Dear Tom Brennan I thought we were in agreement through silence of getting NO RESPONSE from your legal team stemming from a July 23, 2013 email shared below that I would not agree to signing of a blank page? I changed my format to include links as suggested along with full credit to reporter. This is my response to now your second letter publicly as my way of responding on the record. I have thoughtfully followed the “fair use” guidelines as response to being silenced on your site being blocked from commenting just as others have as well. I don’t think or believe my comments were of any legal concern to your site being these are just my perspective on some of these articles. I am curious now being you are pointing out 2 articles that are not favorable ones at that regarding news. My reporting or refuting the articles that pertained to the Brian Garber incident did not seem to pose a problem for it drove many hits to your site, and secondly giving reporter Kaitlin Durbin story of the year honors so I am confused in what has changed being you have allowed for me to continue after the changed made after your legal teams first attempt to stop the perspective. Surely we can be men about this and come to a win win that’s consistent in what we can call fair use. I do understand much to a degree, but do not understand what the REAL issue is. I hear the real issue mainly stemming from the article on James Mayer that opened many wounds of what really happened?
You want to talk to me personally about what’s changed or what the REAL ISSUE is its apparent you know where I work or you can e-mail – buckeyesyd@gmail – I have worked well with your reporters in the past and would like to continue supporting them, but still would like my personal opinion and criticism of these articles left alone. Like I said there’s enough room on the web for all of us, and agree I am not a pro, how ever opinions / perspectives matter and not one citizen who disagrees with you should ever be impeded. Cease and Desist is vague, I just want to know definitively what you mean? Please consider this your official response from me, I will await your answer being I heard you are on vacation?
I also understand this is a click issue where it’s said “I” make it possible for folks to read your articles for free which is not true, that’s already possible being I an not a subscriber like many others who frequent your site. If this was an issue you would realize your free trial makes your site free being it only recognizes cookies that can simply be trashed to reset free trial. If I can be of further assistance in this complaint I am sure being you and others “are watching” as people say you know full well you are capable of leaving a message on the blog or in the Mansfielders Perspective Group where I am sure your people are watching.
This is a cease and desist notice to not be calling or writing anymore letters addressed to this issue to where I work. You have issues with my work, lets keep it work not this! I will give you time to enjoy your vacation. Looking forward to speaking with you soon to resolve the REAL ISSUE with copy and paste since I can assume Drew Tyler is no longer laughing. Any and ALL calls and letters to my employer on this day forward WILL BE CONSIDERED HARASSMENT – STOP THE BS!
Sincerely Phil Sydnor
Examples of fair use typically involve, according to the Copyright Act of 1976, the reproduction of authored works for the purpose of “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching …, scholarship, or research” (17 U.S.C.A. § 107). The same act also establishes a four-part test to determine fair use according to the following factors: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work (17 U.S.C.A. § 107).
No, I do not get paid advertisements or subscriptions for scrutiny. The is simply a personal vendetta to stop the truth.
Disagree? There’s a place below where you can post anonymously like THEY usually do.
The articles above in question give credit where credit is due.
Must be a formatting issue?
Original Response to 1st attempt to intimidate – http://blog.mansfieldersperspective.com/gannett-law-department-sends-cease-letter-to-e-mail-is-this-legal-or-just-a-bully-tactic/ – No further action one would think they are in compliance? It’s a shame it has come to this, an attack on ones 1st Amendment Rights to refute and/or criticize the News.