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

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