02-01-2016, 01:04 PM
A couple quick thoughts on the somewhat difficult relationship between this free site and other paid sites.
1) Posting a fact is not a copyright violation. Facts are by definition not subject to copyright, even if they were initially disclosed behind a paywall.
2) Posting something from behind a paywall may be a violation of the terms of service of the website it was obtained from. Though usually, nobody is going to be booted out for disclosing something that will become public information sooner rather than later...
2a) It may earn you a talking to
2b) For someone who is putting a lot of work into getting the information and trying to earn a living by it, it can be tough to see
2c) On the flip side, it can serve as free advertising for these other sites and might entice more people to subscribe
2d) Thus, it probably would make sense to clarify what, if anything can be disclosed
3) Generally speaking, it is probably a good idea to differentiate between speculation (even if well informed) and sourced information. Linking to publicly posted information or embedding tweets should be encouraged.
4) Over time, it becomes apparent who has inside information and is reliable and who is prone to speculation. I take certain people's pronouncements here as gospel; others with smaller or larger grains of salt. But it's still the internet, and not everyone knows whether a poster is reliable.
5) In addition to #2 above, sourcing of information behind a paywall presents an additional quandary. On the one hand, doing so would differentiate it from speculation. On the other hand, while this site and others are all on the same (pro-Stanford) side, the ethos of the Cardboard was to be generally non-commercial. While occasionally saying things like "Andy really works hard and has established great connections and is a wealth of recruiting information and may be worth a subscription" is fine, consistently sending links to paywalled content could be interpreted as solicitation and would probably upset some people over here. Discretion is advised.
6) I know that sometimes it is hard to watch people engaging in idle speculation that (due to deeper knowledge that cannot or should not be disclosed) one knows is unfounded. But remember, in the end it will all declare itself and we will all find out the truth anyways soon enough (Wednesday, to be exact).
7) Lastly, we are all on the same side here. While we may not always agree on everything, I'd like to think we all mean well. If something written on the board could be taken two ways, one innocuous and one malignant, it is best to assume that it was meant innocuously. There is no sense in getting into an argument over a quick post on an internet message board that likely wasn't meant personally.
BC
1) Posting a fact is not a copyright violation. Facts are by definition not subject to copyright, even if they were initially disclosed behind a paywall.
2) Posting something from behind a paywall may be a violation of the terms of service of the website it was obtained from. Though usually, nobody is going to be booted out for disclosing something that will become public information sooner rather than later...
2a) It may earn you a talking to
2b) For someone who is putting a lot of work into getting the information and trying to earn a living by it, it can be tough to see
2c) On the flip side, it can serve as free advertising for these other sites and might entice more people to subscribe
2d) Thus, it probably would make sense to clarify what, if anything can be disclosed
3) Generally speaking, it is probably a good idea to differentiate between speculation (even if well informed) and sourced information. Linking to publicly posted information or embedding tweets should be encouraged.
4) Over time, it becomes apparent who has inside information and is reliable and who is prone to speculation. I take certain people's pronouncements here as gospel; others with smaller or larger grains of salt. But it's still the internet, and not everyone knows whether a poster is reliable.
5) In addition to #2 above, sourcing of information behind a paywall presents an additional quandary. On the one hand, doing so would differentiate it from speculation. On the other hand, while this site and others are all on the same (pro-Stanford) side, the ethos of the Cardboard was to be generally non-commercial. While occasionally saying things like "Andy really works hard and has established great connections and is a wealth of recruiting information and may be worth a subscription" is fine, consistently sending links to paywalled content could be interpreted as solicitation and would probably upset some people over here. Discretion is advised.
6) I know that sometimes it is hard to watch people engaging in idle speculation that (due to deeper knowledge that cannot or should not be disclosed) one knows is unfounded. But remember, in the end it will all declare itself and we will all find out the truth anyways soon enough (Wednesday, to be exact).
7) Lastly, we are all on the same side here. While we may not always agree on everything, I'd like to think we all mean well. If something written on the board could be taken two ways, one innocuous and one malignant, it is best to assume that it was meant innocuously. There is no sense in getting into an argument over a quick post on an internet message board that likely wasn't meant personally.
BC