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=551...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.

I wasn't sure if I should post it or not.

I will delete it

(02-08-2012 02:43 PM)HoopsJunky Wrote:  I wasn't sure if I should post it or not.

I will delete it

Please don't. I am glad you did as this is a question I have had for a long time.

I will re-post if the mods say it's ok.

From the AUP:

Quote:Copyright Infringement

- Posting copyrighted material without the permission of the author/owner is unacceptable. NCAAbbs is not liable for any content you post, and can be forced to turnover information about you should a copyright holder subpoenae NCAAbbs for infringing posts you have made.
- Copyright holders or people who are otherwise claiming illegal posts were made can request immediate post removal by emailing the following address with a link: support at ncaanetwork dot net. You MUST include a link to the infringing content and you MUST state that you are acting in good faith as a lawful owner or representative of those holding the copyright. If these conditions are met, then we will reply with the time the offending material was taken down.

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.