Maestro]

An off-topic and nonsensical post about “a new english language media in thailand” and the replies to it have been deleted.
--
Maestro