Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Multichannel Story About Interactive Gambling  (Read 3735 times)

CaseyAbell

  • Guest
Multichannel Story About Interactive Gambling
« on: August 30, 2004, 01:50:16 PM »
Multichannel just ran a long, interesting story about the future of interactive gambling. After a note about card-playing shows including GSN's Blackjack "paying off in the ratings game," the story discusses GSN in more detail:

STORY DELETED

Hm, maybe they could gamble on Bob Barker doing five more years of TPiR in this country.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2004, 02:07:24 PM by dzinkin »

dzinkin

  • Guest
Multichannel Story About Interactive Gambling
« Reply #1 on: August 30, 2004, 02:06:45 PM »
I repeat: what part of this rule...

http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4999

...do people fail to understand?

CaseyAbell

  • Guest
Multichannel Story About Interactive Gambling
« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2004, 03:06:20 PM »
Sorry if I republished too much of the story. I used six sentences and one phrase out of 77 sentences in the story. This may strain fair use, so I'll summarize:

GSN won't get into interactive betting because of regulatory concerns, though third-party betting may be involved on the horseracing show. In the U.K. betting has long been legal and accepted, so interactive betting is widespread and profitable. The Price is Right is even licensed for betting purposes.

Truth to tell, I used two rather long paragraphs of Liberty's 10-Q in a post on GSN's financials. The quarterly statement is a public document on a government web site, so I don't know if fair use rules are more liberal. Summarization is easy if Matt and Chris want me to revise the post.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2004, 03:07:32 PM by CaseyAbell »

dzinkin

  • Guest
Multichannel Story About Interactive Gambling
« Reply #3 on: August 30, 2004, 03:18:39 PM »
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Aug 30 2004, 03:06 PM\'] Truth to tell, I used two rather long paragraphs of Liberty's 10-Q in a post on GSN's financials. The quarterly statement is a public document on a government web site, so I don't know if fair use rules are more liberal. Summarization is easy if Matt and Chris want me to revise the post. [/quote]
 I'm not sure if government documents fall under different rules or not, and I agree that six sentences out of 77 is less worrisome than, say, reposting entire articles.  But not being an attorney, I'm uncomfortable saying exactly where the line is drawn legally and what is the maximum number of sentences allowed; hence I think it's better to be safe than sorry.

Do you have a link to the quarterly statement?  That's always allowed.

CaseyAbell

  • Guest
Multichannel Story About Interactive Gambling
« Reply #4 on: August 30, 2004, 03:23:59 PM »
Yep, I included the link in the post. I'll just rustle up the post and summarize. It's not difficult at all. By the way, I used the same two paragraphs in a post on the GSN board but didn't get any warning from the administrators. Of course, the paragraphs were mostly favorable to GSN (wink).

EDIT: Shouldn't make excuses, but I've probably gotten too lazy about fair use from spending too much time on blogs. These folks really strain fair use to the max and beyond. Often they'll reprint many paragraphs of others' material, interspersed with their own comments (friendly or not).

Oh man, the more I think about it, the more high crimes and misdemeanors I recall. Somewhere in that endless thread, GSN wasn't the first to "pitch the niche," I reprinted a very long paragraph from a blog and didn't even give specific credit. I'll fix it now.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2004, 04:42:09 PM by CaseyAbell »