I can completely understand Kevin's reasoning. Websites who want only short excerpts of their content to be posted elsewhere are basically asking other sites to advertise for them -- for free. I find this recent idea that customers should do the advertising for companies rather bogus, which is why I don't (among other things) "Like" companies on Facebook. If they want to advertise, let them pay for it. If other sites want to use forums like this as a springboard for traffic, they should be willing to pay for the clicks.
Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel
Certainly in some cases you are correct. I'm not disputing that, but then again, my point wasn't to knock or validate why ANY site would want partial, if any, of their content posted on another site. My point point was how I didn't understand why Kev didn't want to have ANY article quoted here if the original author didn't want their whole article posted elsewhere. Simply because the 'fix' to said issue is to just quote PART of the article and provide a link for those interested in the article in it's entirety.
IE I run across an article I find interesting and very informative. I want to either share it with ya'll or I use it as a reference. But because the author has the rights to say "Don't post this article in it's entirety, if you want to use/share it, provide a link", there's confusion on my part whether or not to post it because of Kevin's statement: "To avoid any conflict, if an author/writer does not want their stuff posted elsewhere, I don't want it here at all."
But if his issue is not wanting to provide the free 'advertisement' or clicks, that's his prerogative. I just viewed it as more of a copyright issue than anything else (again, because of the issue PP.O had awhile back with local media outlets).
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!