From Media Issues, edited and added here. The gist of it is that we are being careful not to harm or damage them as we promote their product. From the comments above, I often only put only passages of interest in my post, but putting the entire column in protects the context and integrity of the piece. There is a tradeoff between protecting content and getting the word out so that there will be awareness and demand for their content. A couple of my own thoughts to add using the Wall Street Journal as an example:
a) There is an expectation when you subscribe that you will share content with a small or reasonable amount of people such as their eagerness to have it in the waiting room of the dental office - or the public library. Granted that the online world is more complicated and they write rules starkly to protect them when necessary, but there is no indication that people come here for the purpose of getting around that subscription cost they otherwise would have paid themselves. If anything the random promotion and discussion of stories and columns makes people more likely to subscribe.
b) Their own promotional strategy is to give away a mixture of free and protected content to draw attention, praise and subscriptions. Often times my own awareness of a good column comes from their own efforts to submit material to other best of the web sites like Real Clear Politics for widespread dissemination to non-subscribers across the internet.
c) I post some things because they are expressing my own viewpoint, but give credit to the source as a matter of honesty. Pulling out just the passage that supports my view may not preserve the context or meaning intended by the author.
d) I often suggest people subscribe and include subscription links as Crafty has done for various publications. Here's one (save over 80%!):
https://services.wsj.com/Gryphon/jsp/retentionController.jsp?page=10129e) The content is intentionally mixed to get non-subscribers lured part way in, but as you read signed in as a subscriber there is no indication provided as to what is or is not protected. Note that this discussion started as a reader was pulled part way in requesting more.
f) My own awareness of the WSJ editorial page began after my economics professor passed photocopies around of his own contributions. My copy got lost or damaged. I replaced it at the library and found out that he was only being published for his opposing view and that the lead editorials (opposite view) made far more sense. While the liberal universities were pushing Keynesian economics as the only way to proceed in macroeconomics, the WSJ lead editorial was writing that "Keynes is Dead" in the late 1970s with simultaneously exploding inflation and unemployment. Former editor Robert Bartley was a genius at putting a team together and current editorial page editor, Green Bay Wisc. native Paul Gigot, is one of the most insightful people in Washington IMHO.
g) Besides reading and subscribing, I have contributed material to the editorial page that they had no hesitation in using. They credited me but forwarded no payment. Other times it appears that they have been reading the forum before writing - without credit. We have rules here too! "© 2011 Dog Brothers, Inc. Martial Arts" I don't think they want to risk having a cease and desist order be mutual!
"The adventure continues."
