Saturday, June 10, 2006

All About Arkley

Kudos to Cap'n Buhne, over at the Buhne Tribune, for the heads up on this archived Times- Standard story on the Arkleys. Apparently published back in 2004, I must have missed it as I don't remember reading it.

23 Comments:

At 9:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since all TS links die after 2 weeks, isn't it curious that that one is still live?

 
At 9:37 AM, Blogger Fred said...

I'm not sure it is. I don't really know how such things work, but I wonder if Cap'n Buhne paid to get to the archive and then used that url to post. Maybe the archive url is good for anyone to use after the first person pays for it?

I don't know.

 
At 10:04 AM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

When I hit the link, there's a google thingy-wingy (that's techno-jargon for whosamawich) at the top. Perhaps it's in the Google cache.

 
At 10:06 AM, Blogger Fred said...

You are correct. That must be what it is. It says it's in the Google cache and the original page might have changed since they added it to their cache. So, Buhne probably did a google search and found it that way.

 
At 10:11 AM, Blogger Fred said...

I was looking at the url in Buhne's link and it doesn't start out as a times- standard link but towards the end it has:

www.times-standard.com/Stories/0,1413,127%7E2896%7E2534879,00.html+site:www.times-standard.com+arkley+schwarzenegger+phone&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

So, I was wondering if maybe that led to the archived story on the T-S web site and copied and pasted just that part into my browser. Nope. It took me to today's front page of the T-S.

Interesting. I was thinking maybe the archives were "free" if you knew how to find them without asking for permission from the T-S, but I guess not.

 
At 10:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I used to be able to get around them by running a google search of the terms in the article.

The TS is grotesquely overpriced on their online archives, and it is a stupid thing for them to charge for it.

 
At 11:41 AM, Blogger Fred said...

I don't understand why they have paid archives, although I'm sure it costs them something to maintain them.

You'd think they'd want people to use their web stuff. Maybe it has something to do with whoever does their web stuff?

As an aside, it looks like the same people do the T-S web page as do the Ukiah Daily Journal. The Ukiah Daily Journal used to have some of their letters to the editor available online. They stopped doing that not long ago. The T-S never has had their letters online.

 
At 11:49 AM, Blogger Bitxxx said...

Plus the T-S is touchy about anyone posting their stories online even when you have a link back to the T-S.

 
At 12:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

the TS has earned its demise

 
At 12:10 PM, Blogger Heraldo said...

Maybe they should reevaluate thier policy in this modern age. The blogs link to their articles and it gives them more traffic.

 
At 12:30 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Bit wrote: "Plus the T-S is touchy about anyone posting their stories online even when you have a link back to the T-S.".

I wasn't aware of that. I know I one of their writers e- mailed me a while back and suggested I link to their stories more often. I had to tell him I didn't have a problem with that except their links are only good for two weeks so I try to link to the E/R if at all possible.

 
At 12:41 PM, Blogger Bitxxx said...

Here was the response from Charles Winkler when I posted to another site:

Dear Sirs:

Hey, you guys are posting proprietary Times-Standard news articles without permission.

That's copyrighted stuff. Please cease and desist.

Contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Charles Winkler

Managing Editor

Times-Standard

 
At 12:43 PM, Blogger Bitxxx said...

Is Anonymous the one and only Rob?

 
At 1:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

nope

 
At 1:58 PM, Blogger Fred said...

I don't think so. I know just about anybody who's anybody in Humboldt County comes here, but I don't think Rob Arkley does. Brian Morrissey does, as many of you have noticed, as does Nancy Flemming, or so she told me. But that's about it that I know of from the Arkley camp.

Then again, most people post anonymously so I guess you never know.

 
At 2:00 PM, Blogger Fred said...

"Here was the response from Charles Winkler.".

Hmmm...I would think as long as proper attribution is made there wouldn't be a problem.

I know they got on one bloggers case for publishing something but that was because he published excerpts of something that was in the Times- Standard which changed the meaning of the original article.

 
At 3:05 PM, Blogger Bitxxx said...

And I should mention in the end Charles said okay.

 
At 3:44 PM, Blogger Bitxxx said...

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our effort to provide for a more informed citizenry in our effort advance issues of civic and corporate responsibility. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner."

 
At 5:59 PM, Blogger Brian Morrissey said...

To the best of my knowledge, Rob does not read or post here (Sorry Fred) but, of course, I do. :-)

 
At 12:11 PM, Blogger Capt. Buhne said...

So, Buhne probably did a google search and found it that way.

Yep. Google's cache is rendering the T-S's paid archives obsolete.

Fascinating, isn't it, that Google's databases are archiving the history of the Web.

 
At 12:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon Couldn't be Anon. Anon is far too obsessed with Bravo, Rose, and others who are mere insects to someone like Rob Arkley. Besides I would assume Arkley has better things to do than haunt blogsites.
However, there are others who could be Anon, such as Rob Amerman or someone in Councilwoman Groves's circle of power.

 
At 4:20 PM, Blogger Anon.R.mous said...

Anon.R.Mous or Plain Jane Anon?

 
At 5:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

neither

 

Post a Comment

<< Home