Does RFD have a license to reproduce Consumer Reports material?

[DrXenon]

Just wondering if RFD has acquired a license to reproduce the winter tire reviews from behind the paywall at CR:

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/merge...apa-1089871/7/

If not, you should probably delete it.

[Syne]

Or maybe they should cry more.

[Mark77]

Just wondering if RFD has acquired a license to reproduce the winter tire reviews from behind the paywall at CR:

Technically the firm that would require the license to re-distribute that material would be "photobucket.com" as the information is not on the redflagdeals.com website.

The courts have generally held that linking to material is not the same as publishing the material.

To take this up further, you probably should contact Consumer Reports, who may then file the appropriate DMCA notice with the United States-based "photobucket.com" website alleging copyright infringement.

[DrXenon]

Are you talking about Warren v Fournier? In that case, the photographer had posted the material on a public website, so the court held that he had authorized people to link to it. That is not the case here; the material is behind a paywall. It can't be considered fair use; the entire rating table is reproduced.

[Mark77]

Are you talking about Warren v Fournier? In that case, the photographer had posted the material on a public website, so the court held that he had authorized people to link to it. That is not the case here; the material is behind a paywall. It can't be considered fair use; the entire rating table is reproduced.

I don't know if the copyright owner considers the reproduction to be infringement. You would need to ask the copyright owner about this, and let them take up the issue. But the actual image is not published on RFD, rather, it is published on the photobucket.com website. The copyright owner would need to take the issue up with whomever owns "photobucket.com".

How can RFD take responsibility for material that's not even on its servers?

[brian.gerson]

Regardless of whether it is technically legal or not, I think RFD should delete the material as a matter of integrity.

[oranr]

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, we are looking into the situation.

[jerryhung]

just curious on how would this differ from posting APA/CarCostCanada reports (which require membership)?

and is RFD responsible for member's actions etc..

[dollarsign]

Wouldn't be too concerned about it. CR is known to be biased trash depending on which company gave them the biggest kickback.

If you look at the graphic that the OP is complaining about, you'll see the #9 tire has superior "symbols" to the #8 and #7 tire. Yet it gets ranked below them. Guess BF Goodrich didn't want to pony up the funds this year...

[brian.gerson]

Here is the link to report CR infringement, if anyone cares to:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/a...licy/index.htm

" Businesses understand that if they violate our No Commercial Use Policy, it may have a serious impact on their own reputation for honesty and integrity (indeed, we have written about violations of our policy in our publications and in some cases, even encouraged consumers to write to those companies expressing their concern and disapproval.) "

[Anonymouse]

I have to say that continuing to publish this stolen material is not an indication of a high-integrity operation.

[oranr]

As we are not using Consumer Reports information for a commercial purpose, we are in contact with Consumer Reports for clarification on their policy.

[Anonymouse]

As we are not using Consumer Reports information for a commercial purpose, we are in contact with Consumer Reports for clarification on their policy.

So, you contacted CR and they said "Oh sure, by all means, copy everything in the private section of our site, that honest people pay for! No problemo!"?

I notice that you watermark your boxing day flyers with the RFD logo. Do you do that so weasels don't copy the material and republish it?