The Times article isn't only about linking or using references. It's about wholesale lifting of content as well. In discussing what some call aggregation, the Times piece talks talk about "plucking and replication elsewhere," "others kidnapped their work,' and " where is the line between promoting the good work of others and simply lifting it?" Why just link when you can lift? That seems to be the evolving tenet of the new web.
Paul On Mar 12, 2012, at 5:24 PM, steve harley wrote: > on 2012-12-03 14:14 Bob W wrote >> I don't see what they're confused about. > > the NYT article is about how bloggers use references to other articles, often > with short quotations; it's not the same as wholesale copying, and it's > generally assumed to fall under fair use > > but as the article explores, some people would like to formalize the ethics > of how to link back to the original (if at all); the code of honor proposed > is an attempt to make sure that the originator of a story gets not just > credit, but a proportional amount of traffic > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
