What happened to Tyler Hamilton's statement?

  • Home
  • What happened to Tyler Hamilton's statement?
8 replies [Last post]
Anonymous's picture

"Here it is again, part of a www.cyclingnews.com article. I can't imagine what about it was offensive enough to cause it to be pulled:

Hamilton speaks out

(admin edit)"

Anonymous's picture
<a href="http://www.OhReallyOreilly.com">Peter O'Reilly</a> (not verified)

Here it is again, part of a www.cyclingnews.com article. I can't imagine what about it was offensive enough to cause it to be pulled.

  • Violates copyright law. I'm sure cyclingnews.COM would appreciate the revenue generated by reviewing their article which they paid someone to write on their site while laying your eyes on their advertisements.

  • The article was posted, but no personal commentary followed.
    Maybe instead the message board should become one big streaming news feed. Even such sites today use an (abbreviated) RSS format much in response to the demands of those whom visit such sites.

  • the message was posted anonymously

  • and a trolling reply followed in part indicative of the value of simply reposting an article and adding nothing more

Anonymous's picture
Chris T (not verified)
Don't post full articles, only links and excerpts

Violates copyright law. I'm sure cyclingnews.COM would appreciate the revenue generated by reviewing their article which they paid someone to write on their site
while laying your eyes on their advertisements.

I am surprised that this hasn't been talked about on this board. On other bulliten boards, people who post full articles are immediately chastise for violating the copywright laws. Those board moderators point out that this can cause problems for the web site owners if they permit such practice to persist. The accepted practice is to post the link to the source, and credit any excerpts from said published material.

Anonymous's picture
Carol Wood (not verified)
noncommercial, educational purpose

"I believe there is an exception for educational, noncommercial purposes. Whether this applies to public bulletin boards and private listservs as well as classrooms, and whether permission must be obtained, I am not sure.

If the publisher includes a notice that any reproduction will be prosecuted (the really greedy, litigious ones do this), I wouldn't touch it. However, whether the Times or Daily News would sue a cycling club for posting a few articles pertaining to cycling, and whether they could convince a jury that their interests were being substantially harmed, is questionable. More likely they would send a cease and desist letter first.

Clearly objectionable would be to plagiarize or alter electronic copy and not to indicate author or copyright owner.

Here's a link to Web sites on the subject of copyright.

Also check out this one: http://www.chillingeffects.org/
According to my quick read, it is not impermissible to use copyrighted material for intellectual purposes, although the circumstances in which it is appropriate are not clear-cut.

""Copyright and Fair Use
When a copyright holder sues a user of the work for infringment, one defense that the user may have is the defense of fair use. Under the fair use doctrine, it is not an infringement for one to use the copyrighted works of another in some circumstances. However, it is difficult to define what exactly constitutes fair use because courts consider the defense on a case by case basis, and the analysis of the defense varies with the facts of each case.

Although the fair use defense was available for many years, the doctrine was first codified by Congress in the Copyright Act of 1976 in Section 107. Section 107 gives a non-exhaustive list of examples of when the fair use defense could be successful. The list includes criticism, comment, scholarship, research, news reporting and teaching as uses that may be fair.

The list also gives four guiding factors courts will consider in deciding whether a use is fair or not. These factors are

the purpose and character of the use,

the nature of the copyrighted work,

the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and

the effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Of course, even with these factors, it is problematic and often unyielding to try to predict what uses a court will deem fair."""

Anonymous's picture
<a href="http://www.OhReallyOreilly.com">Peter O'Reilly</a> (not verified)
Or go to the cited article

"And at the bottom of the page it states: ""All rights reserved/Copyright Knapp Communications Pty Limited 2004""

In my experience for educational purposes has required express permission for either legal or etiquette reasons or both. As for cyclingnews, their primary source of $ is to sell advertising on their website. And the reason for visiting their website? To read their articles and race results.

I'd be willing to bet a large sum of $, plus a powerbar and 2 spare tubes, they would not be happy with someone lifting content from their site. A link to their site is an easy alternative."

Anonymous's picture
ben (not verified)
more importantly...

More importantly, the NYCC has to choose it's battles.

It's better to just delete the questionable copyrighted content and then refer people the original webpage. We care about cycling issues, not copyright issues. There is no reason to waste energy trying to defend questionable content such as this.

I think Peter made the correct choice.

Anonymous's picture
<a href="http://www.OhReallyOreilly.com">Peter O'Reilly</a> (not verified)
cyclingnews.com response

Dear NYCC members and visitors,

The webmaster of your site, Mr Peter O'Reilly, has kindly asked me to
outline our policy in regard to the reproduction of complete articles from
Cyclingnews.com on other outlets, whether they may are online community
bulletin-boards or nyt.com. The Short answer is that it is a breach of
copyright, and all material published on Cyclingnews.com is covered by
copyright law.

In some instances, the articles may not be 'owned' by Cyclingnews.com, but
licensed from the author and therefore we are not in a position to provide a
reproduction licence to any third party.

However, we appreciate that stories we publish do generate discussion among
your members and I would like to propose a compromise; that is we will
permit up to 50 words from the article to be reproduced on www.nycc.org on
your message board with a link to the complete article so the
quote/precis/extract can be read in context (that part is very important).

Mr O'Reilly is correct in stating that Cyclingnews.com is funded by the
advertising we carry on the site, and we attract those advertisers because
of our large global audience, many of whom visit the sites and buy the
products of our sponsors. The Cyclingnews.com you visit today would not
exist without the support of those companies, so please keep that in mind.

Thanks again,

Gerard Knapp

Anonymous's picture
sinned (not verified)
Tyler's take

Maybe Tyler should be out spinning his wheels on his bike instead of spinning his story.....

Anonymous's picture
Mike (not verified)
whats stays....what goes....

I guess it's whatever you deem indicative stays or not on this message board.....

cycling trips