RE: Introducing Parley - A Decentralized Discussion Engine Based on Steem
Reditt just supplies the vehicle, not the gas that runs it- just like you cannot sue a magazine for a product advertisement. If you read their terms of service, you will understand how they remain at arm's length from copyrite legalities (as does any platform owner). When you reference someone else's work, that is generally not a problem. But when you use it to drive people to your monetized website or blog, you are dancing with bears. I've been in the blogging arena now for over 13 years and know several people who have been either sued or threatened with lawsuits over this very thing, so don't tell me it is all legal! I myself once have been warned of pending legal action if I did not take a cartoon down... one that I obtained in the "Public Domain!" It's all a slippery slope my friend.
Drudge report does this and its 100 percent legal.
Are you absolutely 100% certain of that? Maybe they have specific permissions. I could acquire the rights to Beatles music for my Vlogs and nobody would know any better. There are many behind the scenes contractual agreements that the general public are not privy to, so to assume such... well, you know the rest of that analogy. Bloggers cannot be too careful!
yeah. he also said that before justice scalia died (he insinuated it was him) he was told that congress was going to try to make it illegal to use links- because drudge has too much influence and power in driving the news cycle. http://www.drudgereport.com/
also, alot of websites from all stripes do it, they usually post a few paragraphs, or maybe a quarter of the article then it says click here for the rest of the story, which takes you to the content owners website. in those cases, it may or may not be from people they've gotten permission from first. if you don't have permission, then paraphrasing it and then linking to it is fine, or fair use if you are commenting or critiquing, ect.
I think the problems come in when you post something pretending it is yours, with no links to the creator.
Facebook, thats all i do is post news links or screenshots and attach my rants or opinions or critiques on it. Twitter does this as well... social media is all about sharing links and videos.
You tube copyrights come in when you upoad a video on your own channel and reframe it as though it is yours, or playing their stuff for longer than a minute or so...
https://www.infowars.com/congressional-review-of-copyright-law-may-threaten-drudge-report/
http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/13/congressional-review-of-copyright-law-may-threaten-drudge-report/#ixzz3oUA1XSdZ
https://www.infowars.com/matt-drudge-copyright-laws-could-outlaw-linking-to-websites/
here is a good clip i start it at the point he talks about it with drudge:
here is another interesting discussion on it:
https://www.foundersspace.com/legal-ip/can-i-post-aricles-i-find-on-the-web-on-my-website-without-breaking-copyright-laws/
Plus.... why else would all these articles, links and videos have share options with fb, twitter, ect for viewers to use?
Simply linking is fine in most cases. Framing content... NO. And like you say, if anything is done for nefarious purposes or the use of other's content for monetary gain, that would be a no-no!
@miss-j and @retiredinsamar, and this is the type of confusion that democracy causes. As I read this exchange, I agreed 100% to what you both said. 100%, I tell you!
Now I must go and homeschool my son, and I'll use this for our social studies topic: Too much democracy, or not.
My tone is all in fun. But if we're wrong... court's no fun at all.
Anyone can threaten legal action. Winning it is a totally different animal.