I would hope that these firms see the value in having their research (and brand) promoted and discussed. As a student of the market and frequent lurker of your site, I've found the links to research articles you've presented invaluable to my education.

I'm assuming that the challenges are only focused on for-fee research that they are producing. Linking to publicly available research and content is clearly fair use and not something that requires permission except as a courtesy to the provider. There is clear precedent for allowing the practice of deep-linking to public content.

Any publisher who feels otherwise is perfectly free to lock up their precious content behind a pay-wall. It's their loss.
For some interesting reading and relevant to the blogosphere in general and social equity in particular, I highly recommend visiting and reading the Cluetrain Manifesto (http://www.cluetrain.org). The companies that listen to their customers and the public and engage in conversation will ultimately be the firms that survive.
Cheers, best holiday wishes, and thank you Bill for the extraordinary efforts you put into this website. To your health and to your family.

Max

The greater the difficulty the more glory in surmounting it. Skillful pilots gain their reputation from storms and tempests.

---Epictetus

ALOHA !!

Yes Bill ... thanks for all your posts throughout the year. They have been very helpful.

On the topic ... I can only assume that the "paid subscribers" complained. Yet, if I were these companies I also would allow it since it gets your name out and builds a reputation. For the "paid subscribers" I would release the info to them say a few days in advance or limit some areas of the documents put out to the public. I notice some commentators on Kitco do that ...

Comment moved to WIR.

Please keep this space reserved only for readers who wish to comment about the use of Wall Street research by bloggers.

Looks like a review of the Fair Use doctrine is in order by your "legal team". Certainly I see copyright marks and language on these documents so a good understanding of legal rights and responsibilities in this area seems very prudent. Not the first time this has come up I recall.

A link to a short, balanced discussion of the Doctrine:

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

The 4-part test seems reasonable to me.

-Bill

I have found a lot of the free research you provide to be invaluable, especially Rosenberg's. Hope they allow you to continue to provide such a usefull service to those of us that are students of the market.