READ THIS Dallas Morning News (DMN) has demanded we no longer allow their content posted on CZ

[casmith07]

Of course they do, they own their content.

I couldn't remember which law firm you worked for, or where you went to law school.

 

[waldoputty]

CZ doesn't really lose. There are sources of much more compelling content for our Cowboys than DMN.

CZ loses in any legal confrontation because CZ will not spend the legal fees.
Typical big guy crush little guy tactic.
That is why they deserve the boycott.
Then the blame the lawyer game.
Another typical good cop bad cop type game.

 

[Vintage]

Honestly, this thread is hilarious.

So much butthurt.

I agree that the cease and desist order was dumb. But if I see a DMN article that looks interesting (linked on other sites), I'm still clicking on it and reading it.

 

[EST_1986]

Honestly, this thread is hilarious.

So much butthurt.

I agree that the cease and desist order was dumb. But if I see a DMN article that looks interesting (linked on other sites), I'm still clicking on it and reading it.

I'm not

 

[DeaconBlues]

Honestly, this thread is hilarious.

So much butthurt.

I agree that the cease and desist order was dumb. But if I see a DMN article that looks interesting (linked on other sites), I'm still clicking on it and reading it.

A lot of mis-information, also. When a company hires a law firm to protect it's rights, outside of broad strokes and management, the local employees (which include editors) are not aware of how the attorneys enforce the company's copyrights. And yes, media companies own rights to their content. For example, this is how AP protects their ownership:

© 2017 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

There are several end-arounds this (fair-use), but none of them include the ability of a third party to republish the article substantially in whole without permission (i.e., by contract).

For those with a problem with how the attorneys worded the C&D, that was the point. Even if DMN had a public use statement allowing links and brief quips to be used by third parties, the law firm is going to use the full weight of the law. Otherwise, the C&D becomes impossible to enforce, if challenged.

C&D's are used to either 1) warn a third party of the ownership rights of the media, or 2) as a preliminary step to enforce said rights in court.

Reality is caught between a rock and a hard place. I've read multiple requests by he and the other mods to not include the entire body of work when starting or responding in a thread. Most obey, but lately, more posters are reprinting the entire articles. Apparently, so has DMN, or more likely, the enforcement department of their law firm.

Thus, the C&D.

I am positive the editor meant every word of his post to allow the link and brief synopsis of the stories. I am also sure the law firm would completely ignore his statement. Despite both working on behalf of the same media company, they answer to different authorities. Even if the firm knew of the editorial staff's inclinations to allow rebroadcasts, it would not prevent the C&D.

One is a suggestion. The other is law.

 

[dallasdave]

You're the one who took a comment I made, twisted it and acted like it fit your response when it had nothing to do with it. Then you decide to make a blanket statement about something you have little knowledge of. So, attack me all you want. It doesn't make you look any better.

 

[dallasdave]

I'm sure each industry would welcome your all-knowing expertise on how to fix their ills

 

[diefree666]

any way you slice it = DMN loses.

 

[waldoputty]

I bolded the relevant sentences from the editor's post - looks guilty to me - it appears he (DMN) agreed with and was part of the decision. Cannot blame it on the law firm and lack of DMN-law firm communication.

"Howdy, Cowboyzone folks,

Everyone on this site is welcome to link to any content on our site and use the headline. We're just asking you not to post full stories.

Why have we asked people to stop posting full text stories? Because we are now a subscription-based site (after you read a certain number of free articles per month). We have many hard-working journalists and photographers, and we pay for 4-6 of them to go to each Cowboys road game. That's more than any other media entity. To pay for that coverage, we need to protect our content from being posted for free on other Internet sites.

We hope you understand. If you have any questions, you can always reach me at mfrancescutti@**************

Mark Francescutti
Sports vertical editor
Dallas Morning News"

 

[Melonfeud]

Wow DMN showing they're a bunch of crybabies. IMO the way it's handled here does more good than harm. The full article isn't posted, only a snippet of it along with a link directing us to their site!

Wow that's short sighted! They don't realize you are providing them free advertising to non local fans who may not even think to go look at DMN.

I have to say I am totally shocked by this. How many members is this site up to now?

Last I checked it was 35k+

 

[DallasCowboysRule!]

Foolish move by the DMN. I understand not wanting people to publish full articles but I've never known this site to do that. Not allowing linking only hurts them. By the nature of their business they don't have a monopoly on the product. There are a million other places to get the exact same Dallas Cowboys news. Those places will be linked here and get more clicks as a results. It's the DMN's loss.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

CZ doesn't really lose. There are sources of much more compelling content for our Cowboys than DMN.

I respectfully disagree. Nobody wins with this C&D order. I think both sides lose.

 

[waldoputty]

I respectfully disagree. Nobody wins with this C&D order. I think both sides lose.

Sure it is a matter of degrees.

DMN will lose a significant amount of clicks because CZ used to refer traffic to DMN.
Those who rely on the aggregated news may or may not have noticed DMN content being gone.
Those who did and not annoyed by DMN tactics could choose to go to DMN directly.

CZ will not lose as much because DMN does not refer traffic to CZ, and the lost clicks would be the clicks in the news section for former DMN content.
Question is with slightly less to read, would the same people spent that % time on the message board instead?
The same cowboys information will be available from other sources included in the aggregation.
In the rare circumstances that DMN breaks news, there would only be a short lag before showing up in other sources.
Some of us like me have never even clicked on the news section until yesterday.
I dont like aggregators, and always got my news directly from the sources and googling.

Question is how many would cancel DMN subscriptions.
Fans (fanatics) are by nature loyalty driven, and DMN's strong-arm tactic has pissed off a significant % of CZ members.
That percentage may cancel their DMN subscriptions and the more extreme ones like me would avoid clicking DMN content unless something very interesting shows up.

 

[diefree666]

I respectfully disagree. Nobody wins with this C&D order. I think both sides lose.

Nope. DMN frankly has been a minor player for some time to most Boys fans that come here. Nothing there that is really all that important or really worth the time most days. We will be fine; they are circling the toilet.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

Nope. DMN frankly has been a minor player for some time to most Boys fans that come here. Nothing there that is really all that important or really worth the time most days. We will be fine; they are circling the toilet.

 

[Trouty]

The Big Lebowski memes always make me smile!!

 

[Reality]

I think the real issue here is that editors, lawyers, marketing staff and executives all view things differently, which is understandable and common in business.

A lawyer sees things in black or white .. allow it or prevent it. An editor sees things based on traffic .. readers and viewers. The marketing staff sees things based on revenue .. advertising and subscriptions. The executives see things based on the bottom line .. revenue minus expenses.

And therein lies the problem. Each area or department has their own focus and concerns. The lawyers don't want to allow anything that may negatively impact their legal options and authority in the future. The editors don't want to see their content posted elsewhere out of fear it will lead to less readers which could jeopardize their writers' jobs. The marketing staff doesn't want to lose advertisers to other cheaper alternatives because their own product is competing against them elsewhere. The executives don't want to see their bottom line drop.

A lot of this comes down to old school business mindsets. I used to think the same way, and it is very hard to change that mindset. When I used to develop software, I remember thinking, "Why would anyone make free versions of their software? Why would people pay for their software when there was a free version?" What you learn is that in some cases (not all, of course), the exposure you gain from a free option will yield more revenue for you in the long run. Sure, some people who would have paid will be more than happy with a free version. However, a lot more people will now see and use the free version which provides a lot larger audience to sell the current paid version of the software as well as future software and services.

It's all about perspective and right now, a lot of old school companies are trying to figure out how to make the internet work for them, not just compliment their offline business models. The ones who embrace the modernization the internet is bringing to the world will not only survive but also thrive in the future. The ones who take too long to adapt will be fighting an uphill battle until they finally sink or someone comes in and rescues them.

 

[waldoputty]

I think the real issue here is that editors, lawyers, marketing staff and executives all view things differently, which is understandable and common in business.

A lawyer sees things in black or white .. allow it or prevent it. An editor sees things based on traffic .. readers and viewers. The marketing staff sees things based on revenue .. advertising and subscriptions. The executives see things based on the bottom line .. revenue minus expenses.

And therein lies the problem. Each area or department has their own focus and concerns. The lawyers don't want to allow anything that may negatively impact their legal options and authority in the future. The editors don't want to see their content posted elsewhere out of fear it will lead to less readers which could jeopardize their writers' jobs. The marketing staff doesn't want to lose advertisers to other cheaper alternatives because their own product is competing against them elsewhere. The executives don't want to see their bottom line drop.

A lot of this comes down to old school business mindsets. I used to think the same way, and it is very hard to change that mindset. When I used to develop software, I remember thinking, "Why would anyone make free versions of their software? Why would people pay for their software when there was a free version?" What you learn is that in some cases (not all, of course), the exposure you gain from a free option will yield more revenue for you in the long run. Sure, some people who would have paid will be more than happy with a free version. However, a lot more people will now see and use the free version which provides a lot larger audience to sell the current paid version of the software as well as future software and services.

It's all about perspective and right now, a lot of old school companies are trying to figure out how to make the internet work for them, not just compliment their offline business models. The ones who embrace the modernization the internet is bringing to the world will not only survive but also thrive in the future. The ones who take too long to adapt will be fighting an uphill battle until they finally sink or someone comes in and rescues them.

Well, as the owner/management of CZ, it is smart for you to take the high road, especially if they want to reconcile after seeing the consequences of their actions.

IMO, it does not appear it was a matter of different departments of a larger company not talking to each other.
Furthermore, the editor appears to be part of the decision as illustrated below.
Perhaps he is an old-school editor.
His posts just seem to be damage control to minimize PR damage and trying to fool dummies to continue marketing for them.
As I already said, it is smart for you to take the high road.

"Howdy, Cowboyzone folks,

Everyone on this site is welcome to link to any content on our site and use the headline. We're just asking you not to post full stories.

Why have we asked people to stop posting full text stories? Because we are now a subscription-based site (after you read a certain number of free articles per month). We have many hard-working journalists and photographers, and we pay for 4-6 of them to go to each Cowboys road game. That's more than any other media entity. To pay for that coverage, we need to protect our content from being posted for free on other Internet sites.

We hope you understand. If you have any questions, you can always reach me at mfrancescutti@**************

Mark Francescutti
Sports vertical editor
Dallas Morning News"

 

[tyke1doe]

A lot of mis-information, also. When a company hires a law firm to protect it's rights, outside of broad strokes and management, the local employees (which include editors) are not aware of how the attorneys enforce the company's copyrights. And yes, media companies own rights to their content. For example, this is how AP protects their ownership:

© 2017 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

There are several end-arounds this (fair-use), but none of them include the ability of a third party to republish the article substantially in whole without permission (i.e., by contract).

For those with a problem with how the attorneys worded the C&D, that was the point. Even if DMN had a public use statement allowing links and brief quips to be used by third parties, the law firm is going to use the full weight of the law. Otherwise, the C&D becomes impossible to enforce, if challenged.

C&D's are used to either 1) warn a third party of the ownership rights of the media, or 2) as a preliminary step to enforce said rights in court.

Reality is caught between a rock and a hard place. I've read multiple requests by he and the other mods to not include the entire body of work when starting or responding in a thread. Most obey, but lately, more posters are reprinting the entire articles. Apparently, so has DMN, or more likely, the enforcement department of their law firm.

Thus, the C&D.

I am positive the editor meant every word of his post to allow the link and brief synopsis of the stories. I am also sure the law firm would completely ignore his statement. Despite both working on behalf of the same media company, they answer to different authorities. Even if the firm knew of the editorial staff's inclinations to allow rebroadcasts, it would not prevent the C&D.

One is a suggestion. The other is law.

This is a darn good post.

I recall the administrators of this forum encouraging posters to not post the entire story but just a link and maybe a sentence or two.

I admit, when I read posts with links and content, I thought there was more so I clicked the link. Then I discovered that the entire story was included in the post itself.

We only have ourselves to blame. Some people simply don't know how to follow directions and respect the compromise DMN reached with this site. We were told not to post the entire story, but some didn't listen.

This is a case of a few bad apples spoiling the whole bunch.

 

[diefree666]

so basically you have nothing intelligent to say?