Posting ESPN "Insider" information - Printable Version +- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com) +-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html) +--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html) +---- Forum: Archives (/forum-400.html) +----- Forum: AACbbs Archives (/forum-418.html) +------ Forum: Cincinnati Archives (/forum-932.html) +------ Thread: Posting ESPN "Insider" information (/thread-553732.html) |
Posting ESPN "Insider" information - ctipton - 02-08-2012 01:14 PM This is simply a question, not a slam on Hoops Junky. Are we allowed to post information contained in ESPN "Insider" information, as long as it is not the entire article? The article in question is contained in http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=551963&pid=7523062#pid7523062 and is about UC. Hoops Junky only posted the part about UC and to me, that is all that is germane. I know I got slammed once for posting "Insider" information, but I was dumb enough to post the entire article. We read the entire message or part of it on Lance's blog everyday and not a word is said, but that is a "public" blog. RE: Posting ESPN "Insider" information - HoopsJunky - 02-08-2012 02:43 PM I wasn't sure if I should post it or not. I will delete it RE: Posting ESPN "Insider" information - ctipton - 02-08-2012 02:47 PM (02-08-2012 02:43 PM)HoopsJunky Wrote: I wasn't sure if I should post it or not. Please don't. I am glad you did as this is a question I have had for a long time. RE: Posting ESPN "Insider" information - HoopsJunky - 02-08-2012 03:16 PM I will re-post if the mods say it's ok. RE: Posting ESPN "Insider" information - Ring of Black - 02-08-2012 03:24 PM From the AUP: Quote:Copyright Infringement RE: Posting ESPN "Insider" information - Bourgeois_Rage - 02-10-2012 09:10 AM I know that GTS has gotten emails from various news sites over the years asking him to remove copyright infringing material. Unofficial policy is that it is alright to post links with small excerpts, but not entire articles. As for information that resides behind a paywall (insider, scout, rivals pay info) our policy has been that we shouldn't allow posting of that for a few reasons. One, someone did work to get that information and has chosen to not reveal it for public consumption. Two, when someone does this and the authors see it, they get pissy at GTS and he would rather not have to deal with them. Three, most of that information will be in the public domain within hours or days anyway. Four, anyone who is paying for the subscription isn't really getting any benefit if that information is made publicly available shortly after it is privately available. I know this brings up the issue of people having their own sources and choosing to reveal that information. I don't have any problem with that, but I don't want to see articles from the behind a paywall are being reproduced here. Also if someone cites their source for info as one of the paysites, that should be removed as well. |