- Jul 17, 2003
The idea of people dobbing in other sites reposting their articles was mine, not theirs. My intention was for Mr Browne to receive e-mails about 100's of sites reposting Sportal's content.chris88 said:With the greatest of respect Ned, that's ridiculous.
It's bad enough the geniuses at Sportal wish to single out this site - which it seems they have done to some extent considering a number of other sites have not put this message up on their noticeboards, and still seem to be posting full Sportal articles - but then we are now being asked to police this measure by dobbing in other sites to Sportal?
No, that's not on.
Let the idiots at Sportal deal with this. Let them write to everyone and tell them the same thing they've told us. Let them police it and see how they go being in 400 places at once.
Nope - no indication whatsoever, and I haven't asked. As I mentioned in my earlier response to SIA, I'm happy to just comply with their request and leave it at that.chris88 said:Ned - is there any indication from the "esteemed" Ashley Browne that they have written to more sites than just this one? Are you able to ask him on that matter. If they've singled us out (apart from the fact they can get stuffed) I'd like to know why.
I find it difficult to disagree with you on thatchris88 said:What a bunch of knobs.
I'm more than happy with that ideachris88 said:1 - For the "exclusive to AFL.com.au" and "sportal for afl.com.au" pieces, let's not post them when they appear on the AFL site. Simple as that.
That way, the traffic coming from our site to their site to check out the story (and other stories at the site) stops completely.
I like that idea - it would also have the benefit of raising the amount of original content on the site and sparking debate.chris88 said:2 - For the exclusive to RFC pieces, we have a few options. The first is not to post them at all. But again, that's defeating the purpose of being an up-to-date site on everything Richmond.
So, there is another way around it. In looking at the many Sportal articles on the RFC site that have "exclusive for RFC.com.au", most of them are news articles. Most recently we've had the Richo is back inthe side piece, the Tigers/AFG renewed sponsorship piece and a couple of other straight out news pieces.
For a story like the "Richo is back" yarn, simply don't post it. Its about the squad, we know the team, no need to post it.
But for a story like the Tigers/AFG sponsorship one, simply start a short thread along these lines.
"Good news, just formally announced that the Tigers and AFG have renewed their sponsorship until 2007. Great to see AFG staying on board and supporting us". What does everyone reckon?
I think that the discussions on the Internet rights for the next 5 years may have something to do with this. [:0]chris88 said:Don't provide a link to the Sportal story ... after all, you are only spreading information already freely available in the public arena and accurately reported on by the media.
News isn't copyright. News is news. The whole idea of spreading officially reported news is to inform people, to bring them up-to-date and keep them up-to-date.
The idea that news needs to in fact be limited due to copyright reasons and other so-called legal namby pamby is the complete opposite to what news is about - and, bluntly, should be shunned at every opportunity.
We provide fair and reasonable links, sourcing and attribution through this site, and it is something that Ned and all of us here at the site are absolutely committed to doing. How dare one pinicky media organisation tell us that this conspicuous sourcing and attribution work; work that covers not only published media material, but even fair and reasonable attribution when needed to RFC forums and BF, is not up to scratch in their view.
The only conclusion I can draw from this is that Sportal must be struggling to deliver on Internet visit targets they agreed on as part of their contract to supply their "exclusive" news to AFL and AFL clubs. Maybe there are other conclusions, but this one stands out like a sore thumb.
Nah - you echo my thoughts.chris88 said:**** you Sportal (I'll probably be warned for that). How precious can a news site be if it feels it has to "protect" the news it reports on from being spread around like ... well, news.
I'm not sure if Richmond has much say in what appears on their site or the how that information is managed. When you click on any of the privacy or copyright links they always refer to Telstra as being the owner, not the RFC.chris88 said:PS - Ned - is this something we should/could at least raise with Tony Greenberg, telling him of the threat Sportal have made and the effect this is going to have on the amount of justified and good publicity the Tigers get through stories being spread around on forums like ours.
Anything that limits the spread of Richmond good news stories ought to be stopped.