Thanks David for alerting us to this. It will be interesting to hear what happens in the future. I do hope Tom gives us an update on how this is handled. This isn’t Clinical Reader’s first gaffe and clearly they don’t seem to be learning from their mistakes.

Thanks for the comment. Interesting, though: There was a section…a tab for NEJM video on Clinical Reader. You’re claiming that this was AUTOMATED? Really?

Also, you seem to be saying that because others similarly violate copyright, it is no big deal that Clinical Reader does. I categorically reject this argument.

Thanks again for the comment and kudos for taking down the copyrighted videos.

-David

Hi there, the videos in question have all been removed.

We have a highly intelligent search algorithm that searches and clusters clinical videos (this is based on youtube technology). Clinical Reader is also in itself automated, puling in and categorizing the latest feeds as you are probably aware. As you can imagine YouTube contains many copyrighted and non-copyrighted videos (uploaded beyond their control, you also mentioned the videos can also be found on Vimeo and Medicalvideos.us.

We’re currently in the process of being taken over by a large publisher who intends to integrate our technology into their own systems.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention and we all continue to enjoy reading your posts.

Best

-Rashada

Anyway, I’m glad that people are getting the vaccine! I’m low on the list around here, and I’m happy to let others go first for awhile. If some is available, though, I’ll certainly get the vaccine.

MillerLibrarian

Are you serious? Talk about feeding the trolls – How is your video different/more appropriate than anything that you speak of? Frankly, your comments are more embarrassing to me, as a professional and library user/promoter/supporter…I’m sorry for you. And, I’m also putting my name on it Alison Miller

davidlrothman

Allison-

Well, I didn’t reply in anyone’s forum but my own, I didn’t link to those who I think should not be encouraged, I never even used the alias of the pseudonymous blogger at LJ. I did not call anyone name.

I’d be interested to hear more specifics about what exactly embarrassed you. Perhaps with some more specific feedback, I can do better next time.

Best,

-David

MillerLibrarian

David~ Wow – great way for dialogue. My comments come because I felt that your video was similar in it’s content/delivery to those that you mentioned. After watching your video, instead of seeing your point, my immediate reaction was defense. Perhaps embarrassment was a strong word, but this was related to your acronyms and such. I like that you expressed your opinion, but felt that it criticized (perhaps subconsciously) those that don’t feel the same way.

MillerLibrarian

I hope that these comments are clearer and again, I am very impressed with your response and openness for dialogue – I was afraid that this might come back to haunt me…I hope that it won’t!Best~
Alison

davidlrothman

Hey Alison-

Yeah, probably some of the acronym recitals were a bit over-the-top. This was my first attempt at a video blog post. If I do more of them, perhaps I can dial the obnoxious bits back a bit.

I have to disagree with the assertion that my content resembled that of the pseudonymous blogger at LJ because I wasn’t nasty and didn’t make personal attacks…and I sign my name to what I say (as did you- well done!)…

davidlrothman

Now to your point of if the video criticized those who disagree with me: I think it is impossible to write/perform an opinion piece that does not imply confidence in its own perspective. I’m not sure how to compose an opinion piece that would not annoy people who disagree with it. Does that make any sense?

-David

MillerLibrarian

Yup – makes sense! And I definitely cannot criticize your attempt at a video blog post – haven’t done one myself, but I think that they can be effective. Point well taken on the opinion piece! I have a different perspective now

Best~
Alison

davidlrothman

I’m so glad. Thanks for the comments, Alison!

Let me stop chuckling long enough to type this. You’re saying that it isn’t my place to point out that Clinical Reader AGAIN appears to be stealing content? Okay. You’re entitled to that view.

But considering the absurd threats Clinical Reader made the last time someone busted them for stolen and/or misleading content, they made legal threats against a medical librarian. Hence, do not be surprised if we take an interest in seeing if Clinical Reader continues to steal or threaten.

You say “copyright is a pain.” I agree. I work in a library, remember.

“I think people who breach it do so at their risk.”

Yeah. Risk of getting caught. Like this.

“I imagine they (CR) didn’t expect people to report this fact so publicly.”

I didn’t expect Clinical Reader to make public legal threats against my colleague either…but that’s beside the point.

You seem to be saying the content theft is okay because CR never expected anyone to NOTICE. Nuh-uh. Doesn’t work that way.

“Still, best put the content back behind the wall where no-one can view it.”

Actually, it is viewable to anyone the NEJM choses to make it visible to. Quite a significant number view it, either through their own subscriptions or subscriptions held by a library they use. I’d love it if NEJM made this content free to the public, but the fact that they don’t isn’t an excuse for stealing it.

Best,

-David