Copy and Paste.

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Xelasnave.1947, Jan 19, 2017.

  1. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I like this forum because I can get science news.
    Paddoboy finds an article he thinks members will find interesting and he "copy and pastes" such that you can avoid following the link he provides because well he presents the whole article.

    I know some folk do not like this.

    I dont know why but suspect they believe the forum is for discussion and to cut and paste is not appropriate.

    I do think dicussion is great but realistically a cut and paste should not head off discussion.

    What are your thoughts.

  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    If you think the information to be of value, and you have nothing of import to add, then copy and past and a link is just grand.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Thanks Alex:
    I have three or four science sites I get news from, all those except one, require you to preprint a limited section detailing the gist of the article and of course a link.
    The one that does not is "Universe Today" owned and maintained by Fraser Cain. As I said in the other thread, I have E-Mailed Fraser and got a complete "all clear":
    These news articles, particularly when given in full, [as with Universe Today] can obviously deride and rubbish some extreme, agenda laden, alternative views that some others prefer here, and just as obviously most of these alternative pushers subsequently abhore these articles as it offends their belief.
    They obviously prefer just the link address, without the damning article/s themselves. Two immediatley come to mind.
    All articles are naturally open for discussion....some have plenty, others have none, as do many threads of many pursuasions.
    The last time this raised its ugly head for whatever reason, everything ended up proceeding as it is now.....
    Some people though tend to get a bee in their bonnet, re so much science, on, wait for it! a science forum!!!.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    and need to resort to such nonsense [which I find rather weird] as labeling me as a science cheer leader!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    In reality, I take it as a compliment.
    Others maybe put off by the fact that my lay person's detailing of the science in question, or the lay person's style that most science sites express their science as, is more understandable and more acceptable then sometimes a clinically more correct highly mathematical account of the subject.
    I find that rather sad as obviously those person/s are in the main professional, and in essence they are in fact acting quite unprofessionally in objecting to the lay person's style that all are able in general, to comprehend.

    The master of that lay person's procedure was of course a man I speak of a lot...Carl Sagan.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    My belief is that the appropriate thing to do is
    1. Make it clear it's a link to an article.
    2. Provide the link.
    3. Provide a small snippet of the article, as a teaser (because providing no content from the article is also bad form). Do not post the entire article, or even a large fraction of it. Those who want to read the article can do so.
    4. Add your own comments to lead the discussion about the content of article.

    Pad, you posted an entire article, replete with inline pics, the other day. I was halfway through reading what I thought were your words, when I decied to go read the original article. Imagine my surprise...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Dave, I always thought what was pasted below the URL address, would be sufficient to indicate it was an article, and I also indicated that in my preamble.
    Obviously a friend of mine [I seem to have a few here

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ] would certainly love to curtail my efforts.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  9. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    The cosmology section would be pretty lean without Paddoboys input.
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    It's great input, without a doubt. I just think we gotta abide by some procedures.
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Sure Dave, but the rules etc are adhered to....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  12. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I agree and will agree to any procedures.
    I would like something like a short overview but that is not always easy.
    I would like a translation via a comic format but that is probably asking too much.
    I wish I could contribute more in an effort to pull my weight but I would probably let the tone down.
  13. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    Have you ever thought that people who have either dial up or mobile broadband avoid your threads paddoboy?
  14. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I use a mobile.
    Having it all laid out saves me time.
    But what do you want to see?
    I had hoped in this thread we could get constructive feed back that finally may make the site better so any suggestions are worth presenting.
    Thank you for your post.
  15. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    I don't have any complaints but since we have a thread going here I would add that I think it's more useful, for someone (anyone, not just Paddoboy) who frequently starts threads with reposting links, to add some personal comments of their own.

    If it's not important enough for the thread starter to to post some personal comments that it's not important enough for anyone else to do that either and in that case it's not important enough to start a thread in the first place. This is a discussion forum after all and not a news feed.

    This forum is hard enough to find a reason to participate in due to craziness

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    without the sane making the site less conversive.
    exchemist likes this.
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    I draw your attention to the following in "Science Forum Site Rules"

    "Sciforums is an intelligent community that encourages learning and thoughtful discussion. We expect and welcome contributions that inform as well as stimulate discussion and debate".

    Last edited: Jan 20, 2017
  17. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Assuming paddoboy is not Fraser Cain, there are three parties (the author, the poster, the website) and two agreements (the author's license to the poster, and the terms of service of the website) involved in the described scenario. Now unfortunately, copyright is created the moment the article is fixed in a medium and lasts about forever absent an irrevocable grant of the article into the public domain. So what do we know about the license granted to the author? What are the exact terms under which copying is allowed and what is the nature of the copying allowed?

    What is the duration of the license? Can the author change his mind? Can the terms change? Can any portion of the article be used for any purpose whatsoever? Turned into a movie? Incorporated into a volume of similar works? Does the right to copy transfer to any copies made by the poster?

    A basic tenet of contract law is that you can't trade something for nothing. So when I am told that the general terms of the Universe Today site are:
    If you want permission to reprint Universe Today stories

    You have our permission. There, that was easy. You don’t even have to ask us. We’d appreciate it if you gave Universe Today credit, though. Just put a link in the story that says that it was originally published on Universe Today. If would be even better if you credited the specific writer who worked on the story.​
    does that tell me there are no strings at all? No.

    One, this is not a contract unless at least some term imposes a binding obligation upon the poster. Are we to assume that two sentences after the smiley are non-obligatory? If not, then a link back is mandatory in the form given. If so, then for this to be a contract there must be an obligation elsewhere.

    Two, this is permission to "reprint" which could be read as a term of art. Generally, reprints are verbatim copies of books or articles. There's a whole host of derivative forms which are not reprints. Does this grant permission to translate this article into German? Into a stage presentation? If "reprint" is a limit on the form of copying allowed, then does it still count as a reprint if parts are missing or if you reedit it?

    Three, this grant has no fixed term. Even if we agree that a given use is a reprint and any obligations have been met, that permission is ephemeral and could be revoked by the author (or heirs/successors) at any time. But copyright law was created in a time of books and newspapers. So end-of-term just required no additional volitional copying. In the computer age, every website visit is a new copy. So a grant which does or could run out is a source of problems.

    Four, the poster does not control the website. Indeed, after a few hours the poster cannot even edit his own contributions. So even if the poster was aware of limitations on the form of copying, he is not the actual entity doing the reprinting.

    Introducing party number three: the website. The website has terms of service which are linked at the bottom right of every page.
    We reserve the rights to remove or modify any Content submitted for any reason without explanation. Requests for Content to be removed or modified will be undertaken only at our discretion. We reserve the right to take action against any account with the Service at any time.

    You are granting us with a non-exclusive, permanent, irrevocable, unlimited license to use, publish, or re-publish your Content in connection with the Service. You retain copyright over the Content.​

    Non-exclusive means the website won't sue the poster if the poster reposts his content somewhere else. Permanent means what the poster gives the website, is given for all time. Irrevocable means the poster (and heirs and successors) doesn't have the option of changing his mind in the future. And unlimited means unlimited. (SciForums: The Motion Picture has been in development for years, but Hugh Jackman has agreed to play James R if the thing is done as a Hollywood-style musical. Talks continue.)

    The thing is, for the privilege of posting here, the website demands more right to the Content than the poster has secured from the author. Moreover, the "permission to reprint" does not authorize the poster to pass on the mechanical task of reprinting on someone not in his employ. In addition to the public domain option cited above, an irrevocable license like the Creative Commons (of type CC0) grants most of what is required by the website. These are very broad rights demanded, which is why these terms of service encourage the poster not to copy articles but to post original content.

    How then does any copying gets approved? It's a balancing act.

    On top of the terms of service, we have a secondary document outlining what guidelines the website endorses as a rule of thumb. This document cannot trump the absolute tyranny of terms of service, but helps set standards for when posters and agents of the website come into conflict.
    F. Copyright
    F1. Material published online is protected by the same laws that apply to books, videos and music.

    F2. The copyright in a member’s posts remains with the original author. By posting to sciforums, you give us permission to publish your posts anywhere on the site.

    F3. It is illegal to copy or republish material from sciforums (or elsewhere on the internet) without the express permission of the copyright owner.

    F4. Under the laws of many countries, limited quotation of material is permissible in the context of comment, review and/or criticism. This does not in general permit the reproduction in full of complete works (e.g. song lyrics or news articles).

    F5. Where you reproduce part of a work in a post, you must include a link to the original source, along with appropriate acknowledgement – at a minimum the author’s name and the name of the original publishing source, but consider also supplying the original date of publication and other relevant information (e.g. ‘US shares fall further’ by A.Writer, New York Times, 11 September 2015.)​

    DaveC426913 makes a point that we could use a F6, possibly along the lines of "Where you reproduce part of a work in a post, you must delineate that part from the rest of your post and comment, review or criticize the work."
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2017
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Hear, hear. I like the content, but think there ought to be at least some commentary by the poster, as to why it might be of interest. The ideal in my view would be that the poster briefly summarises the main points or highlights what caught his or her eye about it, and provides a link to the full thing, for those whose appetite has been whetted.
  19. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    I think that if it adds to the discussion, it should be allowed. My preference is to link to an article rather than cut and paste. I feel that there is no guarantee the reader will actually take the time to read the content even when it is pasted to the forum. I might paste a short excerpt from an article with a link to that article.
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Wow!!! It seems we/I must be judged by the Supreme court of the land.
    Sorry rpenner, I see that as contrived bullshit.
    A normal person [which it appears obviously leaves you out] should be able to understand the following quite well.......
    "You have our permission. There, that was easy. You don’t even have to ask us. We’d appreciate it if you gave Universe Today credit, though. Just put a link in the story that says that it was originally published on Universe Today. If would be even better if you credited the specific writer who worked on the story".

    Rather then simply set out to defend your decision, on the report of some "friend" of mine, perhaps you need to approach this in the true spirit both sciforums and Universe Today would I presume operate under.
    That would be nice.
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    OK, I'm listening.
    And I do see merit in what most of you say.
    As per Dave's comment, I will firstly make sure that the author/site to which whatever article I reproduce is attributed, is far more noticable and so that no mistake can be made.
    As per the majority of sites I get my science news from, I will also post just an excerpt and then give a lenghty rundown on important aspects in my own words.....
    And of course, I will always make a comment on the article to promote some debate.
    The important thing is though, despite the fabricated nonsense by rpenner to justify his actions, I have broken no rules at all.
    Seattle likes this.
  22. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    If you "dont know why", maybe you could simply ask...
    Sure, "dicussion is great", Alex, and "realistically a cut and paste should not head off discussion"...but simply "flooding" Threads with "Cut/Pastes" is not a discussion.
  23. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Maybe I could ask thank you for the suggestion.
    Your post is reasonable do you think "flooding" threads makes you less inclined to post in that thread.
    Is there a role for cut and paste or not.

Share This Page