Bangkok Post Bans Thaivisa From Using Its Content

[asiasurfer]

Update:

From BahtSold.com

SONP announced- (spelling the end of BahtSold.com newsletter?)

-13 major Thai news sources (English and Thai language) have joined together to form the "Society for Online News Providers" (SONP).

The formation of the SONP is aimed primarily at protecting the proprietary material of news websites. Post Publishing states, the SONP members will allow other websites to copy a headline plus 100-150 characters from a news item, ONLY if it is in a RSS feed.

Here's BahtSold.com's take:

http://www.bahtsold.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4339

still don’t get what the legal situation on this whole issue is. Can BP (or any other newspaper) actually legally enforce that their news content isn’t use on any websites?

[CrossBones]

Acccording to the agreement you can post 100-200 words of an article.

[CHIEFOFFICER]

to me like "someone" is trying to tell Thaivisa something, like, hey, mind your own business, you have no business intefering with anything that concerns Thailand or it's policies.. keep it up George, we love you...

DITTO, KEEP IT UP GEORGE CO

[brahmburgers]

Acccording to the agreement you can post 100-200 words of an article.

which agreement?

[robint]

im confused here? pls hlp

does this mean that you cannot post a link here to something already posted on the web

for example here is a link to your friend the Nation (no reason for the choice)

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/10/06...nt_30113801.php

then commentary

blah blah blah etc

then other poster come in with their bits and so on

so is this now banned for the bkkpost?????????????

if so where does this end?

[Plus]

It ends when Thaivisa and Bangkok Post sort out the exact rules.

[phetaroi]

Phetarol, you have a point on fair quote use. BP is in no position to get back at all mis-quoters, however.

I wasn't arguing with you, I was just taking your flag and carrying it farther, though probably not to the same place you intended.

Fair enough! Now say 5 hail Marys and 5...oops...make that 5 Kuan Yins.

[phetaroi]

How can BP go after you? You are using a pseudonym to cloak your identity and location. Just as I am.

Are you really so naive to think that your post can't be traced back to you?

Of course this will take time but in the meantime TV may be banned or even closed down if your post violated the Thai law.

I'm not even sure it will take that much time. In the States, where privacy laws for the individual were much more stringent, as a public school we were involved in finding out such information a handful of times, and it was not that hard and we usually had the information within 24-48 hours.

[clausewitz]

Well I see my link to an article on Bangkok post has been removed - despite the fact that I quoted not even one sentence or even a word. Bizzare, surely this is some strange rule that Thaivisa is enforcing.

Wouldn't it be hilarious if they decided to ban links to every news source worldwide (except for the Nation of course)

[clausewitz]

I have a moderation question, I know as per forum rules questions of moderation issues are not allowed. But this is a valid question which i believe needs public viewing.

Bangkok post has banned linking or quoting from them that is understood.

What about links to BP before the ban came into place? Are they still allowed to remain?

The BP is happy for anyone to link to them or quote a sentence or two from an article,.

But this forum has decided to ban linking to BP, why we may never know..TIT is probably the best answer we will ever get.

[tmark]

Dozens of Notification Posts stating that off topic posts have been deleted have also been deleted. Mainly because they are useless, boring and just as much of a waste of space as the off topic posts they replaced.

Now this post will be deleted and replaced with yet another deleted post notification, and I will be banned. Unless of course someone in the long history of TV has a sense of humour at last and leaves it alone as a break in this long winded thread. Then again, they tell me pigs may fly one day too. 

Edited October 6, 2009 by tmark

[Tywais]

Well I see my link to an article on Bangkok post has been removed - despite the fact that I quoted not even one sentence or even a word. Bizzare, surely this is some strange rule that Thaivisa is enforcing.

Seems the below post by George needs to be reposted on every page since it seems to be ignored. Lot of misinformation, 2nd guessing and testing the waters regarding BP in this topic. The situation is being worked on and is not as straightforward as many think it is. Please be patient.

From George:

Thaivisa.com policy for now is that no content from Bangkok Post is allowed. Please do not link. I expect this policy to be updated within the next week.

[Crushdepth]

to me like "someone" is trying to tell Thaivisa something, like, hey, mind your own business, you have no business intefering with anything that concerns Thailand or it's policies..

Are you kidding? You don't *really* think the Thai government gives a rats arse about the opinions of Thaivisa members or of EXPATS in Thailand, do you? For god sakes man, stop taking drugs and pull yourself together :-)

Fortunately, I am now in a position to reveal the details of this grand conspiracy: "Someone" (I know this will come as a shock) is the Bangkok Post. The "message", diabolically encoded in secret handshakes, arcane hints and horses heads nailed to doors at midnight, is "don't use our stuff without permission".

[RubbaJohnny]

Seem good advice to respect the moderators whatever we think of the press the loss of Thai visa would be a severe blow to the expat communty and a great source of information for those not fluent in thai but who love this country and wish to live here legally and respectfully

[baht&sold]

Received the following notice in my email this morning:

------------

Important news from The Economist

Dear Reader,

I'd like to inform you about important changes at Economist.com.

Beginning October 13th, we will be limiting access to certain sections of our site to subscribers only. Over the past few years, Economist.com has become a hub for intelligent discussion, with news commentary, blogs and an award-winning debate series. We will continue to encourage both subscribers and non-subscribers to participate in those conversations. We will also enhance the experience we offer our most loyal readers by expanding our subscribers-only features.

Currently, all content published within the last year is free of charge. Soon, this access will be limited to articles published within the last 90 days. The print edition contents page, which offers a convenient way to browse articles and features from the latest issue of The Economist, will also be limited to subscribers only.

Through these complementary aspects of Economist.com, we will continue to foster intelligent discussion and debate, while enhancing the value we bring to our community of subscribers.

I hope you'll continue to visit the site and enjoy all it has to offer.

Sincerely,

Ben Edwards, Publisher

Economist.com

------------------

-upshot being The Economist (or 'the anonymous' as I like to refer to them;) will allow free online views only of articles which are 90 days or older (to non-subscribers) starting Oct 13. Anyone wishing to view current content must subscribe.

Note Bkk Post once attempted the beginning of 'something' like this a while back (free register to view) but then backed off as I recall.

[dantilley]

Note Bkk Post once attempted the beginning of 'something' like this a while back (free register to view) but then backed off as I recall.

As did ThaiVisa, although it wasn't just the beginning, the whole site became pay per view for a couple of days. As many will recall, it was rather an unpopular move and was reversed very quickly.

[HowardV]

Do not misunderstand the restriction. Bangkok Post cannot own information. Nor can any publisher print material and then claim to have the rights to the information within the article. They have the rights to the words and the phrases they use, but not the information itself. I speak from experience. I've worked at a newspaper as a reporter, editor and columnist, taught journalism for the past five years, and my family owned a publishing company back in the states for a while. Quotes are quotes are quotes. If a newspaper puts a person's words into quotation marks, it means it's a direct quote, straight from their mouth. That quote doesn't belong to the news agency which printed the quote, the quote still belongs to the person who said it. Five reporters all hear the same guy say the same thing, just because one newspaper prints it first doesn't automatically mean the other publishers can't use the information. I could take a direct quote from a person quoted in a Bangkok Post article and credit the person who said it, not the publisher who printed it, and I could post that anywhere and no law could ever penalize me for it because there are no intellectual property rights on quotes, sorry to say. And if you ever have any questions about this, just contact the person being quoted and ask them, "did you say this ..." read the quote, and if they say yes, you've now verified it outside the publisher and you can use it without having to reference the publisher. However, ALL of the article -- outside the quotes -- all the wording, phrasing, structure, vocab, etc. are the property of the author and/or publisher. If I reprint that, I am liable. Second, a link to an article cannot be illegal. You can cite references and paraphrase or summarize content and no one can do a thing about it. That would be ridiculous, as if information could ever be proprietary. We are entitled to the information, we just don't have the right to reprint it -- if they give us the right to reprint it, then they can also dictate the terms of reprint, as they have done with this RSS restriction. So they are saying that you may not reprint any of their articles in whole or in part unless it complies with the RSS policy, and they have this right. However, I can still paraphrase, I can still make reference to the Post, and I can still use a direct quote that's in quotation marks. The Bangkok Post has the rights on their articles, but not the rights to information or the rights to sole ownership of a quote, simply because they heard it first or printed it first. A newspaper knows this better than anyone. You might be unclear about what you can or can't print, but trust me, they are not, and they know that they can't restrict you from access to information or from referencing or citing an article, as long as you don't reprint it. Hopefully this clears things up for you all. Peace.

Edited October 7, 2009 by HowardV

[george]

Update:

Thaivisa and Bangkok Post will meet and discuss later today. I hope to have an update for you by tomorrow.

Thanks for your patience!

[catmac]

Slightly off topic, but checking out Baht&sold's thread on this issue - as linked above - I came across this gem! I wonder what forum they could be referring too?

"..........Or, perhaps you followed updates on another forum, with bits of news buried in umpteen pages of mostly nonsense, name calling and vitriol?"

[phetaroi]

Update:

Thaivisa and Bangkok Post will meet and discuss later today. I hope to have an update for you by tomorrow.

Thanks for your patience!

George, you must be a saint to read all this and thank us for our patience! Thank you for yours! Best of luck in your talks.

[Crushdepth]

You might be unclear about what you can or can't print, but trust me, they are not, and they know that they can't restrict you from access to information or from referencing or citing an article, as long as you don't reprint it.

I won't quote your whole post, but you were exactly right. It's the reprinting of whole articles (or substantial portions thereof) that has been the issue.

[Somtamnication]

Unbelievable that some people cannot wait for an update to this meeting between TV and BP before defecating through their fingers. Patience!! TV shall rise and be a winner (or is that wiener?).

[vanalli]

Did you teach how to use paragraphs?

Do not misunderstand the restriction. Bangkok Post cannot own information. Nor can any publisher print material and then claim to have the rights to the information within the article. They have the rights to the words and the phrases they use, but not the information itself. I speak from experience. I've worked at a newspaper as a reporter, editor and columnist, taught journalism for the past five years, and my family owned a publishing company back in the states for a while. Quotes are quotes are quotes. If a newspaper puts a person's words into quotation marks, it means it's a direct quote, straight from their mouth. That quote doesn't belong to the news agency which printed the quote, the quote still belongs to the person who said it. Five reporters all hear the same guy say the same thing, just because one newspaper prints it first doesn't automatically mean the other publishers can't use the information. I could take a direct quote from a person quoted in a Bangkok Post article and credit the person who said it, not the publisher who printed it, and I could post that anywhere and no law could ever penalize me for it because there are no intellectual property rights on quotes, sorry to say. And if you ever have any questions about this, just contact the person being quoted and ask them, "did you say this ..." read the quote, and if they say yes, you've now verified it outside the publisher and you can use it without having to reference the publisher. However, ALL of the article -- outside the quotes -- all the wording, phrasing, structure, vocab, etc. are the property of the author and/or publisher. If I reprint that, I am liable. Second, a link to an article cannot be illegal. You can cite references and paraphrase or summarize content and no one can do a thing about it. That would be ridiculous, as if information could ever be proprietary. We are entitled to the information, we just don't have the right to reprint it -- if they give us the right to reprint it, then they can also dictate the terms of reprint, as they have done with this RSS restriction. So they are saying that you may not reprint any of their articles in whole or in part unless it complies with the RSS policy, and they have this right. However, I can still paraphrase, I can still make reference to the Post, and I can still use a direct quote that's in quotation marks. The Bangkok Post has the rights on their articles, but not the rights to information or the rights to sole ownership of a quote, simply because they heard it first or printed it first. A newspaper knows this better than anyone. You might be unclear about what you can or can't print, but trust me, they are not, and they know that they can't restrict you from access to information or from referencing or citing an article, as long as you don't reprint it. Hopefully this clears things up for you all. Peace.

[webfact]

Do not misunderstand the restriction. Bangkok Post cannot own information. Nor can any publisher print material and then claim to have the rights to the information within the article. They have the rights to the words and the phrases they use, but not the information itself. I speak from experience. I've worked at a newspaper as a reporter, editor and columnist, taught journalism for the past five years, and my family owned a publishing company back in the states for a while. Quotes are quotes are quotes. If a newspaper puts a person's words into quotation marks, it means it's a direct quote, straight from their mouth. That quote doesn't belong to the news agency which printed the quote, the quote still belongs to the person who said it. Five reporters all hear the same guy say the same thing, just because one newspaper prints it first doesn't automatically mean the other publishers can't use the information. I could take a direct quote from a person quoted in a Bangkok Post article and credit the person who said it, not the publisher who printed it, and I could post that anywhere and no law could ever penalize me for it because there are no intellectual property rights on quotes, sorry to say. And if you ever have any questions about this, just contact the person being quoted and ask them, "did you say this ..." read the quote, and if they say yes, you've now verified it outside the publisher and you can use it without having to reference the publisher. However, ALL of the article -- outside the quotes -- all the wording, phrasing, structure, vocab, etc. are the property of the author and/or publisher. If I reprint that, I am liable. Second, a link to an article cannot be illegal. You can cite references and paraphrase or summarize content and no one can do a thing about it. That would be ridiculous, as if information could ever be proprietary. We are entitled to the information, we just don't have the right to reprint it -- if they give us the right to reprint it, then they can also dictate the terms of reprint, as they have done with this RSS restriction. So they are saying that you may not reprint any of their articles in whole or in part unless it complies with the RSS policy, and they have this right. However, I can still paraphrase, I can still make reference to the Post, and I can still use a direct quote that's in quotation marks. The Bangkok Post has the rights on their articles, but not the rights to information or the rights to sole ownership of a quote, simply because they heard it first or printed it first. A newspaper knows this better than anyone. You might be unclear about what you can or can't print, but trust me, they are not, and they know that they can't restrict you from access to information or from referencing or citing an article, as long as you don't reprint it. Hopefully this clears things up for you all. Peace.

paragraphs in long posts are welcome on Thavisa

[dkstoney]

RSS feeds allow them to control the original publication. I suspect it's so they can change the information presented in the original at the government's whim and not have any proof of what was printed earlier circulating around the internet. They can just turn off access to the article at their discretion. Keep cutting and pasting their articles. There is no law.

Edited October 7, 2009 by dkstoney

[animatic]

I like short paragraphs, then you actually can read them and your eyes don't glaze over.

[cyb]

I like short paragraphs, then you actually can read them and your eyes don't glaze over.

It also makes it easier to differentiate between crap and fact.

[HowardV]

For the record I like short paragraphs, too. Many of mine are single-sentenced, in fact.

I'll admit that I don't know how to use paragraphs in HTML formats, and it annoys the heck out of me because my posts always come out looking like blocks!

It also bothers me because what I wrote would clear up most of the issue, if anyone would read it.

I suppose this editor probably works like a normal Word-type editor. I will try the Enter button more often. Thanks for your sarcasm, my friends. I think it's important to remember that no one was born knowing everything and some people have to learn as they grow. Some folks just don't appreciate the value in being nice.

[Marvo]

Paragraphs:

The.

Shorter.

The.

Better.

[webfact]

We are very well aware of paragraphs...

therefore I suggest to continue with the topic discussion