Earlier today a thread got pulled because it was too specific about paywalled content. A slightly vaguer thread popped up and will stand even though it relates the gist in about four different replies. (Gist: w00t Dee Hart, something that was apparent from Tom's interview Saturday.) So what's the policy around here?
Hell if I know, really. Pulling the first thread was pointless. A new one popped up instantly and provided basically the same information. I think it's actually worse for us legally to pull certain threads for counterintuitive DMCA reasons. In any case you can't copyright a fact, only its expression, legal attempts to revive "hot news doctrine" aside. Strict policing is a waste of time for little benefit, done on behalf of a site that nukes links to mgoblog on sight.
The information will spread whether or not we deploy the iron fist. The net impact of strict policing of premium content will be to obscure the source of the information. Instead of something coming from Rivals it will be a step removed or just asserted with no backing. A recent example: a premium post was replicated verbatim on HailVictors.com and then linked here pointing to HailVictors, not Scout.
So:
- You might as well relate the gist of some paywalled content. It'll come out anyway.
- Do not C&P. Rephrase.
- Don't relate every last detail. Leave the paywalled content some value. In this case, "it looks good for Dee Hart and we should be getting good news relatively soon" would probably work.
- If you do so, provide a link. Don't just say "Site X says." The link will draw some traffic, may spur conversions, and will help the site with search engine rankings.
This is not a license to rephrase every rumble from an insider or the entire contents of an ITF. Sporadic and important are your watchwords.
What gets deleted. Copy and pastes of any premium content, even small sections that would be fair use of publicly available information. Posts that talk about premium content and do not link to the original source. Posts that relate every detail. And some posts that don't rise to the "this will be reposted in twelve seconds" standard.
I'm glad to see Brian taking an open point of view. Brian is correct that "inside information" is very tough to protect. I'm glad to see him accepting that for what it is and allowing us to post (relatively) freely.
Too many sites try to restrict content, and it's frustrating and ultimately futile. So yeah, Kudos to Brian for taking a view that makes much more sense, yet isn't followed nearly enough.