I agree with the double standard Tdbabe. It’s the allegory of stealing from the mom and pop store being worse that stealing from walmart. But then again, what exactly is being 'stolen' in this case?

What I don’t get is, how can you copyright an opinion? I understand that using the label or name that the tout uses can be subject to copyright infringement, i.e Platinum, Insider club, etc. Although those would more likely be subject to patent not copyright. But there is no way, in my opinion, that a tout can say that their opinion is protected by copyright. If I read a book or an article I can’t photocopy that book and give it out, but I can reveal facts from that book without facing repercussion.

Works that are not fixed like expert statements, as well as ideas, procedures, and methods are not subject to copyright. Maybe someone else can explain what I am missing.

Yeah it sucks to for any business owner to have their “business” redistributed for free, but that has more to do with the business in which they are operating than those doing the distribution. I mean we are talking about selling opinions here, not creative, tangible works.

Reference: http://www.researchcopyright.com/ar...you-protect.php

"What I don’t get is, how can you copyright an opinion?".....you get it ff, you totally get it.

I've always wondered about the phrase, "honor amongst thieves". Is there really?

Any original work can be copyrighted, even if it is just an opinion that has been published.

Enforcing copyright is much more difficult, but we will always side with the original publisher of the information if the mater is brought to our attention.

Slogans and brand names are usually Trademarked, not patented, so the reference for what can be copyrighted posted earlier is not very good in my opinion.

In this case it was not only an opinion, but specific reasoning in a detailed writeup that had been re-published without the author's permission.

Everyone should stick to original posts and their own opinions, not just copy and paste the opinions of someone else.

If we have to keep removing copyrighted material from posts of users then those users may lose their posting privileges.

Thanks for the clarification John. I never saw the original post so that makes more sense.

So the write up is considered an original work which can therefore be protected by copyright. I agree with that. So what if someone just posts the play, minus any write up by just saying, "I here Osk/Lang/Phil Steele is on such and such..."

Is that copyright infringement?

Thanks for taking the time to share some knowledge here John.
Robby

If a user makes a post saying it is someone else's play, and we get a complaint from the "someone else" then we will remove it.

Some touts don't mind their plays being shared since it gives them more visibility, some do mind.

We can not and will not police every post to make sure that no copyrighted material is ever posted, but if there are complaints we will take action.

Thanks John.

so all that person really has to say is "i heard" he might be playing this and its not copyrighted?? wink wink

A: Bahamas


OK:
A thread with an Osk pick, multiple Wojo posts, pointmagic talking trash, and Statfox John not banning anyone???? It's like Christmas!

FWIW - I agree. Jeff is working hard and making a living doing it. Don't post his picks.

Wojo - great to see you. Hope you're doing well. Miss all of your picks. Don't care if 95% of your posts said "good luck." The other 5% were $$$.

John - just teasing

GL gang!!!

Uga

Kent---hope your having a great trip...looking forward to the pictures

I think that Osk's leaving this forum was a big loss for the not so few of us who enjoyed his writeups, always well reasoned and well presented. A survey of his posts would show they were often the most widely read posts in the forum (I only followed weekend football, but I found that to be the case).

And more likely than not, his picks would win.

That is double the benefits.

Think about it, do you think it is only his opinion that he is selling? --not that it matters anyway because even if it were, it would still be subject to copyright protection. I don't think he wakes up one day and thinks "oh... i think today UCLA will cover". His well reasoned and documented writeups speak of many hours of research of which the pick is only the visible end result.

So his product is not the few characters needed to express LSU+24, but rather his experience, his time doing research and well honed insight.

And if he decides to go pro and sell his insight, then that is his decision, and I am sure somewhere in the material he distributes there is that annoying small print that reads something like "this is copyrighted material and cannot be reproduced or redistributed in whole or in part without written permission by the author".

That is the nature of copyright.

The only gray area is the difficulty of enforcing it, not the applicability of copyright protection to his product.

Sorry for the boring post anyway,

Cheers.