Ted, fellow listers:

As one who did see the NewsWire article on the searchHP.com site, I can say
that I have to side somewhere in the middle of this one.  They were arguably
right and within the law, but morally indefensible in the way that the
article was referenced.

I was the one who was actually quoted in Ron's article in the 3rd or 4th
paragraph that the editors chose to make the primary focus of their summary.
In journalism if you wish to "slant a story" one way or another - you can.
Many editors do.  This is called "yellow journalism".  True journalists
report the facts and let the readers decide for themselves.  When they have
to summarize an article, the summary is supposed to be a balanced look at
the intent of the whole article.  In this particular case, it wasn't.  My
quote was taken completely out of context and made to look like the user
community is up against the wall and bailing fast because there isn't proper
training available.  Anyone who was unfamiliar with me - or with the user
community - would have been alarmed.  I personally was disappointed.  The
rebuttals that have come from searchHP.com have not yet addressed this
issue.

As to the manner in which they provide the service, I have no qualms with
the theory.  It's true (and always has been) - searchHP.com doesn't copy the
articles.  They don't reprint them.  They don't even mask them in their own
forms.  They don't claim the articles as their own.  They give proper
credit - and even provide a direct link to the entire, original article.
They never have.   However, they do more than serve as a simple "search"
source.  They provide an encapsulated summary of each article that is
posted.  And that's the rub.  The summarizations are not approved of by the
original author and do not guarantee to be bias free.

So, legally you could say they are indeed "on target" and within the bounds
of applicable copyright law.  Morally, I find their position indefensible.

[I have been familiar with the site for some time and have noticed a very
definite slant to virtually all of the summarizations.  If it is simply a
"news article", they do a great job of summarization.  However, if an
article has any negative quotations or content - regardless of the platform,
they are quick to include that in the summary.  It makes for good headlines
and captures a readers attention - but it also jades a readers perspective
that might link over to the actual article.  When you read an article with a
jaded perspective, you aren't likely to pick up on the positive aspects at
all...]

Glenn J. Koster, Sr.
Quintessential School Systems
Developers of QWEBS (qwebs.qss.com)
QWEBS - The Next Generation : Coming soon to an HP e3000 near you!

==========================================
The above comments are purely my own and are not intended to reflect that of
my employer.