Tulsa World going premium?

[OUHoops]

Looks like the Tulsa World is going to become a premium site, so first off this is just a reminder not to copy and paste any of their stuff here.

Also, do you still think we should link to their articles daily here and on the home page. I know a lot of people get annoyed when someone links to a premium article, so I'd like to know how you guys want us to handle it.

From what I understand, you get 10 free views per month and then anything after that is blocked unless you're a subscriber.

 

[CoachTalk]

I say continue to post. I found a relative that recieved the paper, got their acc #, and use their sub online. All it takes is the acc # and you can put in any email address you want...

The downfall of Newspapers continues!

 

[NickZepp]

They tried this a few years back and it didn't worked.

 

[Dave4OU]

A lot of newspapers are going this direction, the NY Times just did as well, I have gotten a paper for years, so mine will actually be free (sorda).

 

[El Jefe]

That's one of the worst news websites going ... and they want to try to charge for it? You'd have to pay me $10 a day just to read it.

 

[seniorsooner]

I thought about getting a sub but $15 a month for their digital content is a bit rich. I might pay $0.50 a month

 

[DenverSooner]

Looks like the Tulsa World is going to become a premium site, so first off this is just a reminder not to copy and paste any of their stuff here.

Also, do you still think we should link to their articles daily here and on the home page. I know a lot of people get annoyed when someone links to a premium article, so I'd like to know how you guys want us to handle it.

From what I understand, you get 10 free views per month and then anything after that is blocked unless you're a subscriber.

I hope you guys are not suggesting people should not comment about articles in the Tulsa World because it is my belief that is perfectly legal. I would suggest people should just summarize the articles.

For example (and I am making this up) the Tulsa World had a story on Blake Griffin and said he was the best rookie ever because ...

 

[OUHoops]

I hope you guys are not suggesting people should not comment about articles in the Tulsa World because it is my belief that is perfectly legal. I would suggest people should just summarize the articles.

For example (and I am making this up) the Tulsa World had a story on Blake Griffin and said he was the best rookie ever because ...

Yes, summarizing is fine. It's the copying and pasting that gets me angry/threatening emails/pms from mean lawyer types and other sites writers.

Heck, I even sometimes get angry/threatening pm's from other sites writers even when stuff isn't copied and pasted. Actually, I shouldn't say sites. It's just from one site.

 

[MsProudSooner]

Yes, summarizing is fine. It's the copying and pasting that gets me angry/threatening emails/pms from mean lawyer types and other sites writers.

Heck, I even sometimes get angry/threatening pm's from other sites writers even when stuff isn't copied and pasted. Actually, I shouldn't say sites. It's just from one site.

You mean the one that hardly anyone goes to any more? :facepalm

 

[Max Power]

Yes, summarizing is fine. It's the copying and pasting that gets me angry/threatening emails/pms from mean lawyer types and other sites writers.

Heck, I even sometimes get angry/threatening pm's from other sites writers even when stuff isn't copied and pasted. Actually, I shouldn't say sites. It's just from one site.

And yet James Hale will steal Sam's info and act like he knew all along :facepalm

 

[NickZepp]

Trying to go premium for a local level just doesn't have enough long term value. What they should do is have new articles free, have older articles say a month old be viewed through premium services. That's probably the best way to do this. You aren't going to get that many people suscribe online to a Tulsa World or News OK outside of those that are from the area.

 

[OUHoops]

And yet James Hale will steal Sam's info and act like he knew all along :facepalm

Thought it was funny the other day when I got a text from a friend saying the Tulsa World had referenced OUHoops.com in one of their articles (about Grooms committing). I was pumped.

I clicked the link to check it out and their premium notice came up over the story. Come to find out not only did they reference our site, which was great, but they also used one of our quotes from our free story as part of their premium story.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Emig and I'm glad we/Sam got credit for his work. And they're more than welcome to use our stuff whenever they like, I just thought that was funny we put stuff out for free that others used in their own premium article.

I do understand though that with the way the newspaper business is headed, that charging for online articles is going to be more the norm within the next year. They just can't survive on their declining print income and the online advertising they get isn't going to be enough either.

 

[bocabull]

Yes, summarizing is fine. It's the copying and pasting that gets me angry/threatening emails/pms from mean lawyer types and other sites writers.

Heck, I even sometimes get angry/threatening pm's from other sites writers even when stuff isn't copied and pasted. Actually, I shouldn't say sites. It's just from one site.

Having owned an online music service I am very well versed in the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act).

Any user of this site can copy and paste complete versions of articles. Your only obligation as the owner is to delete copyrighted material that the copyright owner (Tulsa World, Rivals, OU Insider) notifies you in writing to remove.

That is your only requirement. You are not required to prohibit users from posting any content on this site and you are not required to police your site to remove content. You are only required to remove copyrighted material when notified in writing by the copyright owner on a 1 by 1 basis. It is their requirement to police the internet for anybody infringing on their copyrights.

This is settled law.

 

[OUHoops]

Having owned an online music service I am very well versed in the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act).

Any user of this site can copy and paste complete versions of articles. Your only obligation as the owner is to delete copyrighted material that the copyright owner (Tulsa World, Rivals, OU Insider) notifies you in writing to remove.

That is your only requirement. You are not required to prohibit users from posting any content on this site and you are not required to police your site to remove content. You are only required to remove copyrighted material when notified in writing by the copyright owner on a 1 by 1 basis. It is their requirement to police the internet for anybody infringing on their copyrights.

This is settled law.

Interesting. Can you send me a link to where that is referenced? I would appreciate it.

 

[bocabull]

DMCA that applies to user generated content:

§ 512. Limitations on liability relating to material online

(c) Information Residing on Systems or Networks at Direction of Users.—

(1) In general. — A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider -

(A)(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;

(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or

(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;

(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and

(C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.

link

Google won a summary judgment last year and had Viacom's copyright case against them dismissed based on this law. Google was not responsible for users uploading copyrighted material to YouTube. They were only obligated to remove the content when Viacom informed them of the infringement.

 

[playmakr]

Boca=prolific