Actually LivinUpRiver if you look up the many rules and regulations on media material and content copyrights as stated by the United States Federal Communication Comission, it would be a copyright violation for a news outlet outside one that’s affiliated with GoSkagit.com to take material from users posted on this site without the permission of Go.Skagit.com. I mean think about it, how many major news outlets have even over the past couple days when reporting “news” about this story, have ended up with quotes that aren’t exact, but remarkably similar to ones found in this forum?

Granted if they twist their words around it’s totally fair game, because they aren’t using your exact words posted on this forum. But all i’m saying is that when some reporter working for a multi-million dollar corprate media giant can’t even come up with there own concepts when reporting on a news story, and has to case the posts of GoSkagit.com from their cubicle and steal concepts from the very well informed people including yourself LivinUpRiver to do their news, I think that’s pretty sad and pathetic on their part, even if it is a cut throat business.

Actually when it comes to patroling areas that are really rural often times that falls to the Dept.of Fish & Wildlife Officers, seeing how when there isn’t a police force located out in some rural locations. Maybe that’s why they won’t to that officer for a quote, very good points. :o)

dj-defkawn - 21 August 2008 06:39 PM

Actually LivinUpRiver if you look up the many rules and regulations on media material and content copyrights as stated by the United States Federal Communication Comission, it would be a copyright violation for a news outlet outside one that’s affiliated with Go.com to take material from users posted on this site without the permission of Go.Skagit.com.

If someone is lifting verbatim complete statements from these forums and claiming them to be their own or that of someone without their permission, *that* would be copyright violation. If they are taking thought, ideas, and paraphrases, it’s not a copyright violation. Copyright law is very, very complex. I’m sure you can find something online that addresses it if you’re interested in understanding it.

dj-defkawn - 21 August 2008 06:39 PM

I mean think about it, how many major news outlets have even over the past couple days when reporting “news” about this story, have ended up with quotes that aren’t exact, but remarkably similar to ones found in this forum?

Ibid.

dj-defkawn - 21 August 2008 06:39 PM

Granted if they twist their words around it’s totally fair game, because they aren’t using your exact words posted on this forum.

Now you’re catching on. ;-)

dj-defkawn - 21 August 2008 06:39 PM

But all i’m saying is that when some reporter working for a multi-million dollar corprate media giant can’t even come up with there own concepts when reporting on a news story, and has to case the posts of Go.com from their cubicle and steal concepts from the very well informed people including yourself LivinUpRiver to do their news, I think that’s pretty sad and pathetic on their part, even if it is a cut throat business.

Well, actually...that’s what the reporting media does in a nutshell, isn’t it? Talking to people, getting their ideas, thoughts, and concepts and using them as printed stories or talking points on TV and radio? I mean, seriously - wouldn’t it all be kinda boring and propaganda-like if all we read were the thoughts, ideas, and concepts of the reporters? Heck, that’s what Editorials are for and why you only see one per issue, dontcha think? ;-)

Man I totally agree with you LivinUpRiver, the news media would completely boring if the point of view of those were expressed only from that of the broadcaster. But I just think it’s a bit cheap that people from these major corprate media giants may be casing little GoSkagit.com to get concepts and ideas from everyday people like you and myself and the many other poster on here, but are then possibly printing and broadcasting those ideas and concepts, and then claming them as their own, in a manner so they aren’t taking quotes, iedas, and concepts from the website of another media outlet. I totally have no issue with people’s actual points of view and opinion being expressed in any form of broadcast media, I just think they need to give credit to the people they get their quotes from, even if they do twist it around and don’t use it verbatim to a point that it could be considered a violation of a copyright. It’s like with the financial backing of million dollar corprate giants, and with esteemed college educations, I’d think that they could accurately report news, and give credit where it’s deserved.

dj-defkawn - 21 August 2008 07:18 PM

Man I totally agree with you LivinUpRiver, the news media would completely boring if the point of view of those were expressed only from that of the broadcaster. But I just think it’s a bit cheap that people from these major corprate media giants may be casing little GoSkagit.com to get concepts and ideas from everyday people like you and myself and the many other poster on here, but are then possibly printing and broadcasting those ideas and concepts, and then claming them as their own. I totally have no issue with people’s actual points of view and opinion being expressed in any form of broadcast media, I just think they need to give credit to the people they get their quotes from.

Well dj, it’s just all part of information gathering and you have to realize that the internet has made information gathering a whole lot easier. 

How is taking what people think and express in an online forum any differant than standing on a street corner and asking people’s opinions as they walk past?  When taking a survey, do people’s names usually get printed with the survey opinions expressed or is it just a general gathering of information?  Reporters report - they don’t have an obligation to say how they got their information.  In fact, their right to report the information they have gathered and from whom they have gathered that information is a protected right.  You’ve heard of reporters not revealing their sources and being jailed for refusing to do so, haven’t you?

Freedom of the press, my friend - it’s something to be cherished, not balked at.

LivinUpriver - 21 August 2008 07:25 PM

Well dj, it’s just all part of information gathering and you have to realize that the internet has made information gathering a whole lot easier. 

How is taking what people think and express in an online forum any differant than standing on a street corner and asking people’s opinions as they walk past?  When taking a survey, do people’s names usually get printed with the survey opinions expressed or is it just a general gathering of information?  Reporters report - they don’t have an obligation to say how they got their information.  In fact, their right to report the information they have gathered and from whom they have gathered that information is a protected right.  You’ve heard of reporters not revealing their sources and being jailed for refusing to do so, haven’t you?

Freedom of the press, my friend - it’s something to be cherished, not balked at.

The difference is you would be asking the people on the street corner their opinions as a reporter, plus you would have asked and gotten the permission of the people taking the survey, to take a survey in the first place. You aren’t covertly spying on what they have to say and what their opinions are, and then returning to your multi-million dollar corprate media giant, and then twisting their words just to a point where they aren’t exact, so you can claim them as your own.

I also agree that the freedom to a free press is something in this country that is truly a blessing, but also that the line between offering news, and taking credit for other people’s views as a reporter for your own corprate gain must be respected. You make some very good points Livin UP River, much to be respected.

dj-defkawn - 21 August 2008 07:42 PM

LivinUpriver - 21 August 2008 07:25 PM

Well dj, it’s just all part of information gathering and you have to realize that the internet has made information gathering a whole lot easier. 

How is taking what people think and express in an online forum any differant than standing on a street corner and asking people’s opinions as they walk past?  When taking a survey, do people’s names usually get printed with the survey opinions expressed or is it just a general gathering of information?  Reporters report - they don’t have an obligation to say how they got their information.  In fact, their right to report the information they have gathered and from whom they have gathered that information is a protected right.  You’ve heard of reporters not revealing their sources and being jailed for refusing to do so, haven’t you?

Freedom of the press, my friend - it’s something to be cherished, not balked at.

The difference is you would be asking the people on the street corner their opinions as a reporter, plus you would have asked and gotten the permission of the people taking the survey, to take a survey in the first place. You aren’t covertly spying on what they have to say and what their opinions are, and then returning to your multi-million dollar corprate media giant, and then twisting their words just to a point where they aren’t exact, so you can claim them as your own.

I also agree that the freedom to a free press is something in this country that is truly a blessing, but also that the line between offering news, and taking credit for other people’s views as a reporter for your own corprate gain must be respected. You make some very good points Livin UP River, much to be respected.

“Covertly spying”?  Not. 

In a public, online forum, nothing’s private and it’s all up for grabs, dj.  Especially since the majority of us are posting anonymously.  Did anyone ask your permission to print what you posted here under “dj-defkawn” or did you just enjoy being able to say “hey, the Herald printed what I said anonymously in their online forum”?  I bet you didn’t object to what they printed, right?  But if they had quoted you wihtout your permission and it had been with your real name and what you had said would have put you in a negative light, would you have objected?  Sure you would.  If they had *not* used your real name would you have had something to complain about?  No, you wouldn’t because it would still be an anonymous statement.  Do you see what I’m getting at here?

Regardless, you’re really taking this whole thing waaaaay out of proportion, kiddo.  Do you have proof that *anyone* has “covertly” taken what’s been said in this forum and used it in a news story?  Any proof at all?  I don’t think so.  Until you do, it’s all just guessing and conjecture, dj.

Livin Up River,

I’m not on here to claim some corprate fueled conspiracy to steal the information posted here by the users of GoSkagit.com, or that I have some sort of smoking gun piece of evidence that links some large media outlet to such. What i’ve been trying to point out is that it’s a bit odd that so many news outlets have quotes and points that are nearly identical to some of the things that have been stated in this online forum. Now if the major news outlets just so happen to be on the side of the everyday people of Skagit Valley coincidently, then more power to them. But if some outlets have taken quotes and views from other people, and have broadcast or published them claiming to be their own, then I feel that isn’t right. In any medium, I wouldn’t look at it as right if you had a viewpoint or any idea I had taken from you, and then I claimed it as my own and gave you no credit simply for my own monetary gain.

Also even if the the Skagit Valley Herald had published my real name I wouldn’t have gotten angry with that. Because anything I post on their website, they have the right to report about in any GoSkagit.com affilated publication. Even if what I had to say was negative, i’m giving GoSkagit.com the right to talk about what i’ve posted regardless of circumstance as according to the “terms of use” located at the very bottom right hand corner of this page. So they would’nt need to ask permisson to publish quotes from their own website.

I just wish the media and reporting was still how it was back in the day.

When the reporter got the ‘scoop’.  Then went out and spoke with people, conducted interviews, sat down, and actually wrote a newsworthy, original article.  One that hadn’t been reported on almost identically, by someone else, only to twist the wording around enough to not get into trouble.

Once that starts to happen, facts get skewed as well.

Everyone would benefit if thorough investigative reporting was the norm.

Well said Up The River!

Up The River - 21 August 2008 09:34 PM

I just wish the media and reporting was still how it was back in the day.

When the reporter got the ‘scoop’.  Then went out and spoke with people, conducted interviews, sat down, and actually wrote a newsworthy, original article.  One that hadn’t been reported on almost identically, by someone else, only to twist the wording around enough to not get into trouble.

Once that starts to happen, facts get skewed as well.

Everyone would benefit if thorough investigative reporting was the norm.

I know what you’re getting at here, but...I’ve got news for you (and I don’t mean this in a sarcastic manner, BTW)- the way print news is reported now is much more legal and much more ethical than they way it used to be “back in the day”.  Used to be that sources didn’t need to be verified and what was reported didn’t even have to be true.  Libel was common “back in the day” before people figured out that they could successfully sue newspapers and other print media for printing falsehoods.  What happens now in print and broadcast media is much more carefully scrutinized *because* we live in such a litigious society.

In many ways it’s better and healthier all around - but in some ways, it can prove to be problematic and kinda stifling.

Mya pinion

If he murdered your daughter would you still feel that no time should be served? That he should only serve community service?
I highly doubt you would. You would want him to rot wouldn’t you?

Accident or not he KILLED someone. If he was the so called “competent” hunter others on here (obviously his family members) have called him he would have been able to tell the difference between a bear and a person.

He’s 14. He’s old enough to know the consequences. He committed the crime. He should do the time.

This whole thing is absolutely sickening. This young boy and his family are completely devistated with all of this. No one can really understand why this happened the way it did, but he IS a responsible, loving boy and his family is NOT to blame in this.

Accidents_Happen - 03 September 2008 12:18 AM

This whole thing is absolutely sickening. This young boy and his family are completely devistated with all of this. No one can really understand why this happened the way it did, but he IS a responsible, loving boy and his family is NOT to blame in this.

I see.  So you think that no one’s to blame that the two boys weren’t following the safety rules of hunting that they had been taught in the hunter safety course?  They took the course, supposedly knew the rules of hunter safety, yet ignored more than a few of them and they’re not to blame in any way, shape, or form? 

And of course - the grandfather, who saw and made eye-contact with the victim and her hiking companion isn’t at fault at all for not letting them know that his teenage grandsons were up above them on the trail with rifles but no binoculars and no orange clothing.  Is he “devastated” too that his negligence had something to do with Mrs. Almli dying on that mountain?

Oh, and BTW - I saw the older brother yesterday in Concrete driving his vehicle somewhat recklessly as he did a u-turn at the end of Main Street.  Squealing his tires, going too fast, yucking it up with his buddies, driving in a foolish manner where someone could have been hurt (besides himself).  Then there’s his MySpace page that says he’s currently “stoked” and that 2009 is going to be a “kick-a** year!” (I wonder if the family Mrs. Almli was forced to leave behind are feeling “stoked” about 2009, too?)

Yeah boy, all of that really says “devastated” and that he’s taking the death (he had a hand in) of an innocent victim hard.  In fact, I’d say that says “devastated” better than a Hallmark sympathy card - how about you?

Ignorance isn’t a virtue.....

Accidents_Happen - 04 September 2008 01:34 AM

Ignorance isn’t a virtue.....

Exactly.  Which is one of the reasons why that 14 year-old’s “not guilty” plea was a slap in the face of Mrs. Almli’s family.  That plea essentially equals “I was ignorant of what I should have known not to do.”

Not that it matters, but by law he CANNOT plead guilty at his arraignment.  BY LAW, he must plead not guilty and his lawyer must inform him of ALL of his rights (right to trial, right to trial by judge, right to plead, right to deferred adjudication, although I would hope that’s not an option in manslaughter cases).  The “not guilty” is really a formality.

Manerva - 04 September 2008 02:45 PM

Not that it matters, but by law he CANNOT plead guilty at his arraignment.  BY LAW, he must plead not guilty and his lawyer must inform him of ALL of his rights (right to trial, right to trial by judge, right to plead, right to deferred adjudication, although I would hope that’s not an option in manslaughter cases).  The “not guilty” is really a formality.

Aahhh...I wasn’t aware of that.  Not really privvy to the law other than what I see on TV and read in the paper. ;-) But wait - what about the defendants on Law and Order who were going to plead not guilty and suddenly get a guilty conscience and plead guilty?!  It’s all too confusing…

In all seriousness though, I can’t imagine how the Almli family felt when they heard the “not guilty” plea.  It seems a slap in the face to hear “I’m not guilty of killing your family member even though I know I was the one that pulled the trigger”.

Sad.

LivinUpriver - 04 September 2008 10:21 PM

Manerva - 04 September 2008 02:45 PM

Not that it matters, but by law he CANNOT plead guilty at his arraignment.  BY LAW, he must plead not guilty and his lawyer must inform him of ALL of his rights (right to trial, right to trial by judge, right to plead, right to deferred adjudication, although I would hope that’s not an option in manslaughter cases).  The “not guilty” is really a formality.

Aahhh...I wasn’t aware of that.  Not really privvy to the law other than what I see on TV and read in the paper. ;-) But wait - what about the defendants on Law and Order who were going to plead not guilty and suddenly get a guilty conscience and plead guilty?!  It’s all too confusing…

In all seriousness though, I can’t imagine how the Almli family felt when they heard the “not guilty” plea.  It seems a slap in the face to hear “I’m not guilty of killing your family member even though I know I was the one that pulled the trigger”.

Sad.

No problem, it’s a common misconception.  I spent 6 years working in the judicial system/law enforcement.  I thought the same thing when I started.

The Skagit County Prosecutor has a great victim’s assistance program.  I imagine the Court Liaison and the Prosecutor let the Almi’s know what to expect....and really....can the Defendent REALLY say anything to give them closure?  That’s what’s sad.

LivinUpriver - 04 September 2008 12:45 AM

Accidents_Happen - 03 September 2008 12:18 AM

This whole thing is absolutely sickening. This young boy and his family are completely devistated with all of this. No one can really understand why this happened the way it did, but he IS a responsible, loving boy and his family is NOT to blame in this.

I see.  So you think that no one’s to blame that the two boys weren’t following the safety rules of hunting that they had been taught in the hunter safety course?  They took the course, supposedly knew the rules of hunter safety, yet ignored more than a few of them and they’re not to blame in any way, shape, or form? 

And of course - the grandfather, who saw and made eye-contact with the victim and her hiking companion isn’t at fault at all for not letting them know that his teenage grandsons were up above them on the trail with rifles but no binoculars and no orange clothing.  Is he “devastated” too that his negligence had something to do with Mrs. Almli dying on that mountain?

Oh, and BTW - I saw the older brother yesterday in Concrete driving his vehicle somewhat recklessly as he did a u-turn at the end of Main Street.  Squealing his tires, going too fast, yucking it up with his buddies, driving in a foolish manner where someone could have been hurt (besides himself).  Then there’s his MySpace page that says he’s currently “stoked” and that 2009 is going to be a “kick-a** year!” (I wonder if the family Mrs. Almli was forced to leave behind are feeling “stoked” about 2009, too?)

Yeah boy, all of that really says “devastated” and that he’s taking the death (he had a hand in) of an innocent victim hard.  In fact, I’d say that says “devastated” better than a Hallmark sympathy card - how about you?

Since you are so in tune with this family, then you would know the support that there family has given to the Community of Concrete.  How much this has affected their family.  The older boy is and older HS Boy.  No different than numerous kids inside of Concrete and many in which you probably would not expect to act that way.  The older boy is stoked for 2009 as he will be receiving his diploma.  That is the reason. No matter what the incident brought the worse things for either of the kids is to shut down and stop trying to live a normal life.

The more I read your post the more irritated that we have people like this that live in our community. Sickening..