Wasatch dump rings in new season

[legalskier]

Perfect timing.....

Winter Returns as Ski Season Begins in Utah
Salt Lake City, UT - After being teased with up to 44 inches of snow last month, autumn made an untimely return to Utah last week. Winter, however, is back in the Wasatch this week.
Up to two feet of last month's snow remains on upper mountain slopes at Utah's ski and snowboard resorts. A strong snowstorm is presently impacting the Wasatch Mountains, the first in a series of progressively colder Pacific storms that are set to impact Utah throughout the week, just in time for the start of the state's ski and snowboard season.
Shortly after 10 a.m. this morning, the National Weather Service issued a Winter Storm Warning affecting Cottonwood Canyons, where 14 to 22 inches of snowfall is predicted by mid-day on Tuesday. Some mountain weather stations have already logged an inch of liquid precipitation, and snow is already mixing in with the rain at 5,000 feet on the benches east of Salt Lake City.
With snowfall this week expected to be measured in feet, not inches, both Brighton Ski Resort and Solitude Mountain Resort are in the midst of final preparations to launch their ski seasons in Big Cottonwood Canyon this Friday.
Many of the state's other ski and ride resorts are expected to follow suit the following weekend, so the timing of this week's storms is serendipitous, indeed.
http://www.firsttracksonline.com/News/2010/11/8/Winter-Returns-as-Ski-Season-Begins-in-Utah/

 

[hammer]

Just save some of that for me in February...

 

[KingM]

Great, I'm going to Snowbird on December 8.

 

[First Tracks]

Hey legalskier, if your nick is any indication you're aware that copying/pasting an entire article here is a violation of copyright law. Please understand that we make our money strictly from advertising, and if someone reads our content here rather than at FTO we lose out on that revenue. Without revenue, stories like this will cease as we'll be out of business.

Please understand that while copying a small excerpt with a link to the full article is acceptable, and doing so to make a point is well within the doctrine of fair use, copying and pasting our entire content without permission directly affects our bottom line, and is all in all pretty uncool even if you included the link to the original source.

Thanks for listening.

 

[redalienx11]

was nice to see the 4wd lights flashing this AM in little.

 

[legalskier]

you're aware that copying/pasting an entire article here is a violation of copyright law. .....Please understand that while copying a small excerpt with a link to the full article is acceptable, and doing so to make a point is well within the doctrine of fair use, copying and pasting our entire content without permission directly affects our bottom line, and is all in all pretty uncool even if you included the link to the original source.

If you really believe what you say then you should remove the box at the bottom of your articles that says "Post this page at...," and then lists no fewer than seventeen sites that you're inviting your readers to reproduce the article on, e.g. Google, Newsvine, Digg, Netscape, Furl, Reddit, etc, etc. The box doesn't say "Post this link," nor “Post part of this page,” it says "Post this page," meaning the entire piece. Sort of contradicts the position you’re trying to assert here.
Second, I could argue copyright law with you until the cows come home, but even a cursory review reveals that infringement is determined by numerous factors, not the one sweeping generalization you've stated, without citation I would add. A number of courts have ruled that reposting information is “not necessarily determinative” of infringement. There are even disagreements among the courts themselves as to how those numerous factors should be applied, leading to reversals by appellate courts of trial court decisions originally finding in favor of copyright holders. (I’ll cite the cases for you to read if you like, but I doubt you'll want to as they are lengthy, technical and time consuming.)
Third, I can understand being concerned about someone “affecting your bottom line,” but please state how you calculate the amount FT lost by my one post, which was placed in an obscure weather thread during the off-season? Do you really believe that “Arizona Landscaping,” one of the advertisers, will lose any customers from Connecticut? Besides, advertising revenue has nothing to do with copyright. A google search easily reveals that the article has been quoted numerous times by others; have you contacted all of them as well? Further, the article describes a snow storm occurring in the mountains outside a major city; are you seriously saying that you have the copyright to write about an event already known by hundreds of thousands?
Fourth, how would anyone even know whether a news item was reproduced in its entirety, unless they actually go to the original site and have a look? I placed the link there so anyone could do exactly that, and to give you attribution, even though there’s no author’s name listed. "All publicity is good publicity," isn't that the saying?
And while we’re talking about what’s “uncool,” you could have just PM’d me with your concerns and given me the opportunity to change the original post to your liking, which would have been a win-win. Instead you opted to go public and accuse me of violating the law. Thanks for the courtesy.
I could go on but frankly I don’t have the time for this. The bottom line is, if your objection really is sincere for the reason stated, I have no problem not quoting your site in the future, partially or not. I also have no problem not going there at all any more.
After all, there are plenty of other sites I can go to who would appreciate the business.

 

[St. Bear]

If you really believe what you say then you should remove the box at the bottom of your articles that says "Post this page at...," and then lists no fewer than seventeen sites that you're inviting your readers to reproduce the article on, e.g. Google, Newsvine, Digg, Netscape, Furl, Reddit, etc, etc. The box doesn't say "Post this link," nor “Post part of this page,” it says "Post this page," meaning the entire piece. Sort of contradicts the position you’re trying to assert here.
Second, I could argue copyright law with you until the cows come home, but even a cursory review reveals that infringement is determined by numerous factors, not the one sweeping generalization you've stated, without citation I would add. A number of courts have ruled that reposting information is “not necessarily determinative” of infringement. There are even disagreements among the courts themselves as to how those numerous factors should be applied, leading to reversals by appellate courts of trial court decisions originally finding in favor of copyright holders. (I’ll cite the cases for you to read if you like, but I doubt you'll want to as they are lengthy, technical and time consuming.)
Third, I can understand being concerned about someone “affecting your bottom line,” but please state how you calculate the amount FT lost by my one post, which was placed in an obscure weather thread during the off-season? Do you really believe that “Arizona Landscaping,” one of the advertisers, will lose any customers from Connecticut? Besides, advertising revenue has nothing to do with copyright. A google search easily reveals that the article has been quoted numerous times by others; have you contacted all of them as well? Further, the article describes a snow storm occurring in the mountains outside a major city; are you seriously saying that you have the copyright to write about an event already known by hundreds of thousands?
Fourth, how would anyone even know whether a news item was reproduced in its entirety, unless they actually go to the original site and have a look? I placed the link there so anyone could do exactly that, and to give you attribution, even though there’s no author’s name listed. "All publicity is good publicity," isn't that the saying?
And while we’re talking about what’s “uncool,” you could have just PM’d me with your concerns and given me the opportunity to change the original post to your liking, which would have been a win-win. Instead you opted to go public and accuse me of violating the law. Thanks for the courtesy.
I could go on but frankly I don’t have the time for this. The bottom line is, if your objection really is sincere for the reason stated, I have no problem not quoting your site in the future, partially or not. I also have no problem not going there at all any more.
After all, there are plenty of other sites I can go to who would appreciate the business.

Maybe you should edit your original post to remove the word "indeed" at the end. That way you're not copying the entire body of text. :flame:

 

[legalskier]

Maybe you should edit your original post to remove the word "indeed" at the end. That way you're not copying the entire body of text. :flame:

I know, right? Tempest in a tea pot.

 

[First Tracks]

So, instead of being a man and responding appropriately to a courteous request, you instead choose to be a

Nevermind. My mistake was expecting more from you. I won't do that again.

I'm going skiing. Have fun playing on the Internet.

 

[legalskier]

So, instead of being a man and responding appropriately to a courteous request, you instead choose to be a ......

That's the best you can do? Call someone a lawbreaker, then a jacka**, then run off? Real classy.
Well, at least you're consistent.

 

[Puck it]

So, instead of being a man and responding appropriately to a courteous request, you instead choose to be a

Nevermind. My mistake was expecting more from you. I won't do that again.

I'm going skiing. Have fun playing on the Internet.

He posted the link to your site. I could see your agrument if the link was not there. I am sure that people clicked on the link after reading the short article to find out more. Doesn't that click to your site produce revenue for you.

 

[dmc]

mmmm..... Thats some good internet...

 

[John W]

LMAO @ DMC. I would like to thank you LegalSkier and Firsttracks, I am not well versed on Copyright law and was looking to find out about that on here... What's with all the negative Vibes on here lately. Lighten up everyone, it's almost ski season.

 

[John W]

I am going to have 4 vodka tonics at lunch on my first day of the season, I am gonna go out of bounds off a gladed trail and wont find my way back until midnight. And I will do all this without a beacon and flashlight. Someone please explain to me how I can sue the mountain I am at for punative damages!!!

 

[Angus]

So, instead of being a man and responding appropriately to a courteous request, you instead choose to be a

Nevermind. My mistake was expecting more from you. I won't do that again.

I'm going skiing. Have fun playing on the Internet.

Marc: You obviously didn't appreciate the response LegalSkier gave you - I actually found it interesting - but your response was unprofessional. It reflects poorly on your business. As a result of the original post, I actually visited your site, spent some time looking around and made a mental note to visit in future. I'll probably reconsider now. I don't understand website economics but suspect it's all about eye balls and hits - therefore, I'd expect any reference to your site to be positive and suspect an unintentioned result LegalSkier's cross-post would be increased traffic to your site.

btw: I'm jealous your skiing.

 

[BLESS]

If you really believe what you say then you should remove the box at the bottom of your articles that says "Post this page at...," and then lists no fewer than seventeen sites that you're inviting your readers to reproduce the article on, e.g. Google, Newsvine, Digg, Netscape, Furl, Reddit, etc, etc. The box doesn't say "Post this link," nor “Post part of this page,” it says "Post this page," meaning the entire piece. Sort of contradicts the position you’re trying to assert here.
Second, I could argue copyright law with you until the cows come home, but even a cursory review reveals that infringement is determined by numerous factors, not the one sweeping generalization you've stated, without citation I would add. A number of courts have ruled that reposting information is “not necessarily determinative” of infringement. There are even disagreements among the courts themselves as to how those numerous factors should be applied, leading to reversals by appellate courts of trial court decisions originally finding in favor of copyright holders. (I’ll cite the cases for you to read if you like, but I doubt you'll want to as they are lengthy, technical and time consuming.)
Third, I can understand being concerned about someone “affecting your bottom line,” but please state how you calculate the amount FT lost by my one post, which was placed in an obscure weather thread during the off-season? Do you really believe that “Arizona Landscaping,” one of the advertisers, will lose any customers from Connecticut? Besides, advertising revenue has nothing to do with copyright. A google search easily reveals that the article has been quoted numerous times by others; have you contacted all of them as well? Further, the article describes a snow storm occurring in the mountains outside a major city; are you seriously saying that you have the copyright to write about an event already known by hundreds of thousands?
Fourth, how would anyone even know whether a news item was reproduced in its entirety, unless they actually go to the original site and have a look? I placed the link there so anyone could do exactly that, and to give you attribution, even though there’s no author’s name listed. "All publicity is good publicity," isn't that the saying?
And while we’re talking about what’s “uncool,” you could have just PM’d me with your concerns and given me the opportunity to change the original post to your liking, which would have been a win-win. Instead you opted to go public and accuse me of violating the law. Thanks for the courtesy.
I could go on but frankly I don’t have the time for this. The bottom line is, if your objection really is sincere for the reason stated, I have no problem not quoting your site in the future, partially or not. I also have no problem not going there at all any more.
After all, there are plenty of other sites I can go to who would appreciate the business.

hahahahaha. OWNED. and clearly, his response just shows that he knows you made him look stupid, so he took his ball & went home. Quality stuff right thurrrr.

 

[mondeo]

Hey legalskier, if your nick is any indication you're aware that copying/pasting an entire article here is a violation of copyright law. Please understand that we make our money strictly from advertising, and if someone reads our content here rather than at FTO we lose out on that revenue. Without revenue, stories like this will cease as we'll be out of business.

Please understand that while copying a small excerpt with a link to the full article is acceptable, and doing so to make a point is well within the doctrine of fair use, copying and pasting our entire content without permission directly affects our bottom line, and is all in all pretty uncool even if you included the link to the original source.

Thanks for listening.

Hmm, I see you're all for attracting flies with vinegar.

A simple "I'd appreciate it if you posted in this manner" probably would have worked much better.

 

[John W]

Well said Mondeo

 

[snafu]

Not the nicest way to thank someone for posting a link to your site, most sites would appreciate, not hate. And you call that little blurb an article, lol, thats rich.