U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
July 09, 2010 06:50 PM UTC
61 Comments
1) more readers
2) much more thought put into posts here that at the Denver Pravda.
3) getting the “scoop” a day or two BEFORE the Denver Pravda does.
4) forcing the Denver Pravda to actually do its job and report on the buzz Pols creates.
5)the Denver Pravda is jealous that the posters here can and do use colorful adjectives freely. True Free speech cannot be tolerated.
lastly
6) All of us “leftists” Here at Pols Mocking the Pravda’s new found bias towards the dark side, They must QUASH descent.
When in reality it appears the Pravda is beating a dying horse, nothing more.
Actually, they support descent, as they descend further into the swamp of far-right politics and policies every day.
It’s
they want to quash.
I will take it under advisement, and implement changes immediately.
lets see a republican do that!
being that a media mogul funded his grand kids trust funds and bought horsies for his ranch on the backs of reporters and editors labor, what’s Voys take.
Heck he’s a guest editor, what would his policy be to live within Fair Use, keep moguls trust funding ability and enable CPs to address today’s political issues.
since my secret subsidy as FPE is paid directly from Soros [Sorry to nag, Georgie, but it still hasn’t been deposited to my off-shore account in Glendale.]
Seriously, Pols can obviously win a lawsuit based on fair use policies. But can it afford to? The Post once spent half a million dollars getting a libel suit thrown out on summary judgment. Can pols afford that kind of legal bill to score a pyrrhic victory in district court on its way to bankruptcy court?
This is one reason I favor the British system of “loser pays” in civil suits.
I had a suspicion all along Soros was behind you, and I now officially retract my vote.
Sad but true what you say about the costs of defending a lawsuit. But there might be the possibility of pro bono work being done since this would be a precedent setting case, and as I stated below a legal defense fund could be set up.
If Dan Maes can raise $ 50,000 just for “drive around money”, would this be impossible?
“Drive around money” is fantastic!
But our bigger point in all of this has been that we have no need to challenge this in court. As we’ve said, it’s no big deal for us to stop using content from the Post or these other newspapers. The success of Colorado Pols will have nothing to do with whether or not we use content from these newspapers, so it’s not a fight worth waging in our minds.
We could go through a long legal fight and “win,” but for what? To get a court’s affirmation that we can use content that we don’t really need anyway?
to buy a first-class cabin on the Titanic?
At least the Titanic offered the prospect of a nice boat for a while. This would be like betting the deed to your house in a wager to win a new kitchen table. We could go through a whole legal battle to win something we don’t even really want.
I know you’re only a guest editor, but your expertise is journalism, not the promotion of an assumed judicial outcome.
Your life’s work has been used by media moguls to fund their grand kids trustfunds, although they invested the capital to enable you to practice your trade.
Don’t you have a proposed solution you can recommend to CPs and the Denver Post – a gentlemans agreement if you will?
right now things are so tight, I’d probably get thrown out of the lifeboat.
If Pols would win, it really means nothing because we don’t need the Post et al.
And if Dinky wins, it means nothing to the Post et al because that doesn’t remedy their real problem.
But the litigator in me just screams “Bring It On !!
What’s the solution besides forbidding links to the Denver Post, other complaintents or posting sections of their material?
Now shut the fuck up for Christ sakes
Is it that time of the year or are your favorite causes beinging to circle the drain?
All of a sudden now that you’re not linking to them or quoting them they want to remind you that you can link to them under fair use. They’re worried that they’re losing traffic from Colorado Pols, which they are.
There’s a win-win scenario unfolding here. ColoradoPols is a gathering spot for people who want to learn about and discuss Colorado political issues. The greater the breadth of information sources, the better the discussion. There’s no question that Pols can link to and quote some degree of information from other media sources under fair use; the only real debate is over what constitutes “too much” when it comes to quoting. I think a “summarize, link, discuss” approach works well. See my diary today on the 4th Congressional District race. I summarized the content of my Coloradoan story, provided a link and started a discussion. A number of posters have followed. It’s clear from the discussion that some readers followed the link and used information that was in the story but not in the diary to add to the discussion.
Bob Moore is showing how to comment on the work of himself and others.
The Denver Post is making a big deal out of its favorite fall guy, Tom Tancredo, who’s forced the paper to pay attention to him again. The Post doesn’t explore the merits of Tancredo’s comments, it just issues a standard snear.
That makes Tancredo look human and the Post look snide.
Tancredo could have been more diplomatic, but that wouldn’t have started the discussion he wants us to have. Ironically, we’re still not having that discussion.
Why?
See you’re still deluded as ever. Poor Tom Tancredo. His claim that Obama is worse than nuclear war just isn’t being explored for its merits. Because it’s not so fucked up that we can just dismiss it as nuts, amirite?
Dream on. Even LB knows this guy is a fruitcake. Only the deluded hard right wingnut thinks otherwise.
I can’t figure out which word you mispelled, “smear” or “sneer.” Which did you mean? I think “smear.”
Sneer.
Good catch. 🙂
I think the real reason Dinky initiated his strong arm tactics is out of displaced aggression and frustration in continuing to lose money in a “unsustainable business model”. As I said before, his problem isn’t on the content end of the business (other than the quality of his content degrading), but on the revenue end. His action will do nothing to staunch his flow of red ink, but may very well accelerate it.
Several years ago I published a website exposing a criminal developer doing a large real estate project in the Denver area. They sent me a “cease and desist” letter (I told them to go fuck themselves). They threatened to sue me (I told them go right ahead, I’d see them in court.) They even threatened me with criminal prosecution under the statutory criminal liable and slander laws (I told them to have a DA present me with the charging documents).
Their threats were just that, because when I invited them to carry through on their threats, they did nothing.
My stance would be bring it on Dinky, I’ll see ya in court. But this isn’t my blog so it’s not my decision. But I’d be willing to contribute to a Pols legal defense fund. Just put up a PayPal Donate button on Pols for that purpose.
Stand up to Dinky and I bet his face turns as red as his P & L sheet.
Say Mr. Pols hires a bunch of engineers and musicians to record a new album. Some of his songs turn out to be popular.
Is it fair use for me to build my own business around long samples of your songs, without your permission and without paying you royalties?
What if Mr. Pols produced movies? Could I build my business replaying long segments of those films without your permission?
Where’s the line between fair use and stealing?
Added commentary, satire, size of quote, content of quote all go in to it.
If CP were to quote 5 paragraphs of a DP story, three of which were direct quotes from a politician’s press release or rally speech, is that “fair use” under the DP’s supposed 2 paragraph rule?
If CP adds their own analysis, does it alter how much they can post of a story so that the proper context is provided?
Or perhaps they’re quoting long portions of an editorial in order to satirize it.
All of these are allowed, where quoting the same amount of text in other contexts would not be. The courts have ruled that quoting even a sentence or two can be Copyright infringement, if those few words express something highly proprietary; on the other hand, you could quote the entirety of the DP quoting someone’s public speech transcript, or long quotes with lots of analysis and those would be considered fair use.
Pols (and a lot of the posters here) are standing up for the principle of taking someone’s work without permission and without paying for it.
Even Republicans don’t go that far.
Just about every website on the Internet could argue that other websites are “stealing” from them if the quote some of their writing — or even if they provide just a link. Technically, aren’t you “stealing” someone’s link if you don’t ask them?
But that’s not what the Internet is. The whole point of the Internet is to share content and links. We don’t quote any website that requires a paid online subscription for their content — that would be stealing, but that’s not what is happening here. We don’t excerpt entire articles, either, which would be a completely different argument. And we don’t try to pass off someone else’s writing as our own — we always clearly indicate the source and author.
We’re standing up for the principle of “Fair Use.”
Google it.
Sounds like the content owner doesn’t believe his property is being used fairly. So why all the butthurt here?
And that affects all of us who run commentary sites.
Pols says not using MSM won’t hurt this site. I disagree. Why isn’t the Post story about Bennett’s intern on the front page here? What about other MSM scoops, like Suthers signing off on the release of a psycho killer? From here on out, will Pols just ignore stories like that because of the source?
To me, the strength of this site ain’t the unique content. It’s the unique commentators, who (usually) are are lot more fun and knowledgeable than the commenters on the Post site.
Dumping the MSM from Pols just gives us fewer topics to argue about. Boring!
If the Bennet diary posted by Firewalker hadn’t been so inflammatory, I’m guessing it would have been promoted already.
As to ignoring stories based on the source, if CP has been sent a cease-and-desist letter from Singleton’s lawyers, they have few legal choices. If the papers had wanted CP sending them traffic based on quotes, they wouldn’t have started with a C&D – or at least they shouldn’t have. At this point it’s up to the papers to come crawling back, IMHO – it doesn’t take other news organizations long to follow up on breaking news in a way that this site can use it without running up against a threatening C&D orbital lawyer strike.
are like Sam and Diane on Cheers. They’ll still end up together, eventually.
Some stories haven’t gotten much play this week on Pols because we’ve (understandably, we hope) been focused on the legal stuff.
And it’s also true that once someone writes an inflammatory diary about a topic that gets a bunch of comments, it can make it less important for us to get something up right away.
Fair Use is a one-way street. If the content owner objects, they can file suit to challenge the use, but they have to meet the legal burden of proof that the defendant’s actions do not meet the Fair Use exemption. That is their only defense; whining and saying “we don’t like that” is not.
As noted above, CP probably would have won such a case, but why bother? Singleton’s fish wrap isn’t the only place on the Internet where CP can point their users for more details on a story. If he doesn’t want the hits on his web sites, no need to send CP readers his way.
It is in the power of Congress to grant Copyright and Patent to promote advances in the Arts and Sciences. That’s a broad power, and Congress has made many changes in it over the years. Currently, the law governing Fair Use says pretty much what I just quoted, plus a fair bit more that doesn’t apply to this situation. Fair Use is a broad exemption to Copyright, designed to promote the use of Copyright materials in ways expressed by the Constitution.
I’m a content producer – I’ve said this before. I sell my photographs (Copyright), and I create application code for my employer (also protected by Copyright). I’m all for fair Copyright protections, but it is a limited right and shouldn’t be abused. (E.g. I believe that the current Copyright term is ridiculously outside the bounds imagined by the Founding Fathers; a term similar to that of Patents would be more appropriate, and probably a bit too long.)
… then every college student who ever wrote a term paper “stole” material, regardless of whether the properly used endnotes to show their sources – unless they pay.
We’re going to start using that one, too.
1. College students, unlike bloggers, aren’t lifting other people’s writing for personal profit.
2. When I was in college, my grades were docked whenever I ran long, attributed quotes from source material. My professors always demanded independent writing and analysis, not a cut-and-paste job with a few lines added afterward.
3. There’s a lot more booze and sex in college than Colorado Pols.
1) Bloggers aren’t often lifting work for personal profit. I don’t know if the Dead Guvs make a salary on this gig, but I’m guessing they have other, more profitable pursuits. And college students are betting their professional life on their papers; if that’s not personal profit, I don’t know what is.
2) If you’re doing papers in certain fields, long quotes are inevitable. Of course, so is a lot of your own analysis, but if you’re just complaining about the length of the quote, then many many college students are indeed guilty and should be sued by the papers.
1) Neither is Colorado Pols. It’s not “lifting” when it’s being attributed. And all the credible commentary on the legality of this says that it is legal for Pols to quote the articles in the manner that they did.
2) That doesn’t mean the comparison doesn’t stand. You brought up the issue of compensating the authors of the source material. Cutting and pasting like this just means it’s bad term paper writing (or bad blogging, if you will) but not unfair use of said material.
3) Don’t be too sure. Have you been to a Pols meetup? 😉
With the newspaper-that-shall-not-be-named taking its ball and going home, it opens up the field for the Colorado Statesman to move in more on Capitol political news.
The new publisher of the Daily Sentinel has so far been a breath of fresh air after the paper wondered in the wilderness for a period after Mr. Orbanek retired.
I subscribe only on Sunday to the print version of the Post. But, everyday, even on Sunday, I open browser windows in the same order. I have a touch of OCD. First comes my email, then my bank, the CoPols, then the Post. I click on links in Pols but also read any articles in the online Post, and most of the editorials, that are of interest to me. My use of Pols has not diminished in any way my use of the Post, only enhanced it.
Newspapers are struggling to find ways to derive revenue from the internet. Demanding that a popular blog no longer link to their content surely isn’t one of them.
GOP looks to lock up key energy county in contentious GarCo commissioner race
No need to prove the point that some bloggers abuse Fair Use. Take a few paragraphs or sentences and do the rest in your own words.
if that matters.
If you reproduce the “heart” of it, and don’t add anything to it other than saying “look at this!” that’s not fair use. See when the Nation reproduced just a page or so of Gerald Ford’s memoirs — not much of the total, but it was the only page anyone cared about, concerning the Nixon pardon. That was ruled to be outside fair use. Fresh litigation might come up with a different answer these days, but trying to rely on percentages isn’t the best guide.
It’s fair to point out that The Statesman goes on to quote Bob Moore:
I guess that’s the difficulty here. One of these days Big Media is going to have to take a wealthy blog owner to court and have this thing out. There is such a fuzzy line to draw. Do I think Pols has crossed it on occasion? Yes. But that doesn’t mean they are definitely in the wrong.
I also completely agree with Pols and how they’ve responded. This could have been handled in a much more professional manner by Beall and his clients. But they chose this route and will most likely end up worse off for it.
Is they have not made their website a compelling destination. And that is because fundamentally they are trying to fir their existing model onto the web. This is one of those things where all the King’s horses and all the King’s lawyers can’t put Humpty Post together again.
It’s a shame because a strong daily is a good thing. And people will find a way to make a profit delivering news over the web. But the Post is not yet desperate enough to try the truly radical changes success will require.
They’re trying to manufacture buggy whips for automobiles.
Flash animation banner ad on their main page the other day that was slowing my computer to a crawl–obviously poorly written and poorly tested.
I emailed the Post about how annoying it was. Their response?
“Nobody else has complained.”
Fuck them. Their site is borderline unusable much of the time.
even their RSS feeds take forever to load and occasionally crash my browser. It’s the most sluggish site in newsland. And their Flash crashes the plug-in more than any other site’s.
They don’t get the web because they don’t use it.