scout/rivals/espn

Post by **UOducksTK1** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:56 pm

If you feel like anyone here is posting inside information from educk, dsa, or dt and claiming it to be their own information please PM me instead of calling someone out on the forums.

Thanks.

ivegottabigduck · Post by **ivegottabigduck** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:16 am

speak for yourself...I want them too...lol. I no longer have any memborships elsehwhere and count on it.

Autzenoise · Post by **Autzenoise** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:03 am

I disagree. They pay for the info, and after getting the info that they pay for, they are free to do with the raw info what the y want. If they are posting direct quotes, or copy and pasting parts, that is an issue. The problem right now with internet "pay for info" sites is that they think they own the info. They in fact do not. They earn their rep, and paying customers by being the first to inform, but have no rights what so ever to the info after that.

Autzenoise · Post by **Autzenoise** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:03 am

BTW... 100 posts

karlhungis · Post by **karlhungis** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:40 am

I understand this but it is pretty funny. C4Q wouldn't exist if it weren't for people posting inside info when this first started.

Juice · Post by **Juice** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 12:00 pm

autzenoise, lol you might want to replace the masoli #2 with a masoli #8.

Boom · Post by **Boom** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 12:20 pm

Autzenoise wrote:I disagree. They pay for the info, and after getting the info that they pay for, they are free to do with the raw info what the y want. If they are posting direct quotes, or copy and pasting parts, that is an issue. The problem right now with internet "pay for info" sites is that they think they own the info. They in fact do not. They earn their rep, and paying customers by being the first to inform, but have no rights what so ever to the info after that.

sx1080 · Post by **sx1080** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:10 pm

Autzenoise wrote:I disagree. They pay for the info, and after getting the info that they pay for, they are free to do with the raw info what the y want. If they are posting direct quotes, or copy and pasting parts, that is an issue. The problem right now with internet "pay for info" sites is that they think they own the info. They in fact do not. They earn their rep, and paying customers by being the first to inform, but have no rights what so ever to the info after that.

I believe as long as you dont quote or cut and paste you are OK with the law ( copywrite laws).

But other than that> Come on. That's like buying a newspaper, reading a story and then telling your friends you cant tell them what you read because you bought the paper and they didnt. Give me a break.

duckgrad99 · Post by **duckgrad99** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:16 pm

sx1080 wrote:
Autzenoise wrote:I disagree. They pay for the info, and after getting the info that they pay for, they are free to do with the raw info what the y want. If they are posting direct quotes, or copy and pasting parts, that is an issue. The problem right now with internet "pay for info" sites is that they think they own the info. They in fact do not. They earn their rep, and paying customers by being the first to inform, but have no rights what so ever to the info after that.

I believe as long as you dont quote or cut and paste you are OK with the law ( copywrite laws).

But other than that> Come on. That's like buying a newspaper, reading a story and then telling your friends you cant tell them what you read because you bought the paper and they didnt. Give me a break.

I agree. As long as it's not a direct quote or link, I don't see a problem with giving information to someone else in a different way.

KeenanHowry15 · Post by **KeenanHowry15** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 2:54 pm

AGREED

Post by **UOducksTK1** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:00 pm

karlhungis wrote:I understand this but it is pretty funny. C4Q wouldn't exist if it weren't for people posting inside info when this first started.

I'm not saying you can't summarize articles or at least cite your source. But it seems like some members haev come here and said that they have their own source, when it sounds a lot like something from one of the pay sites mentioned. And if that does happen, I'd rather have members PMing me so I can look into it instead of calling them out on the message board.

I never said I don't want people to post their inside information OR to even stop sharing information from other sites (as long as they've cited their source).

And another note, some sites have chats and want none of that information to be leaked. So that's really the only information I don't want seeing posted here. Other than that, it's completely fine as long as you cite your sources.

Post by **UOducksTK1** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:00 pm

A lot of you posters have missed my point, please read my above post.

wheaton4prez · Post by **wheaton4prez** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 5:39 pm

I can understand the motivation for sites to not want information they have obtained to be leaked. However, they don't own that information and thus have no exclusive right to profit from or share it.

woundedknees · Post by **woundedknees** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 6:52 pm

I believe what TK is referring to is direct quotes from the other sites. That is copyrighted material, and can get this site in hot water.

wheaton4prez · Post by **wheaton4prez** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:43 pm

The other sites own no information that can be stolen.

The most that can be stolen are exact wordings which are copyrighted.

scout/rivals/espn

scout/rivals/espn

Re: scout/rivals/espn

Re: scout/rivals/espn

Re: scout/rivals/espn

Re: scout/rivals/espn

Re: scout/rivals/espn

Re: scout/rivals/espn

Re: scout/rivals/espn

Re: scout/rivals/espn

Re: scout/rivals/espn

Re: scout/rivals/espn

Re: scout/rivals/espn

Re: scout/rivals/espn

Re: scout/rivals/espn

Re: scout/rivals/espn