Jim Wexell's Insider Information
by Weegie on Jun 8, 2009 7:31 AM EDT
Email
PrintThere has been discussion here over the past few days about whether or not its appropriate to post Jim Wexell's insider information (available on a subscription basis on Jim's SCI site) for free here on BTSC. I requested Jim's input on the matter over the weekend and received this reply...
"Yes, I'm against stealing the info and posting it elsewhere. I think an item or two is enough and would possibly spur others into joining our site.
As for the advertising money, it's pennies. We're also having a problem with someone here posting at the CBS message board as "Beachbum." I guess they'll only learn when this site is completely crippled."
I trust that the members of this forum will discontinue posting Wexell's paid stuff over here. Jim is opposed to it, it's unethical, and quite frankly, its a jack ass-ish thing to do.
44 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Nice. I don’t think this witch-hunt could have been taken seriously until you dropped in the “jack-ass” part.
Don't worry about the haters. Haters only hate.
haha
I'll drink your Milkshake, I'll drink it up!
by Frank Mineo (DYMS) on Jun 8, 2009 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions
It's not a witch-hunt, Steelguy
It’s resolution to a discussion that has been on-going since late last week. And yes, folks who choose to lift paid content from another site and then post it here are jack-asses in the truest sense. See Wexell’s comments above…ultimately, that behavior has a crippling effect on someone else’s efforts to earn some money while providing a service. If you don’t see the logic behind that, I’m not sure what else there is to say.
While I am glad you contacted Wexell and we now have clear guidelines I’m not sure Jack-ass was a correct assumption at this time. I don’t believe datruth had any ill intent in sharing that information. Perhaps he should have inquired further before doing so, but my guess is that he did it with good intentions.
I think occasional shout outs to Wexell and his work are helpful for both us and him, but full reports are probably not ethical.
by Chicago Steeler on Jun 8, 2009 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions
I completely agree with your logic. I also have listened to music obtained from sources that some may deem questionable. I’ll bet you have too.
When you are in the right you don’t have to be a jerk about it. Datruth brings an awful lot to the discussions around here outside of Wexell’s reports, and I tend to lean against him being a “jack-ass”.
Don't worry about the haters. Haters only hate.
I'll do it
I’ll need some cash and a place to crash, but hell, I’d love to do that. That just leaves the High School Problem….
It's true what they say...Even the NFL's Big Wigs hate the Steelers. On the plus side, I can now tell my future grand kids about Hines Ward and how the NFL made rules because of him. Roger Goodell, you make me sick.
by Tim Mullhaupt (HSS) on Jun 8, 2009 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions
love your stuff HSS
but we should do it right… find some ex-scout (some yinzer’s gotta have an uncle or something….) who is retired and would do it for some expenses and all the love we’d pour on them.
by syrsteelerfan on Jun 8, 2009 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm pretty sure
Wexell and Lolley aren’t ex-scouts or anything and their insights isn’t gained from an intricate knowledge of the game any more than what people on here know. They just watch the practices, talk to players and coaches and document it.
I like their stuff but posting that so and so dropped a pass or who was taking kick returns isn’t anything one of us couldn’t do.
so it's a cut and paste issue?
I mean if one were to read his info, then paraphrase it that would be fine right? Or do you have to keep his info a secret for a certain amount of time before talking with your friends at BTSC? Sounds like a pain in the @$$.
If something were to happen at camp we would find out regardless. This is the information age, 10 stories come out the second Ben tweaks his knee. So why pay for one guys thoughts?
it never got weird enough for me
This is the information age, 10 stories come out the second Ben tweaks his knee.
Yes, but none come out about the 300 other things happening at camp, that’s why you pay for Wexell’s thoughts. If you’ve been following Datruth’s “Jack-assery jesus what an awful guy”, you will see that Wexell provides information that is not obtainable in any other way, unless you happen to have a press pass and a good relationship with the steelers. I’d challenge you to find 90% of what Wexell posts anywhere else.
If you want to pay for his insight, go for it. If you don’t, then don’t. The tricky thing is as you mention…if I read something from Wexell that holds weight in a discussion (made up example: Someone says Capizzi will start, Wexell reports that Capizzi looks terrible) can I bring it up and how many details can I bring up? Tricky tricky.
Don't worry about the haters. Haters only hate.
I don't think it's too tricky.
The idea is you can use his info if it draws people to him. He scratches your back, you scratch his kind of thing.
Give out some info, but don’t give it all.
You are pretty much home free if you give the direct info you want with a link, don’t expound too much, just drop the info and link. I click on links like crazy to get more info, I click to Jim’s site enough times for info I really would like to read more on, I might just pay for it.
Sure he can score goals, but can he cook?
by Phantaskippy on Jun 9, 2009 12:40 AM EDT up reply actions
My thoughts
This doesn’t have to be a big deal. People make good points about free usage of information, but Jim puts a lot of time and money into getting information you can’t find anywhere else and it’s counter productive for all of us to undermine that by posting it for free.
I’d just say use the golden rule. You wouldn’t want someone stealing your fan post and passing it off as your own (some people in SCI’s forums have done this, by the way, it goes both ways). And even when not “stealing,” and attributing it to Jim, it’s safer to a) only pick out a few nuggets, not a whole post, and b) take the time to link to the article even if it’s behind a pay wall (it’s free advertising).
Just use common sense – Jim deserves compensation for his work, we want to be able to discuss it, if everyone acknowledges that and gives credit where credit is due and is careful about distributing information that others have to pay for, we can all live happily after all.
(btw – many of Lolley’s blog posts are condensed “teasers” of his articles on SCI – that’s freely accessible, so quote him all you want. And maybe we can get one of both of those guys to do the same here).
Comment
Let me just say, I am undecided on this problem…but it does raise some interesting issues on internet publication.
First, it seems to be counterintuitive for information "published" on the internet to be subject to restrictions that are not placed on newspapers. People (even entire offices) often share a newspaper subscription, thereby allowing many to get a story for free. The internet is built to allow us to share content faster than print (though often sacrificing reliability)…unless you put blanket restrictions on it. However, the internet also allows you to share that content with exponentially more people and kill a lot of the profit motivation.
I am sympathetic that people have found it tough to monetize their sites. Ultimately, I think the answer is advertising and not subscriptions. If you produce enough demand for your product, advertisers will not ignore you. As for this particular situation, I would say that his "advertising" revenues are likely lowered by the fact that it is a pay site, and thus attracts less readers than a free site. And as much as I (and a lot of others) love the Steelers, there isn’t going to be enough demand out there for training camp tidbits to make someone rich…nor should there be. He’s not turning out poorly-written vampire novels on that site. If he was, advertisers would come calling.
Also, in general, internet content producers seeking subscription revenues should at least acknowledge their hypocritical desires. They use the internet to post information more often and with less oversight. They no longer have to put in the hard work it takes to get published in print and often receive quicker recognition because of the viral nature of the internet. Yet they complain about the internet’s accessibility when it hurts their ability to profit.
I’m not necessarily making a point that we should steal stuff from someone who wants you to pay for it. I’m more just speaking generally to whether a content-producer should decide to charge people.
Medium is the problem.
We share info on the internet, so does Jim, his info and opinions are for sale. If your office made copies of the PPG and handed it out free, that’s against the law.
With what went on here, we were using an internet site that we go to for Steelers info to post what he uses his site for Steelers info to post. He charges so we are cutting his business off using the same medium he does, we are legally viewed as a competitor of his.
Sure he can score goals, but can he cook?
by Phantaskippy on Jun 9, 2009 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree...
that taking someone’s opinions/information they want you to pay for and spreading them is, at least, unethical.
My question was more general than that: Should people who utilize the benefits of the internet to publish their information (i.e., the ability to publish quicker and with less oversight) be entitled to complain when others use those same speed benefits of the internet to spread their information and destroy their profit margin?
My point was that, while it is wrong to take information and give it to others elsewhere, internet authors should take that as a fact of life and maybe realize that such profit loss is a sacrifice they have to make in order to gain the benefits they have in publishing online. I mean, look, everyone has a right to bitch if they are losing money…I just think the internet is a unique situation that might temper some of those normally valid complaints.
If we kept plagiarizing his stuff, someone from his site could send a cease and desist order to SBN, and if we ignored it, SBN could be sued or shut down. You can get away with copyright violation on the internet by remaining low profile, but BTSC is one of, if not the most, widely read Steelers blog on the internet, and we wouldn’t get away with it. A company like SBN has a lot to lose. There’s a reason Napster was shut down.
charity standing orders
I’m not saying anyone should take information published online and try and get away with it (from anywhere). I’m just making a general comment about the internet and those who publish there. Leave this site and Wexell’s site out of the question. I’m saying if you were someone who published something online, would you be totally blindsided and appalled that this could happen? Kind of just looking at it from the content-producer’s perspective and whether their indignation is justified.
Now, if you published a newspaper, and someone copied it and sold it. That would be surprising. But the internet is a different animal.
If you don’t want to discuss this general topic outside the world of Steelers blogs, then fine. But I am by no means saying we should keep posting his stuff here. I would never do it, and I don’t think anyone should do so against his wishes.
Yeah, but I don’t think Jim Wexell is blindsided by the fact that someone would copy his stuff and put it on the web. (“Someone stole intellectual property on the internet? I’m going to start locking up my bike…”) Making money on and policing the internet is all about web traffic and Google listings and stuff, though. If it’s posted on a site that 10 people know about and obviously one of them has a paid subscription, I don’t think anyone is going to care. If the information is posted at the #1 Google result for “Steelers Blog” searches and viewed by tens of thousands of people daily, it’s a big problem that could lead to legal action. If whoever runs Pit Scout can make sure that the 20 sites that carry 98% of Steelers internet traffic don’t publish their stuff for free they’ll be fine. Small sites that are difficult to find can get away with it, but they’re difficult to find, so they don’t get any traffic. That doesn’t make what they do any less unethical, it just has much smaller financial implications.
charity standing orders
Hey all,
Just keep this in mind; plagiarism of any kind is a huge “no-no” on BTSC, whether it is Lolley’s stuff or anything else. Whether the information is paid or unpaid it is unethical and in many cases illegal to steal content from others without properly sourcing it.
Also, Dathruth has already said he won’t be posting any additional updates from Lolley’s insider access, so at this juncture, it seems to me the issue is pretty much dead regarding Wexell’s content.
After talking with Blitz, he will probably have something a bit more substantial to say in the near future on the subject, but for now let’s move onto talking about football and put this to rest.
Go Steelers!
I'll drink your Milkshake, I'll drink it up!
by Frank Mineo (DYMS) on Jun 8, 2009 1:28 PM EDT reply actions
dathuth
I seem to like what he posts and value his opinion I dont think he was doing anything wrong but providing some info which I for one like to read, I enjoy this site very much and as opposed to me surfing all the steeler sites and newspapers I just come here now and get my fill of steeler coverage….. again awsome site (first post ever)
Jackassery comment caught everybody's attention...
and I guess that’s what it was supposed to do. I mean datruth no harm or disrespect.
But please understand, newspapers and magazines are going broke and closing all over America, and reporters are being let go and those who stay are getting salary cuts. People won’t buy what Wexell and others are selling if someone else will give it to them free via the internet.
What they are selling is a product, as much as the food you buy in the grocery store. And, even though it is legally known as “intellectual property,” it is theirs, and we can’t copy it and sell it or give it away…or put it on a website, especially one that accepts ads.
This is an outstanding website with a terrific group of contributors. We certainly can get what we need – and respect each other – without ripping off other peoples’ work and property. Thanks, Weegie, for venturing into this thicket.
jackassery
I think many of us had knee jerk reaction to the jackass comment b/c datruth is easily one of the best and most insightful posters on BTSC
A Few Final Comments...
…I certainly mean no harm to Datruth, and imagine that he would probably be a good person to sit down and have a beer with, this issue aside. But I stand by my opinion that someone who takes info that a group of people pay good money to have access to, and then spreads it elsewhere for free is a jackass. Did Datruth intend any ill consequence to me personally by doing this? Of course not. But I have to believe that someone who otherwise offers up insightful posts (as Datruth does) is a relatively intelligent person, and therefore should understand the impact of what he is doing. Common sense would then dictate that posting paid info here for free is going to piss people off, especially the person who is working so hard to provide that info (otherwise known as Jim Wexell).
Datruth has indicated that he won’t continue to post Wexell’s paid stuff here…and I appreciate his indication that he will stop doing what some people find offensive. With all that said, we have only seven weeks until training camp starts! And I look forward to staying in tune with this site over the next several years…it truly is a great source of Steeler info and discussion. My thanks for those here who work so hard to keep this site up and running. If you sold subscriptions, I’d probably take the plunge and purchase one. (A joke…that was a joke.)
Buy Subscription to 5020 For My Comment On This Subject
please send your check to Blitz and he will forward to me. Please include an email where I can send you my thoughts on this matter. Don’t discuss them anywhere.
When You Run The Ball Good Things Happen
lol
Bleeding Black and Gold since 1989 baby, Blitzburgh is back, time for a repeat!
by Michael Hewitt on Jun 8, 2009 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions
datruth really got blasted by weegie…datruth just trying to have some fun and share a few things and gets called a jackass. after all the posts he’s contributed..friggin wrong. i’m glad weegie backtracked and apologized. we don’t call our own bloggers names at the Beatdown..just something you don’t do. see you guys later when your getting along. sheesh…
I'm Glad I'm Now the Villian
So let me get this straight…we have someone breaking the law – theft of intellectual property and/or copyright infringement, depending on how you want to slice it. In the course of pointing this out, I call the offender a jackass because he is harming the work of another person (“crippling”, to use Wexell’s terminology) and now I’m the bad guy. Seriously?? Wake up, folks.
Dude, only a jackass would call out someone who’s breaking the law. In the hood, I’m told they call such people “snitches” before killing them. Where I’m from, we call them whistleblowers and push them around until they shut up, Jackass.
Yours truly,
Jeffrey Skilling
charity standing orders
I can’t even cross the street anymore without getting heckled.
“F** jaywalker, eat $$”
“Hope you get run over, jack@”
Don't worry about the haters. Haters only hate.
You and weggie are making this out to be a very black and white issue. It isn’t.
Don't worry about the haters. Haters only hate.
I think the legal issue is pretty black and white. Now whether someone is a jackass, that’s a more colorful question.
charity standing orders
So is jaywalking, which is probably why people yell obscenities at me when I do it.
Don't worry about the haters. Haters only hate.
by steelguy99 on Jun 9, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
"Fair use"
Almost every site I follow has issues with what constitutes fair use – excerpting published information available from pay sites or other media. In general, lifting a few lines or developing a thought around a paragraph or so will not give you trouble, as long as the author of the lifted material is appropriately cited.
I value Wexell’s insights and work, and I gather that datruth does, as well. Weegie is correct in saying that we can’t pull stuff wholesale, but what constitutes wholesale is dependent on what is published.
Just my .02. Carry on.
My heros have always been Steelers...
LOL at BadMaafala
Maybe I should change my user name to Sherron Watkins?!?
No need to keep beating a dead horse ... unless you are into dead horse beating
Guys, to me this issue is over — I won’t post anything that they said from their blogs or site here. To me the “lifting” and “plagarism” claims are taken things to the extreme because I always attributed everything that they said to them (J. Wexell said this, according to Wexell, according to D. Lolley, D. Lolley said). Never once did I try to use their words for mine.
There was one time where I cut and paste one of the OTA submission entries and dropped it in as a post by itself, but I stopped when DYMS and a couple of others said we probably shouldn’t do that here since Wex is a friend to this site. We then discussed if providing a summary of their posts would be OK, but still attributing everything they said to them. No concrete decision had been made, and then Weegie posted his thoughts in a reply and created this post.
The bottom line is that certain people are upset because they are paying for information that others are getting for free. And I can understand their frustration so I stopped.
I included some of Wex’s and Lolley’s insights here (and attributed their insights to them) with the hopes of spurring more conversation. No malicious intentions to bring down the site or cost Wex money. Just wanted to give the people here some more news on their team to talk about. For those who I offended, you have my apology. That’s the last from me on this. Take care.
I don’t think the issue is that people are mad that everyone is getting what they’re paying for. Jim even said “Yes I’m against stealing the info and posting it elsewhere”. Whether you are paraphrasing it or copying it, it is copyright infringement because the information (which is all anyone is interested in anyway) originated from a copyrighted source. If you don’t believe me, follow Weegie’s suggestion and email Jim Wexell, explain what you were doing, give him links to the page, and see if he thinks that falls within the realm of “stealing the info and posting it elsewhere”. Or email the legal reps for SBN and see if they mind; an email to abuse@sbnation.com could probably point you in the right direction.
charity standing orders
This is the last that will be said on this forum until Blitz is able to post something if he even see’s fit.
Dathruth has apologized numerous times and has said he won’t do it in the future. Forgive and forget; It’s over. If you would like to have a discussion on the ideals of journalism please take it to another site as the focus of this blog is football, specifically Steelers Football. We don’t mind getting a little off topic sometimes here, especially in the off-season when times are slow, but frankly it is obvious from the personal attacks that level headed thinking and thoughtful discussion is not taking place right now.
The only thing this discussion and the posting of questions all over the internet about a previous issue with this site is doing is taking the sites name and dragging it through the mud.
This issue is being dealt with by the Management (Blitzburgh) of this site along with the counsel of Dale Lolley and Jim Wexell. I understand you all have strong feelings about this topic but please the discussion is over and it’s time to move on. Please allow the the people who are in charge of this site to make sure this issue is resolved to the liking of all parties that were affected.
Thanks,
DYM
I'll drink your Milkshake, I'll drink it up!
by Frank Mineo (DYMS) on Jun 9, 2009 1:54 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"Thoughtful discussion with a sense of history."
Art Rooney Jr.
"Level-headed thinking." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
