Denver Post, MediaNews Group executives not eager to talk about copyright-violations warning

• just to report back, after reading this article i've decided not to follow any links to the denver post site. in 2 days, i have already passed up denver post links 5+ times. that'll really add up over a LIFETIME. nobody owns the facts!

• Hahahahahahaha The Denver Post has a horrible website. What brain-dead MediaNews Group focus group thinks it is useful??? Unappealing layout combined with layers of trashy advertising. Slow to load and filled with AP stories that I can read elsewhere. They constantly feature local articles that would get an "F" in high school journalism classes. Remember who, what, when, where and why? If you do, the Denver Post desperately needs you. Craigslist is eating the newspapers for lunch. Unless the DenverPost can change dramatically, they are done in less than 10 years.

• The denver post....lol. Well, never again will I intentionally click on a link that directs me to the denver post website. There is no such thing as a one source site for all your news. Anything of consequence the denver post reports can easily be read somewhere else. Idle threats and scare tactics are laughable.

• The Post frequently quotes other media but also attributes the information to that media source. I don't see anything wrong with that practice, thought it has increased as newsrooms have had to cut back due to the economy. But while the Post does that, they're telling others they can't do the same? Seems like the Post ought to play by the same rules it imposes on others.

• As a long-time blogger/linker I took the notice as an invitation to make fair use of the Post's content so long as I link to it as I always have. But this poorly written sentence still needs some interpretation, I think: "But fair use of our content restricts those who want to reference it to reproduce no more than a headline and up to a couple of paragraphs or a summary of the story." I think what the Post meant to say is: "We define fair use of our content as allowing others to post a copy of our headline and/or up to a couple of paragraphs of the story or a brief summary of the story." If you want to stay out of trouble, link to the story or wait until it has been picked up by several other news organizations. For example, now that Mark Udall's decision to be against earmarks is well known I don't feel compelled to credit anyone with the story. However, if he posts something about it on his web site, I might link to that. And when the Post begged their dear Michael Bennet to oppose earmarks, I linked to that funny editorial.

• "Are lawsuits eminent?" Probably not, but your need for a dictionary in eminently clear.

• My take: The Post's strange little "notice to readers" article it the type of thing that lawyers submit (along with cease and desist letters)as evidence in intellectual property lawsuits. This seems to me to be another indication that certain forces at MediaNews (and AP) are setting the stage for a wave of litigation that they hope will draw the line in the sand on this sort of thing. Now that some of these blogs and news aggregators are starting to make real money off other people's content the papers are getting closer to claims of "damage" and theft that could stand up in court. ColoradoPols is just a convenient bug to squish on their way to the big prize...whatever that is.

• This is a classic management interference situation. The more the Denver Post is referred to in other locations, the more brand exposure and click through traffic they will get, thus increasing their value overall to everyone - readers, advertisers and investors. Just when you think newspapers are starting to 'get it' you are force-fed a lecture on ancient and irrelevant copyright laws that reminds you why newspapers ARE failing. Why would the Denver Post try to stop the public from reading the rare exclusive they publish from time-to-time? Who are they trying to protect from and from whom? The public that refuses to pay silly subscription prices but is more than willing to give them a read online? Every website and every blogger could claim the same thing against the Denver Post, but they realize what the Denver Post should be grasping - your value increases when more people READ YOU! Are your 'journalists' so offended they are being referred to by others, usually in a complimentary way? I don't think so. The Denver Post needs to realize they are in the advertising business. Journalism anymore is a by-product. Content is simply the incentive to capture an audience to your website where you can advertise them things that your advertisers are paying you to sell. Like Amazon and others, they should be developing creative partnerships and at the very least pay a nominal 'click through' fee to ColoradoPols and others every time they lead someone to www.denverpost.com, but instaed, they are threatening them with lawsuits. The Post has seen the enemy: it is the suits with law degrees and the high brow editors with journalism degrees circa 1974.

• if i _ever_ visit denverpost.com (whose advertising/pageview system is even worse than Westword's flashing crap, multiple pageloads for short articles and useless self-links) it is because of an link from somewhere else, often at coloradopols.com; so i'm pretty sure the Post was getting some referral traffic, but maybe Pols-to-Post traffic consists mainly of people like me too unlikely to click on an ad for the Post to even want that traffic?

• How about a commenter: The Denver Post has always taken copyright issues very seriously, both as a creator of content and as a user of other people's content. In fact, everything that appears in a typical edition of the newspaper is copyright protected. Nonetheless, our work is illegally reproduced everyday on websites across the country. The federal Copyright Act protects our right and our readers' rights to make fair use of copyrighted content. We have no issue with people who quote a small amount of a Post story so as to comment on it, perhaps even criticize us. That's the essence of free speech in a vigorous democracy. But fair use of our content restricts those who want to reference it to reproduce no more than a headline and up to a couple of paragraphs or a summary of the story. (We also request users provide a link to the entire work on our website). The fair use rule generally does not entitle users to display the whole story or photograph on their website. To do so is a violation of our copyright and we will use all legal remedies available to address these infringements. We understand people may want to share what they find interesting in our publication. This is a reminder that there is a right way to do it. Finally, thank you for your continued support. We intend to remain a vital and trusted source for unique and unduplicated reporting on the concerns and issues affecting you and this community.

TotalComments: 10