Ladies and Gentleman...We got him.

Donate To GopherHole
G

GopherMac

Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Points
6
GI says Nosa made his decision. Is he maroon and gold?
 

The only decision he's made is that he won't be going to Colorado.
 





if you have info and don't share it, you're a d-bag. paying for info on high school students just isn't right. The guys at rivals need to get a life
 

Nosa said he decommited from Colorado and Minnesota is his leader.
 


So, lawrence21

Rivals is a business. Last time I checked, businesses don't stay in business until they charge for their product. Sounds like you have a problem with that.

So if you want to steal Rivals' product (inside recruiting information), tell me: what makes you different from a shoplifter?
 



What makes it different than shoplifting is

marooned in south said:
Rivals is a business. Last time I checked, businesses don't stay in business until they charge for their product. Sounds like you have a problem with that.

So if you want to steal Rivals' product (inside recruiting information), tell me: what makes you different from a shoplifter?
Click to expand...

The information is public. Once Rival's sells their precious commodity to someone like the poster you attempt to chastise, that purchaser is free to use it how they wish which includes telling everyone in the world about it. Otherwise, anyone who reads Rival's would have to keep a secret or be charged with conspiracy to commit "shoplifting". Rivals is certainly free to require their loyal readers to enter into strict confidentiality agreements and sue people who violate the terms of those agreements, but I suspect that they would soon be out of business and I am sure you wouldn't want that to happen, now would you?
 

27 cents a day?

That is like sponsoring a child in africa that doesn't exist.

Go Gophers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

how about getting paid by advertisers and letting info about kids be shared freely. The way I see it Rivals are pimps or at least breaking child labor laws
 

The dumb thing is you call Rivals pimps even though the only reason that information is out there is because the guys that work for Rivals go out and get it. So they are the reasons for the info yet its not ok for them to charge to get it? Doesn't make much sense to me.
 



do they pay the high school kids for the info? doubtful, yet they make you pay to get it. They are making money off of high school kids, therefore pimping them for their services. Rivals sees the money, the actual kid does not.
 

Quote: "do they pay the high school kids for the info? doubtful, yet they make you pay to get it. They are making money off of high school kids, therefore pimping them for their services. Rivals sees the money, the actual kid does not."

We get it dipsh*t. You don't like Rivals and how they do business. However, plenty of people do. And if Rivals has figured out a way to make money off the evaluation, ranking, and college choices of high school athletes, more power to them. I wish I would have thought of that. The last time I checked this is still a free county. People are free to subscribe to Rivals, or not. High school athletes are free to talk to Rivals, or not. Rival's subscribers are free to talk about the information they get on Rivals, or not. Rival's is free to ban subscribers who pass on too much information, or not. And as I am sure you are going to point out to me, you are free to bitch about Rivals, or not. And of course, I am free to call you a dipsh*t, or not. We are all free to do whatever we want. Many people have died for the right to be free.
 

Well then ESPN and every other website/TV station is making money off of high school kids when they air the games and NBC when they have the high school all star game. The kids aren't working and aren't forced to do anything. They give interviews freely or often even contact the Rivals guys to let them know whats going on. That's hardly 'pimping' anyone and you know it. People pay for the info and also for the premium boards which helps to eliminate trolls, flamers, etc that you get on open boards since only a real fool would pay to post on a board just to flame. If you don't like rivals or scout or whoever thats fine but its hypocritical to knock them but still listen to or ask for the info they produce. You said:
'if you have info and don't share it, you're a d-bag. paying for info on high school students just isn't right'

Well if you feel that strongly then you shouldn't participate in the process at all or your just a hypocrite who should be ignored. That's like complaining about child labor while wearing nikes. I suggest you get a life or actually stand up for something you act as if you believe in. If you're not willing to do that then spare the rest of us your opinions on it.
 

lawrence21 said:
do they pay the high school kids for the info? doubtful, yet they make you pay to get it. They are making money off of high school kids, therefore pimping them for their services. Rivals sees the money, the actual kid does not.
Click to expand...

The fact that they didn't have to pay to receive the information but they are charging for the dissemination of the information does not make them pimps. The fee is because they provided a service to readers by doing interviews and collecting the information. A capitalist system relies on specialization and trade and I'm happy to trade them cash for information that would be tedious for me to collect by myself. If we all tried to do it ourselves we would probably annoy recruits by sending 50,000 text messages instead of having 1-3 points of contact for the fan base.
 

#93fanclub said:
The information is public. Once Rival's sells their precious commodity to someone like the poster you attempt to chastise, that purchaser is free to use it how they wish which includes telling everyone in the world about it. Otherwise, anyone who reads Rival's would have to keep a secret or be charged with conspiracy to commit "shoplifting". Rivals is certainly free to require their loyal readers to enter into strict confidentiality agreements and sue people who violate the terms of those agreements, but I suspect that they would soon be out of business and I am sure you wouldn't want that to happen, now would you?
Click to expand...

Within the user agreement there is a clause that expressly restricts users from posting proprietary information on other sites. Rivals has the legal right to restrict or cancel membership if they users are found to have broken the terms of the user agreement.
 


Why Btowngopher? Did you think we might have got an oral from someone? So did I? I guess it was a backhanded slap at the teasers on GI. I don't think it's worth paying to hear but I sure like hearing when good news happens for our program.
 

"Many people have died for the right to be free."

Wow. My guess is that nobody ever went into battle and died for recruiting information, but then again I don't subscribe to Rivals.

My question: when you wrote that did you think that it was even a little bit over the top, or did you feel like more of a patriot?
 

I think I had one too many beers when I wrote that. Not that statement isn't true, however.
 

It is in no sense "stealing" to reveal information obtained from a premium service on a web site. Copyright covers the article, not the information in the article. If I read a story in a newspaper, I can't reproduce the story, but I can cite the facts from the story.
 

Finaly! someone got it right.

RR you nailed it right on the head. The reason Rivals has never sued anyone over disclosure is because they can't. They do not own the words that came out of someone else's mouth. I can't quote Thomas Jefferson and say I said it. Plus, once words are posted, they enter the public domain, irregardless of there rules for use. That has been proven time and time again. As RR said as long as you do not copy text verbatim and fail to attribute, they have no rights no matter how many times they badger the kid or his parents. The body of legal history backs me up on this, why do you think all Pro Sports have to all say the same thing? "for the private use of the home audience." because they don't own it either. Rivals/G.I. bots are going to come on here and argue this isn't true, but when push comes to shove, they can not find one legal cases that supports them. It's why intellectual property right cases are so hard to win.
 

RR & re, why don't you guys read the thread before you waste everyone's time with with your half-a$$ posts. Any Holers who have spent more than a few weeks of time in GoperHole understand that everything published in GI is PUBLIC information. This has been re-hashed over and over again. The only remedy that GI has when one of their subscribers posts information in the Hole that they don't want posted is to cancel their subscription. That's it. Nothing more. It is not against the law to post information from GI in the Hole, and it doesn't give GI a legal cause of action for damages. GI can cancel their subscription and that's the end of it. Do I have to say if for a third time? The only controversy that exists is when some GI subscribers get pissed at other GI subscribers for disseminating information that they believe they paid for and should be kept within the "GI Club" until it is made public by other sources. It is not a legal matter by any means. Most thinking people understand this. It is about time that you guys start to understand it as well.
 

Wasn't this thread about Nosa?

Wow. Nothing like some rehashed back and forth argument to kill what was a good topic.

Maybe next time we can discuss whether or not Mason is due credit for Brew's 1-11 first season? Excuse me while I use my sack as a pin cushion.
 

re3886 said:
RR you nailed it right on the head. The reason Rivals has never sued anyone over disclosure is because they can't. They do not own the words that came out of someone else's mouth. I can't quote Thomas Jefferson and say I said it. Plus, once words are posted, they enter the public domain, irregardless of there rules for use. That has been proven time and time again. As RR said as long as you do not copy text verbatim and fail to attribute, they have no rights no matter how many times they badger the kid or his parents. The body of legal history backs me up on this, why do you think all Pro Sports have to all say the same thing? "for the private use of the home audience." because they don't own it either. Rivals/G.I. bots are going to come on here and argue this isn't true, but when push comes to shove, they can not find one legal cases that supports them. It's why intellectual property right cases are so hard to win.
Click to expand...



False.

When you subscribe to Rivals/Scout, you're paying for a license to access their proprietary information. You are not licensed to distribute this information in any way. This is clearly spelled out in the user agreement. If you violate this agreement, they are within their rights to suspend your service. They could also sue you for breach of contract, but would be unlikely to do so, since the costs of litigation outweigh the potential value of their recovery.

From the Rivals TOS:

"The material on the Premium Ticket Service is for the private, non-commercial enjoyment of Subscribers only. Any other use is strictly prohibited. Rivals and its publishing partners spend a great deal of time and money to obtain the information appearing on its web sites. Subscribers agree that they will not copy, publish, or in any way make available publicly any news, pictures, interviews, features, or any other information from Rivals web sites, without express written permission from Rivals. Subscribers agree that, should they do so, Rivals reserves the right to cancel their subscription immediately without refund. "

http://www.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=47688

I'm not affiliated with Rivals/Scout, nor do I have a membership to either service. I just want to make sure nobody jeopardizes their subscription by regularly reporting information from the private message boards based on erroneous legal advice offered here.

By the way, "irregardless" isn't a word.
 

"The material on the Premium Ticket Service is for the private, non-commercial enjoyment of Subscribers only. Any other use is strictly prohibited."

Some of the information I have heard second-hand was not enjoyable. Therefore, I am not in violation of their rules.



"Subscribers agree that they will not copy, publish, or in any way make available publicly any news, pictures, interviews, features, or any other information from Rivals web sites, without express written permission from Rivals."

Your story is that I got the information from Rivals. My story is that I got the story from a friend who knows. Go ahead- prove you are right.



Regardless of what they say (or irregardless, if you want), Rivals has nothing on anyone.
 

The 12th Man said:
Your story is that I got the information from Rivals. My story is that I got the story from a friend who knows. Go ahead- prove you are right.

Regardless of what they say (or irregardless, if you want), Rivals has nothing on anyone.
Click to expand...

Yup, from a practical perspective, you're absolutely right: Rivals/Scout would have to demonstrate that you violated the TOS by posting their proprietary information, which is clearly not an easy thing to do. With that said, I'd be shocked if they didn't monitor the extent to which their content gets posted on sites like GH and who does that posting.

Truthfully, I couldn't care less one way or another. I appreciate GI subscribers keeping us in the loop by posting over here; I just don't want them to get snagged into a pissing contest with the GI admins over the sources of their information.

And with that, I'm going to take the accomplice's advice and shut the eff up on this particular topic. I'm excited about the prospect of Nosa rolling with the Gophers next year and will focus on that should I make additional posts to this thread.
 

In reality, GI probably likes the cross posting of snippets, as long as they are referenced as the source. What better form of free advertising can they get? GopherHole is a captive audience that IS their demographic.

NOTE: Rivals Terms of Service, as you posted, does not reference suing as a remedy. This is because they could never win such a lawsuit. However, terminating a membership over a violation is within their rights.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom