It's not that its paid content, it's that NYT strictly prohibits private parties from reference or quoting anything published on thier website (minus open eds) without their permission.
Just for reference I have report 2 posts that use websites that require a subscription for all access. And I have seen 4 more posts like it.
Mods, I can keep reporting or you can unban him and let him off with a harsh warning. Unless you end up banning all 6 of those posters (1 I believe is even a mod), in which case I fully support his ban.
Probably you should just report it to the Mods. The FBI is in charge of these types of crimes. While they may be interested in petty things like this, it's improbable.
You're welcome to try, though.
As far as the difference goes, I think that it's worth restating that there should be some discretion in these matters. As in all rules.
Harkius
Actually, it's not petty. Intellectual property infringement is considered a serious crime in the US. I just want the staff to know the severity of the crimes involved.
That doesn't explain why we should slap SCG in the face.
No, but you haven't exactly explained why you hold SCG on a pedestal either especially because as a result of this awkward ToS point someone has been banned for months.
Please do
Good.
"any information about copyright or use you see on those premium pages, or when you sign up, that would awesome.
Nothing when you sign up however they have a terms and conditions page you agree to on basic site membership.
Even their free articles are not allowed to be posted
Material from the Site and any other website owned, operated, licensed, or controlled by Star City Comics & Games, Inc. or any of its related, affiliated, or subsidiary companies (together, "Star City") may not be copied or distributed, or republished, uploaded, posted, or transmitted in any way, without the prior written consent of Star City. The content is protected by copyright under both United States and foreign laws. Modification or use of the materials for any purpose not expressly permitted by these Terms and Conditions is a breach of these Terms and Conditions and may violate copyright, trademark, and other applicable laws and Star City's intellectual property rights. The material in this site is provided for lawful purposes only. All rights not expressly granted herein are reserved to Star City. If you violate any of these Terms and Conditions, your limited license to use the Site and related content automatically terminates.
Because. . ? We shouldn't care about slapping SCG in the face because. . ?
Well, the difference between "them requesting" and "its actually illegal" are worlds apart.
My downstairs neighbor can request that I don't cook bacon because they don't like it. Doesn't mean that its against the law.
As far as I know there is no relationship between SCG and MtGS. While I understand that MtGS can restrict anything they want the fact of the matter, and as this staff has pointed out numerous times, this website is privately ran. It doesn't operate based off whats best for SCF bur rather what's best for the community on MTGS.
I assume they do to. And from what I know of WCT and Debate the articles linked are open to the public.
Heh. You do realize that if SCG articles are restricted so are any other website articles that have a "pay per view" limit like NYT or most local news websites.
In the future I'll make sure to report these articles to the proper authorities, wouldn't want our mods to go out of their way and make sure everything on this website is applied fair and/or equally now would I?
EDIT:
I have a SCG Prem account. What questions do you specifically want answered?
Books & journals are open content, but if someone posted a significant piece of a book, you can bet the staff would crack down.
SCG premium content is closed content. SCG is a major face in the MtG community. It is in Salve's best interest not to slap that face.
I assume the staff checks on every article posted in the watercooler or debate forum then. Wouldn't want to piss off the NYT or other closed off news websites.
A. A few things to note after having a discussion with a friend who is in law school about this....
MtGS could easily qaualify about 90% of the articles posted from SCG as legal, fair use law material. However, MtGS, if SCG were to hand out a "take down" letter from a lawyer, would need to file an actual legal appeal at that point that a judge would rule in their favor. Why? Two reasons:
1. The articles posted could be construed as educational for a leazier activity. It's the same reason I could feasibly posted an Insiders article from ESPN.COM but my local news station couldn't use that to site a news article.
2. There isn't any copyright infrigement as long as SCG is actually posted as the source of the article. It's one thing if I copy+pasted an article an submitted it as my own and another if it was posted in a thread to increase educational discussion about something. Think LexisNexus for school papers!
B. We are not legal experts (if my buddy in law school had to think after reading this discussion) and if someone in law school can't quickly say "yay" or "nay" I doubt our staff here could, however, I think we should think more before suspending users so easily. Now, with that said, as far as I can tell, MtGS is acting as if there is a quasi three strike rule enforcement to bannings and suspensions but it isn't clear to the public posters on this completely although some has been disclosed. Now, because he had 3 other suspensions, this suspension was longer. In the real world for 3 strike laws, if your third law is selling a dime bag or killing someone, it's life. Even though it wasn't a major suspenable offense, since he was, it feels as if his 4 month suspension falls under this "even though its a small dime bag, its still life" analogy.
(1) why are you so convinced that a woman WILL fail?
(2) you say there are 3-4 positions. Are you saying they want to hire ONLY women?
(3) you say there is a lot of turnover and the job is difficult. If that is true, then your problem should be solved since you predict the women will wash out.
(4) as you say, you are "privileged" to be doing this job in an economy where many are without work.
(5) How do you know this "unofficial" plan to hire ONLY women?
(6) this decision is being made by people above your pay grade. Perhaps the marketing people have figured out that the customers want more diversity. This is a sales position, no?
(7) You can only make yourself come off as an asshat by "officially" complaining, and maybe make enemies in the company... So go for it. Knock yourself out...
...OR leave well enough alone, and keep doing this job of yours where you make big time money for a 24 year old man.
Seems like you just have a very low opinion of females and thats what is really bothering you. If you truly enjoy your job, keep your "eye candy" comments to yourself once the new hires start.
"I have no problems with females. At all. I love eye candy."
...
No, you have a big problem with females and don't even know it. Here's a tip: they don't usually like to be referred to as eye candy. As someone else said, if you truly enjoy and value that job, keep those comments to yourself.
That statement also implies that you see women more as objects rather than potential equals. Maybe your type of attitude has permeated the workplace and mgmt. thinks you need to diversify because of it?
I am going to make this very clear: My original statement about eye candy was very clearly a sarcastic remark.
My personal mentor and probably one of the best people I've ever met for this job is a woman. My second mentor is a woman and my companies CEO is a woman. I honestly have no problem with women in the workplace and find that often times successful women in my job are very good at what they do.
Now, with that being said, my career is much more demanding and aggressiveness than most other jobs. In my years of experience I've found it hard for timid people to be successful in this line of work.
My problem isn't that a woman will fail. My problem isn't that a man would replace me. My problem is that a woman will fail at this position, in my eyes, strictly because only interviewing a woman makes them a strictly worse candidate than someone who was interviewed with a full field available. You can say Kobe is the best player in the NBA if you look at just the lakers. You can't make the same argument if you take into account of the entire NBA.
I want to work with someone who had to work to get this position, not someone we handed it too.
ill respond to some of this later but if this is the spirit of affirmative action then **** this ****. Lets solve sexism by making our hiring process sexist?
Is what they're doing now wrong, or are they working to rectify a wrong they've been guilty of already (Having an entirely male workforce)?
Will it make a difference in the end if you do open your mouth?
I mean, outside of it being blatantly against the law the hire someone strictly because their female?
It won't impact my personal position but it could impact my store. I'm commissioned based of my own tier and my store tier. If my store doesn't hit then that is money out of my pocket.
Of course it will make a difference but I am more curious if this is a commonality in the workforce....
Have at least a little faith. Trust me, most of the stuff happening back there is boring as crap, and I'm pretty sure that the second the discussion stops the mods will be chomping at the bit to post their conclusions. Nai's snapshot a little while back looked spot-on to me.
Don't take this the wrong way but in what way has the overall modship of MTGS lately proven that we should have faith in them?
So, I've been with my current company for about 4 years now. I love my job, my position and what I do. I don't know a lot of 24 year olds that make the income I do short of a doctorates. I've been very, very privileged.
Recently we've had some retire. As a result it's cause corporate to hire some new people. The problem? They want to hire females.
Now, I don't have a problem with females. At All. I love eye candy. My problem is that they refuse to actually consider any male for this position. Of course this is all "unofficial" however they want a certain demographic in our store.
This has me really upset. I've always been a firm believer that the best person interviewing for the position will get the position.
Is this normal? I have a feeling that we will end up hiring 3 or 4 new people simply because we are "forced" to diversify. I am not in an easy line of work and as a result it's a lot of turn over. Should I actually speak up on this and ruin any shot of a further promotion or keep my yap shut and cash in when my coworkers fail?
It's illega bud. Sorry.
Mods, I can keep reporting or you can unban him and let him off with a harsh warning. Unless you end up banning all 6 of those posters (1 I believe is even a mod), in which case I fully support his ban.
Actually, it's not petty. Intellectual property infringement is considered a serious crime in the US. I just want the staff to know the severity of the crimes involved.
No, but you haven't exactly explained why you hold SCG on a pedestal either especially because as a result of this awkward ToS point someone has been banned for months.
Please do
Good.
"any information about copyright or use you see on those premium pages, or when you sign up, that would awesome.
Nothing when you sign up however they have a terms and conditions page you agree to on basic site membership.
Even their free articles are not allowed to be posted
Material from the Site and any other website owned, operated, licensed, or controlled by Star City Comics & Games, Inc. or any of its related, affiliated, or subsidiary companies (together, "Star City") may not be copied or distributed, or republished, uploaded, posted, or transmitted in any way, without the prior written consent of Star City. The content is protected by copyright under both United States and foreign laws. Modification or use of the materials for any purpose not expressly permitted by these Terms and Conditions is a breach of these Terms and Conditions and may violate copyright, trademark, and other applicable laws and Star City's intellectual property rights. The material in this site is provided for lawful purposes only. All rights not expressly granted herein are reserved to Star City. If you violate any of these Terms and Conditions, your limited license to use the Site and related content automatically terminates.
Well, the difference between "them requesting" and "its actually illegal" are worlds apart.
My downstairs neighbor can request that I don't cook bacon because they don't like it. Doesn't mean that its against the law.
As far as I know there is no relationship between SCG and MtGS. While I understand that MtGS can restrict anything they want the fact of the matter, and as this staff has pointed out numerous times, this website is privately ran. It doesn't operate based off whats best for SCF bur rather what's best for the community on MTGS.
Heh. You do realize that if SCG articles are restricted so are any other website articles that have a "pay per view" limit like NYT or most local news websites.
In the future I'll make sure to report these articles to the proper authorities, wouldn't want our mods to go out of their way and make sure everything on this website is applied fair and/or equally now would I?
EDIT:
I have a SCG Prem account. What questions do you specifically want answered?
I assume the staff checks on every article posted in the watercooler or debate forum then. Wouldn't want to piss off the NYT or other closed off news websites.
I understand your reasoning but....its wrong.
MtGS could easily qaualify about 90% of the articles posted from SCG as legal, fair use law material. However, MtGS, if SCG were to hand out a "take down" letter from a lawyer, would need to file an actual legal appeal at that point that a judge would rule in their favor. Why? Two reasons:
1. The articles posted could be construed as educational for a leazier activity. It's the same reason I could feasibly posted an Insiders article from ESPN.COM but my local news station couldn't use that to site a news article.
2. There isn't any copyright infrigement as long as SCG is actually posted as the source of the article. It's one thing if I copy+pasted an article an submitted it as my own and another if it was posted in a thread to increase educational discussion about something. Think LexisNexus for school papers!
B. We are not legal experts (if my buddy in law school had to think after reading this discussion) and if someone in law school can't quickly say "yay" or "nay" I doubt our staff here could, however, I think we should think more before suspending users so easily. Now, with that said, as far as I can tell, MtGS is acting as if there is a quasi three strike rule enforcement to bannings and suspensions but it isn't clear to the public posters on this completely although some has been disclosed. Now, because he had 3 other suspensions, this suspension was longer. In the real world for 3 strike laws, if your third law is selling a dime bag or killing someone, it's life. Even though it wasn't a major suspenable offense, since he was, it feels as if his 4 month suspension falls under this "even though its a small dime bag, its still life" analogy.
C.
I am going to make this very clear: My original statement about eye candy was very clearly a sarcastic remark.
My personal mentor and probably one of the best people I've ever met for this job is a woman. My second mentor is a woman and my companies CEO is a woman. I honestly have no problem with women in the workplace and find that often times successful women in my job are very good at what they do.
Now, with that being said, my career is much more demanding and aggressiveness than most other jobs. In my years of experience I've found it hard for timid people to be successful in this line of work.
My problem isn't that a woman will fail. My problem isn't that a man would replace me. My problem is that a woman will fail at this position, in my eyes, strictly because only interviewing a woman makes them a strictly worse candidate than someone who was interviewed with a full field available. You can say Kobe is the best player in the NBA if you look at just the lakers. You can't make the same argument if you take into account of the entire NBA.
I want to work with someone who had to work to get this position, not someone we handed it too.
I mean, outside of it being blatantly against the law the hire someone strictly because their female?
It won't impact my personal position but it could impact my store. I'm commissioned based of my own tier and my store tier. If my store doesn't hit then that is money out of my pocket.
Of course it will make a difference but I am more curious if this is a commonality in the workforce....
Don't take this the wrong way but in what way has the overall modship of MTGS lately proven that we should have faith in them?
Transparency is good for a reason.
I forgot that our opinions don't matter, I'm sorry.
Yes, that was sarcasm and if I see a warning for it I'l throw a fit. I made my contributing post above.
arggg I feel like a pirate tonight folks.
Recently we've had some retire. As a result it's cause corporate to hire some new people. The problem? They want to hire females.
Now, I don't have a problem with females. At All. I love eye candy. My problem is that they refuse to actually consider any male for this position. Of course this is all "unofficial" however they want a certain demographic in our store.
This has me really upset. I've always been a firm believer that the best person interviewing for the position will get the position.
Is this normal? I have a feeling that we will end up hiring 3 or 4 new people simply because we are "forced" to diversify. I am not in an easy line of work and as a result it's a lot of turn over. Should I actually speak up on this and ruin any shot of a further promotion or keep my yap shut and cash in when my coworkers fail?