Cuse #1 Mystery team of 2015 - ESPN Insider

[jr4750]

Should you have a subscription:

http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-col...gest-statistical-mysteries-college-basketball

 

[JrodCuse]

And if we should not have a subscription? Hint hint wink wink.

 

[llandz]

And if we should not have a subscription? Hint hint wink wink.

Then we shall remain a mystery!!

 

[PeteCalvin]

My religion states that I cannot pay for subscriptions. I must rely on the hearts and charity of good Samaritans, like yourself, willing to share information.

 

[Subob1]

It provides no significant new insight. If both highly regarded freshman play well, Roberson plays well and Coleman returns to contribute, SU could be a very good team If they don't then SU may not be a very good team. Hence preseason predictions about SU are mysterious because of so little "in game experience" with key, albeit talented, newcomers and the unknown about Coleman.

 

[cliftonparksufan]

We all know JAB does his best when least expected. That said, I'm pretty excited.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

It is a copyright violation to "cut and paste" premium content from other websites.

Offending posts shall be removed.

 

[jordoo]

The mystery is how good we will be not whether or not we will be good. We are a power program and even with all the player turn over and unproven talent we will still likely be a ranked team all season long.

 

[Mano22]

It is a copyright violation to "cut and paste" premium content from other websites.

Offending posts shall be removed.

Sorry, didn't know! Won't happen again.

 

[NKR1978]

I can buy this. Honestly won't be shocked from anything from a a Final Four to a first round NIT loss.

 

[PoppyHart]

It is a copyright violation to "cut and paste" premium content from other websites.

Offending posts shall be removed.

It's actually a copyright violation to cut and paste ANY content that's not in the public domain.

 

[SaltLakeOrange]

Love reading all the conjecture. We'll find out soon enough!

 

[RandygoCuse]

It's actually a copyright violation to cut and paste ANY content that's not in the public domain.

What if you have the expressed written consent of the NFL?

 

[Delmar]

Insider because ESPN needs to make its money somewhere.

 

[OrangeDW]

I can't believe ESPN Insider still exists in. 2014. There's nothing "insider" on there that's not everywhere else on the internet.

 

[IthacaMatt]

It's actually a copyright violation to cut and paste ANY content that's not in the public domain.

Actually no, that's not correct. Leave the comments on IP to the IP lawyers on the board.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Insider because ESPN needs to make its money somewhere.

Yeah those 9 TV networks just aren't making any money.

 

[PoppyHart]

Actually no, that's not correct. Leave the comments on IP to the IP lawyers on the board.

Explain your logic, beyond the "fair use" realm.

 

[Niastri]

Just ESPN's subscriber fees are mind boggling numbers. Even though just one of their many revenue streams (it may be the biggest) their subscriber fees earn ESPN 600 million per month.

ESPN insider being "subscriber" is merely attempting to create synergy with their nearly defunct magazine. If you subscribe to one, you subscribe to both. Synergy

/hijack

 

[IthacaMatt]

Explain your logic, beyond the "fair use" realm.

I don't need to. Fair use suffices. You're entitled to quote enough of an article for purposes of commentary and critique. It's not just copyright law, it's first amendment.

Add in that we are not profiting from the discussion of their content as simple users of this site, and consider that this is a tool to enhance fan interest, which is what creates support for ticket sales and broadcast viewership.

ESPN's web site doesn't have to be self-supporting, even though it very likely is. It's a 24 hour marketing platform for their broadcasts, and it's also a platform for customer/fan engagement. Look at how much stuff they sell us, or try to sell us, and how many fantasy games, live statistics, and archived broadcasts they offer for free to make our visits to their site more "sticky."

Content owners should realize that fan engagement enhances their brands; it doesn't threaten them.

That said, no, you can't take the whole article because that destroys the market for the product. But to quote enough of something for purposes of discussion is fair use.

 

[PoppyHart]

I don't need to. Fair use suffices. You're entitled to quote enough of an article for purposes of commentary and critique. It's not just copyright law, it's first amendment.

Add in that we are not profiting from the discussion of their content as simple users of this site, and consider that this is a tool to enhance fan interest, which is what creates support for ticket sales and broadcast viewership.

ESPN's web site doesn't have to be self-supporting, even though it very likely is. It's a 24 hour marketing platform for their broadcasts, and it's also a platform for customer/fan engagement. Look at how much stuff they sell us, or try to sell us, and how many fantasy games, live statistics, and archived broadcasts they offer for free to make our visits to their site more "sticky."

Content owners should realize that fan engagement enhances their brands; it doesn't threaten them.

That said, no, you can't take the whole article because that destroys the market for the product. But to quote enough of something for purposes of discussion is fair use.

Exactly, and I was specifically referring to copying and pasting entire articles. My "any" comment was not in reference to the amount of article copied, but rather the designation of premium vs. free. The authors/copyright holders have a vested in people visiting their site (ad revenue, customer loyalty, etc...) even if the material is free to the end user.