cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
     
Highlighted
Contributor ○○

Response to YBB

@PaulR888 , I am well familiar with copyright rules and, IMO, those are NOT violated in my weekly Barron's postings that have been going on since late 2009 at great expense of my personal time - I won't bother to outline why and will leave it for you to figure that out.  But feel free to raise that issue with M*, Barron's or the US Copyright Office and I will stop if I am asked by any of those to stop.

YBB
 
PaulR:  I assumed what you were posting in text was something that people pay for and now you were putting into public domain for free.  Seemed odd to me that Barron's would like that.  But beyond my initial impression, I will not expend one iota of time on what you are doing.  I could not care less what you do and at what risk to you.  
13 Replies
Highlighted
Valued Contributor

Re: Response to YBB

Capecod's CEF insight is worth 10x YBB's Barron's regurgitation.  It's truly bizarre that YBB should whine about someone re-posting Capecod's valuable remarks.  Thanks for nothing, YBB.

Highlighted
Participant ○○○

Re: Response to YBB

Gee whiz folks........Yogibearbull is one of the most courteous, proficient, and knowledgeable posters on M* forums.  It is really disappointing that people are taking shots at him.  Please keep up the great work, Yogibearbull.

Highlighted
Contributor ○

Re: Response to YBB

Norbert, I think you might be a little shortsighted in your criticism of Yogi on this issue.  Despite my desire that we continue to receive Cape's expertise and pov here, M* has a professional obligation to obey the law and could suffer from failing to do so.  It's entirely reasonable for someone to point out that our actions are in conflict with said law(s).

Perhaps Yogi (or someone else) might clarify what IS allowable?  For example, I certainly would expect the content of Fidelity's website would be off limits, but the IDEAS expressed would not.  Again, paraphrasing should be ok?

Highlighted
Participant ○○

Re: Response to YBB

Spooky ....

 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Valued Contributor

Re: Response to YBB


@racqueteer wrote:

Norbert, I think you might be a little shortsighted in your criticism of Yogi on this issue.  Despite my desire that we continue to receive Cape's expertise and pov here, M* has a professional obligation to obey the law and could suffer from failing to do so.  It's entirely reasonable for someone to point out that our actions are in conflict with said law(s).

Perhaps Yogi (or someone else) might clarify what IS allowable?  For example, I certainly would expect the content of Fidelity's website would be off limits, but the IDEAS expressed would not.  Again, paraphrasing should be ok?


Nonsense!

First, Fidelity wasn't being materially harmed.  It's an investment management company, not a publishing business.  Dick never complained and was probably flattered.

Second, it had nothing to do with YBB.   Why did he go there?  What's his motivation?

Third, YBB could have been constructive.  He might have suggested paraphrasing rather than directly quoting large portions of Capecod's text.

Fourth, it's hypocritical.  YBB has been posting Barron's content for years (though perhaps sticking to the letter of the law).  Barron's is in the publishing business.  YBB has likely caused material harm to Barron's. 

N.

Highlighted
Contributor ○

Re: Response to YBB


@norbertc wrote:

@racqueteer wrote:

Norbert, I think you might be a little shortsighted in your criticism of Yogi on this issue.  Despite my desire that we continue to receive Cape's expertise and pov here, M* has a professional obligation to obey the law and could suffer from failing to do so.  It's entirely reasonable for someone to point out that our actions are in conflict with said law(s).

Perhaps Yogi (or someone else) might clarify what IS allowable?  For example, I certainly would expect the content of Fidelity's website would be off limits, but the IDEAS expressed would not.  Again, paraphrasing should be ok?


Nonsense!

First, Fidelity wasn't being materially harmed.  It's an investment management company, not a publishing business.  Dick never complained and was probably flattered.

Second, it had nothing to do with YBB.   Why did he go there?  What's his motivation?

Third, YBB could have been constructive.  He might have suggested paraphrasing rather than directly quoting large portions of Capecod's text.

Fourth, it's hypocritical.  YBB has been posting Barron's content for years (though perhaps sticking to the letter of the law).  Barron's is in the publishing business.  YBB has likely caused material harm to Barron's. 

N.


So now, in your opinion, "YBB has likely caused material harm to Barron's."

WOW!  That's a mouthful. 

I kindly request that you provide some data or other evidence to support that accusation.

While you're searching for that, KNOW that if YBB leaves these forums anytime soon, WE will have ALL lost one of the most consistently informative posters these (or ANY investment) forums have ever had, and I for one will cite YOUR posts as the primary reason he left.  

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor ○

Re: Response to YBB


@norbertc wrote:

@racqueteer wrote:

Norbert, I think you might be a little shortsighted in your criticism of Yogi on this issue.  Despite my desire that we continue to receive Cape's expertise and pov here, M* has a professional obligation to obey the law and could suffer from failing to do so.  It's entirely reasonable for someone to point out that our actions are in conflict with said law(s).

Perhaps Yogi (or someone else) might clarify what IS allowable?  For example, I certainly would expect the content of Fidelity's website would be off limits, but the IDEAS expressed would not.  Again, paraphrasing should be ok?


Nonsense!

First, Fidelity wasn't being materially harmed.  It's an investment management company, not a publishing business.  Dick never complained and was probably flattered.

Second, it had nothing to do with YBB.   Why did he go there?  What's his motivation?

Third, YBB could have been constructive.  He might have suggested paraphrasing rather than directly quoting large portions of Capecod's text.

Fourth, it's hypocritical.  YBB has been posting Barron's content for years (though perhaps sticking to the letter of the law).  Barron's is in the publishing business.  YBB has likely caused material harm to Barron's. 

N.


Not having a crystal ball, I'm unsure which part of what I wrote is "nonsense".  Nor what your actual EVIDENCE of said "nonsense" might consist of.  What I DO see is a lot of opinion, vaguely supported by supposition, and bolstered by righteous indignation.  You seem to want to express YOUR opinion(s) while chastising others for doing the same.

I'll repeat myself: Fidelity Discussion probably has some legal protection of its content.  Whether or not you believe they should is, frankly, irrelevant.  You have zero actual evidence that Yogi was in any way involved in this, or is, in fact, engaging in the same behavior - other than, once again, in your opinion.  You said your piece, have some people who disagree who said THEIR piece.  There's nothing productive to be gained by further dissension in our ranks.  How about we focus on a SOLUTION instead?

Highlighted
Valued Contributor

Re: Response to YBB


@racqueteer wrote:

@norbertc wrote:

@racqueteer wrote:

Norbert, I think you might be a little shortsighted in your criticism of Yogi on this issue.  Despite my desire that we continue to receive Cape's expertise and pov here, M* has a professional obligation to obey the law and could suffer from failing to do so.  It's entirely reasonable for someone to point out that our actions are in conflict with said law(s).

Perhaps Yogi (or someone else) might clarify what IS allowable?  For example, I certainly would expect the content of Fidelity's website would be off limits, but the IDEAS expressed would not.  Again, paraphrasing should be ok?


Nonsense!

First, Fidelity wasn't being materially harmed.  It's an investment management company, not a publishing business.  Dick never complained and was probably flattered.

Second, it had nothing to do with YBB.   Why did he go there?  What's his motivation?

Third, YBB could have been constructive.  He might have suggested paraphrasing rather than directly quoting large portions of Capecod's text.

Fourth, it's hypocritical.  YBB has been posting Barron's content for years (though perhaps sticking to the letter of the law).  Barron's is in the publishing business.  YBB has likely caused material harm to Barron's. 

N.


Not having a crystal ball, I'm unsure which part of what I wrote is "nonsense".  Nor what your actual EVIDENCE of said "nonsense" might consist of.  What I DO see is a lot of opinion, vaguely supported by supposition, and bolstered by righteous indignation.  You seem to want to express YOUR opinion(s) while chastising others for doing the same.

I'll repeat myself: Fidelity Discussion probably has some legal protection of its content.  Whether or not you believe they should is, frankly, irrelevant.  You have zero actual evidence that Yogi was in any way involved in this, or is, in fact, engaging in the same behavior - other than, once again, in your opinion.  You said your piece, have some people who disagree who said THEIR piece.  There's nothing productive to be gained by further dissension in our ranks.  How about we focus on a SOLUTION instead?


Racq,

I explained with four bullet points why I chose the word "nonsense".  All I know is that I personally read YBB's complaints about the Capecod text being posted ... and suddenly, as if by magic, RyanM steps in to ban the Capecod posts.  That's not a coincidence.

But, I do agree that there's nothing to be gained through further discussion.  RyanM has no choice but to respect copyright law. 

I suggest we just fall back on paraphrasing / summarizing Dick's material ... like YBB likes to do with Barron's.

N. 

Highlighted
Contributor ○○

Re: Response to YBB

The purpose of my initial comment to YBB was to Norbert's 4th point of hypocrisy.  Companies, not people posting opinions on the internet, have rights to their published works and some are getting more strict.  I give example of DoubleLine.  I've followed their webcasts for years.  They publish slides.  Sometimes I've seen them re-produced.  DoubleLine within the last several months has now clarified with each webcasts that the slides are the intellectual property of DoubleLine and if you want to republish please contact DoubleLine and get permission.  Then doing that, the individual can simply attach a statement saying permission received.  Pretty much common sense.  In YBB's case he either has express permission from Barron's or only has opinion he can, well which is it? 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor ○○○

Re: Response to YBB

Come on people. Ryan was crystal clear when he posted this: If you see any content copied wholesale from another source rather than linked, you can report it by clicking the Actions menu and selecting Report Inappropriate Content.

When TheRabbit copies and pastes "Regards, Dick" in each post, it leaves little to the imagination. "Copied wholesale" is not paraphrasing or saying "I believe that Dick did........" or Dick told me he traded XYZ to ABC. A cut and paste is a cut and pastes.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor ○○

Re: Response to YBB


@cegibbs wrote:

Gee whiz folks........Yogibearbull is one of the most courteous, proficient, and knowledgeable posters on M* forums.  It is really disappointing that people are taking shots at him.  Please keep up the great work, Yogibearbull.


I agree with one thing. Let's not fight about personalities. The man, Yogi, does share lots of good information and maybe he feels a commitment, like needing to moderate the forum? I do not really know, nor care. I like this forum for its good content, free of charge educated opinions.  I hate to see it jeopardized over personal disagreements.

Highlighted
Participant ○

Re: Response to YBB

I personally benefit immensely from Yogi’s presence in M* forums.  His contributions (most of which are not his opinions) have direct impact for me.  Thinking back on years of his contributions, most of his posts are factual and rarely does he step into the realm of posting his opinion, which works for me because I am mostly looking for information.

Highlighted
Community Manager Community Manager
Community Manager

Re: Response to YBB

In the interest of moving past this argument, I have locked the thread. 

Announcements

Morningstar is here to help you respond to the Coronavirus crisis.