Somehow I take it you are the type that turn in people for removing the tags on their mattress.....




Disclaimer: yes I know you can legally do that, this post was for sarcasm purposes only.

Serious now: if he had posted it without the link, I would agree with you, but this is the equivalent of a long quote with citation. Hardly a "crime".

Serious: no one is going to click the link once they've read the article. This person made no effort to engage us in commentary, thus there is no "fair use." It nearly the whole article, hardly a "long quote."

While I am not a stickler for every law, I know for a fact that copy & pasting whole news articles (or the greater portion of them) is stealing from another person's paycheck.
Oh, wait, I think I get it: someone you don't know is stealing from someone you don't know who knows he is being stolen from but not by whom—so it's all okay!

__________________
Hehetchetu. Wa uyun tinkte!

I click, so you stand refuted. As I said, as long as the link is there, I don't consider it theft. If anything, the post is expanding readership to an audience that probably would never have read the original. I know from personal experience that I have bought books from authors who were posted on these websites in such a manner, authors I would not have read elsewhere. What matters is the thought in the piece, not how I came across it.

Are you, or have been a member of the CCP?

__________________
To Love and be Loved, thats all that is required.

CHIEF CRAZY CROTCH

How am I unrealistic?

__________________
Democrats are raping Americans at the pump

Care to explain how most news organizations post entire stories from other news organizations and all they do is provide a link to the original story?

So, when the NYT runs a false story about a Marine murdering Iraqi civilians, the NYT should profit from it and it's ok the Marine's life is ruined forever?
That's ruining the Marine's livelihood for life. That's taking food from his children.
I think I get it: It's ok to ruin a soldier's life because the NYT thinks the first amendment says it's ok?

__________________
Democrats are raping Americans at the pump

because you think the mortgage crisis had to do with the government regulating lenders and the case really is it would not have been a problem if there had been more and better government regulation

__________________
You can never dent spiderwebs

I read an article in the NY Times today about how China, for so long lectured by the USA about their economy, is now lecturing us as we are in decline and they are growing by leaps and bounds.
“U.S. credibility and the credibility of U.S. financial markets is zero everywhere in the world,” said Joseph E. Stiglitz, a professor of economics at Columbia University, according to the article.
I think this is ..... etc etc etc
Here's the link: LINK

What's so hard about that? It accomplishes everything you spoke of regarding spreading the word and interesting us in an article without providing those without your sense of duty a way to read the article without paying for it (letting an advertiser know you went to the article and saw their ad—so the writer can get paid).

I would think that in addition to the fact that it is stealing (you don't see it that way, but the copyright laws, the market mechanisms, the publishers, the writers and the moderator of this website all do) that members here would despise this behavior because it is not at all the purpose of, or in the spirit of, this website. When did it become Digg.com? Does "argue with everyone" mean "regurgitate other people's words and add none of your own?" Am I arguing with the members here or with the corporate news media?

THINK & SPEAK FOR YOURSELVES!

__________________
Hehetchetu. Wa uyun tinkte!