Law Blog Metrics announces law blogs that are merely clerical, lack originality
Many of the law blogs announced by the Law Blog Metrics blog are mainly clerical in nature and lacking in originality. These blogs just report court decisions, articles published elsewhere, etc. without added commentary or original legal analysis. Practically all of the information and ideas in some of these law blogs can easily be obtained from other sources. For example, the Law Blog Metrics announced a blog titled Cruise Ship Law Blog, whose home page consists almost entirely of complete copies of news articles without added commentary. Such copying gives a misleadingly impressive appearance of a lot of text when none of it is original, and furthermore this copying is being done here for the purpose of promoting a business, a law firm. IMO this is a violation of copyright laws. This is just one notch short of plagiarism. When there is no added commentary, just a URL link to the source should be given.
Meanwhile, the pajama-clad bloggers of the Law Blog Metrics blog refuse to announce my blog "I'm from Missouri," even though my blog contains around 150 posts on legal subjects, with many of those posts each based on a lot of research and containing a lot of added commentary and original legal analysis. An example of such posts is my group of posts about legal experts' opinions about the famous Kitzmiller v. Dover intelligent design case. My blog contains dozens of other posts about law that are just like those.
Many of the clerical-type blogs that are announced by the Law Blog Metrics Blog probably serve useful functions, and it is a shame that I have to belittle other blogs in my campaign to have my blog announced by the Law Blog Metrics blog.
.
Meanwhile, the pajama-clad bloggers of the Law Blog Metrics blog refuse to announce my blog "I'm from Missouri," even though my blog contains around 150 posts on legal subjects, with many of those posts each based on a lot of research and containing a lot of added commentary and original legal analysis. An example of such posts is my group of posts about legal experts' opinions about the famous Kitzmiller v. Dover intelligent design case. My blog contains dozens of other posts about law that are just like those.
Many of the clerical-type blogs that are announced by the Law Blog Metrics Blog probably serve useful functions, and it is a shame that I have to belittle other blogs in my campaign to have my blog announced by the Law Blog Metrics blog.
.
Labels: Internet censorship (new #1)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 5/14/2007 04:35:00 AM
8 Comments:
> Many of the law blogs announced by the Law Blog Metrics blog are mainly clerical in nature and lacking in originality. <
Referencd material should be lacking in originality.
> These blogs just report court decisions, articles published elsewhere <
Perhaps the places where they are published elsewhere are not needed.
> Such copying gives a misleadingly impressive appearance of a lot of text when none of it is original <
Why should it be original? That isn't their purpose. How much original material appears on your blog other than your mindless rantings?
> IMO this is a violation of copyright laws. <
O.K. So you show that copyright laws are another of your many areas of legal ignorance.
> This is just one notch short of plagiarism. <
That is not a notch short of insanity.
> Meanwhile, the pajama-clad bloggers of the Law Blog Metrics blog refuse to announce my blog <
Perhaps because it uses so many childish terms like "pajama-clad bloggers"? Perhaps because it doesn't contain any meaningful legal material?
> around 150 posts on legal subjects <
Of no value to the legal community.
> with many of those posts each based on a lot of research <
By someone who doesn't understand law.
> and containing a lot of added commentary and original legal analysis <
The bottom line is that mindless rantings and misinterpretation are of no value other than for entertainment. They don't belong on serious blogs.
Well, I guess VOIW said everything I intended to say, so I'll just say "Hi everyone!"
I stopped in to see what's new.
Nothing, apparently.
Kisses,
JanieBelle
ViW, your comments are so asinine that I think people are starting to think that I am posting them under a false name in an attempt to discredit the opposition. I finally see what you are trying to do here -- you are trying to make people think that. You are an unethical scumbag. And so is Janiebelle.
Larry, your comments are so asinine that I think people are starting to think that you are posting them under a false name in an attempt to discredit the opposition.
Of course there is a bit of evidence that you aren't the real Larry Fafarman.
Now you call us "unethical" without giving reasons. That is probably unethical.
>>>>> IMO this is a violation of copyright laws. <
O.K. So you show that copyright laws are another of your many areas of legal ignorance. <<<<<<
If you look at the bottom of many news articles, there is a statement that the article is copyrighted. A business blog that consists entirely of copies of copyrighted news articles can hardly be considered to be a "fair use."
> A business blog that consists entirely of copies of copyrighted news articles can hardly be considered to be a "fair use." <
Apples and oranges again. There is no copyright on court decisions. They are public information.
Geez, Larry. That wasn't called for.
JanieBelle said...
>>>>> Geez, Larry. That wasn't called for. <<<<<
You said that you agreed with ViW, so you too got what was coming to him.
Post a Comment
<< Home