Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Sides With Freelancers On Net Copyright
pgpckt writes: "The Supreme Court has ruled in a 7-2 decision that freelance writers retain control over whether or not their writing gets distributed on the Internet.. This decision gives writers more control as to what mediums their art gets distributed in, and helps to ensure royalties for publication in multiple forums."
(a) a music project
or(b) sex with a mare
Scroll all the way down and read the fine print at the bottom
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2001 OSDN
At least that's how it supposed to be. What Katz is doing with people's stuff is another story.
OK. I hereby deny google the privelege of storing newsgroup articles authored by me. Yeah, that's some power I have there. What did this ruling accomplish again?
Do NOT think you can speak for all freelance writers. I'm one of them, and I and many other writers I know definitely do not expect to be paid every time someone views our work. We expect reasonable pay for our work, in accordance with whatever contract we signed.
As usual, the Slashdot posting is misleading and the ensuing comments are from people who'd rather be misled by the posting than go through the trouble of reading the article.
As the article mentions:
The case largely affects articles, photographs and illustrations produced a decade or so ago -- before free-lance contracts provided for the material's electronic use.
It just means that if your contract from several years ago didn't include anything about electronic publishing, then the publisher can't go and publish it electronically as if it's just a revision. But contracts nowadays do take electronic publishing into account, so the court's decision is irrelevant to them.
The free lancers have essentially destroyed the free lance industry as far as major publications go. As a result of this lawsuit, major newspapers and the like now do not sign these types of free lance deals. Instead, they demand that the author assign copyright to the paper. In light of an inability of to forsee future technologies, this is a very prudent move on their part. As a newspaper or magazine publisher, I would certainly have to reconsider doing business using traditional means given this ruling. In the long run, the free lancers might have done themselves a great disservice with this lawsuit.
What the SCOTUS seems to be saying is basically that putting something in a database over the internet is different from putting something in a library or electronic database accessable only when physically in person at a terminal, and requires additional permission from the copyright holder. This seems like it could work against attempts some libraries have been musing to make material available over the internet - this ruling means that to do so they'd have to pay an additional fee to the copyright holder, which is probably beyond their means and would thus lead to the dropping of any such plans.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
While it doesn't actually say it, I assume that, by posting to slashdot, you agree to allow slashdot to distribute your comment on the web, and probably assert that you actually hold the copyright on what you're posting.
I'm not entirely sure if slashdot is supposed to actually put this agreement in legalese somewhere, or if the actual behavior of the site is sufficient. For example, newspapers generally print letters to the editor, even if the letter doesn't explicitly give them the right to print it, because that's how letter to the editor just work normally.
The issue is actually about cases where someone has agreed to have their work used in a particular way (printed in the newspaper) for pay. The agreement didn't involve other media, so the newspaper doesn't have the right to put it on the web without negotiating a new contract. Everything is explicit in that case, and they were writing it for print.
Probably what this means is that, in the future, news sites will probably just put web distribution in their freelance contracts.
The Supreme Court's slip opinions in New York Times v Tasini are available in pdf format
Freelancers sign contracts with the major media outlets for specific stories, photographs, creative works, etc. A few years ago, the media lawyers saw the possiblity of copyright infringement. For the last several years, all new contracts specifically grant the right to reproduce in multiple medias without royalty.
This court case only covers fairly old (like six or seven year old) content. It only covers work created before the new style of contracts. As such, it has very little affect on the overall web.
Dave
I think it's more of a situation where /. generally favors the "little guy" who, more often than not, is being taken advantage of by large monied corporate interests.
/. seems to be that paying *the artist who made the music* is the right thing to do - paying a huge megalomaniacal corporation $20 for a CD, of which the artist only gets a few pennies is fundamentally wrong somehow.
;) The point is that /. readers *seem* to favor the little guy, regardless of his situation -- it's a bit shortsighted, in that these rulings could be used *against* the little guy by corporations in the future -- but it's the way it seems.It's a good thing that any rights not explicitly granted to a *corporation* are reserved by an *individual* - but what if the corps flip it around? Use this as a defense as to why you can't copy that CD/DVD, or why you have to purchase ANOTHER copy of a certain piece of software... Use it, along with UCITA, to guarantee that those terms that you "agreed to" in their click-through license are binding in a way that ONLY benefits them... That's where it gets scary.
In this case, it's freelance writers who want to keep control of their works and not be taken advantage of by large publishing houses, who want to sell more ads and thus make more money, by using the freelance writer's work without their permission (note that these are *not* mainly for current freelancers, whose contracts most probably include permissions for digital distribution - they're mainly for older publications whose contracts didn't forsee, and thus didn't include, rights for digital distribution)
In the case of Napster et al. - it's a case of the consumer *and* the artist getting monetarily raped by the music industry. The general consensus on
There's also a bit of "well, the cat is out of the bag" syndrome there too, with the Napster thing - the music is already out there, available, for free - no ammount of legislation or watermarking or whatever is going to take those mp3s away from people who have them, whether they own the CD or not.
But that's beside the point
Just a note to Malda and gang. Should any further
posts by me receive a moderation of 2 or higher, and/or the rating of "insightful". I shall expect
a payment of $5 for every site visitor that
accesses my post.
Should my post ever rate a 5, I will expect a one
time payment of $40 dollars, and or %20 percent
of advertisement revenue for that day...whichever
is greater.
Payment information will be sent at a later date.
couldn't resist:-D
Awesome!
This could work out to the favor of the original authors if the on-line versions of papers, magazines, etc were actually making substantial profits.
It could, in the cases where that's true.
But the next time you find yourself wanting to buy a CD of old issues of your favorite computer magazines, and they're no longer available because of this ruling, ask yourself how much you're willing to for them to go back and pay all those freelancers a second time for work they'd already paid for.
As a community, we really need to make up our minds; how come we want music to have to be able to be distributed free once the artist has been paid for his work, but we don't want the New York Times to put it's entire back issue archive into digital form?
-
The only substantial content this affects is the stuff ten years old or so. From back when people hadn't even heard of electronic publishing, so it wasn't included in their contracts.
Ever since that time, most of the smart publishers have already included electronic media clauses in their contracts--with the writers being justly compensated, or else going into it knowing full well that e-rights are included in their payment.
As an aspiring writer myself, I'm very concerned about writers' rights. This case was an important one, because it helps put control back in the hands of the writers, where they belong--which is something everyone seems to be (or pretends to be) so gung-ho about in the Napster arena for musicians.
Another important case to watch would be this one, as Random House sues a small e-book publisher over rights not assigned to them in their contracts.
This is certainly news to those books' authors, who had not stipulated e-books in their contracts with Random House, and were fully behind Rosetta's e-publishing them!As to whether articles get pulled from archives...I don't think it will happen as much as people fear. Most writers are reasonable people, and typically wouldn't insist on bank-breaking terms. As long as the publishers are willing to negotiate, and don't just want to cut off their noses to spite their faces, I think things will work out just fine.
--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
The poster implicitly consents to a lot of things when they press Submit button. It's hard to take rights back from Slashdot once they've already been given.
But the details, since it's so implicit, are pretty vague. Plenty of people were rather shocked at the Hellmouth book, indicating that there really isn't a consensus.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
But it's also one that can't be answered, since there is no homogenious Slashdot opinion. Unless you're actually directing that question to the editors.
Also, one of the big reasons that the Napster case was so controversial, was that even if one believes in strong IP rights, there was still the problem of Napster not actually infringing in a traditional sense. The question of toolmakers being persecuted over "vicarious" or "contributory" infringement is seperate from how strong IP rights should be. So being pro-IP and .. well, not pro-Napster, but anti-anti-Napster, can be consistent.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Furthermore you can expect that future contracts with authors will contain clauses to build digitial distribution in at no increased price. So in the long run, I suspect most authors won't really get much out of this. A few might get an initial windfall for retroactively licensed content that is particularly valuable but most of it will get chucked.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
ipist noun;eye-PISSED: 1. Adult contributor to society, with the social mentality of a 3 year-old. Easily recognized by their tendency to run around screaming, "MINE!!! MINE!!! MINE!!! Pay me AGAIN!! MINE!!! Gimme! Gimme!"
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Just to offer my perspective:
I write for both the online and print versions of a publication. when i am assigned an article, i am told that it will be for the online site or the print magazine. i am paid different fees based on where the piece is to be published. i write based on the medium i'm writing for: the online site covers more up-to-the-day stuff ("breaking" news) whereas the print version is a little more "let's take a step back" material, since it takes about two months for my copy to actually appear in print (magazines have LONG turnaround times).
last week i noticed something that i was assigned to write for the print magazine showing up online. it had been editied differently to suit the fact that it was published on the site.
to me, these facts lend creedence to the idea that the Web is a lot more than just an archive of the print material: "instant" turnaround, different content, different pay rate. i was a little miffed that i hadn't been asked about the second publication, especially since the article was different.
just my two cents.
Just raise the taxes on crack.
To me, this looks the same as the RIAA requiring radio stations to pay royalties again for content that is webcast. It caused a good many stations to pull their audio streams and hurt consumers.
The publications here are going to do the same. They will pull content from the web instead of paying the second royalties because the web content doesn't make any aditional money. What people need to realize is that the delivery doesn't matter. If you have a license to use something, you should be able to use it in different media.
I just don't understand how this is good, when the RIAA wanting us to pay twice for the same song on CD and MP3 is wrong. Please someone enlighten me.
Correction ... the scientific publishing model is that research results be available at the marginal cost of distribution. Freelance writers who live purely on the basis of their commentary/articles do not fall into this category as their papers are not ads for their real output (reproduceable theoretical/experimental/computable results). As such they have a legitimate claim on their sole output.
The real problem is that there is too much rubbish out there (hey given copyrights of 90 years it's easier to recycle than to create) and it is hard to distinguish the cruft from the craft.
LL
There was no enforced copyright in Shakespeare's time. Hence, by abolishing copyright we will immediately find many more Shakespeares. Silly? Yes - just as your argument is. Oh, and the whole anticommunist thing doesn't play so well outside the USA.
People have been scanning in and posting and trading copywrited material (books, software, music) for long before Napster and Gnutella, and they'll still be doing it long after the easy-to-use corporate front ends have all been hounded out of business. Take a look at the alt.binaries.e-book* newsgroups, or certain IRC channels, or Hotline, and so on and so on.
-- Help Digitise the Public Domain at DP.
it's called "copyright" but it really should be called "copyproperty". It establishes not an inalienable right but a saleable piece of IP. In this case, strengthening copyright may have temporary, minor edge effects in the individual authors vs. megacorps battle, but in the long run it makes no difference here. In the long run, this matters more in the (intellectual) producers vs. consumers terrain, which IMHO is already skewed way towards producers to the point where the public interest is all on the consumer side.
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
--
Seriously, this does raise a valid issue.
Nah. Tasini is a highly technical case based solely upon a construction of a most obscure passage of the Copyright Act. The Supreme Court affirmed the (clearly correct) Second Circuit opinion, which simply read the statute to mean what it says. The media giants, simply couldn't believe that the Courts wouldn't give them what they wanted, notwithstanding the Act, just because they asked for it.
At the end of the day, the question is simply whether a right to the compilation copyright owned by a publisher gives any implied right to reprint and republish the underlying works that were compiled. The answer -- duh -- NO!
When we post on Slashdot, who owns the copyright on the posting?
What if you post text that is already covered by copyright (code, essay, etc).
Copyright in a work of authorship is owned by the author of the work, unless it is a work made for hire. Ownership in a copyright cannot be assigned without a writing. If you owned it when you wrote it, you own it now. There may be some implied licenses you have granted to readers -- much depends upon the facts and circumstances o f the publication.
What if you post text that is already covered by copyright (code, essay, etc).
If you do so, then you either engage in de minimus appropriation, fair use or copyright infringement.
Won't somebody think of the children!
However, if you photocopy those printouts, that's considered copyright infringement.
Damn, I hate copyright law almost as much as I hate the US Tax Code and gun laws.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
Seriously, this does raise a valid issue. When we post on Slashdot, who owns the copyright on the posting? What if you post text that is already covered by copyright (code, essay, etc).
Maybe we all just need to put a copyright notice at the bottom of our posting.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say
Best Slashdot Co
Musicians!
'tis the system we have created.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Otherwise, you'd be arguing that community rights override individual rights, which would grate on america's strong sense of individualism.
--
In the real world, "tangible" means something like "written down".
On the internet, everything is "written down", so ones first instinct would be to say that everything on the 'net is tangible. But tangible really means something like "written down, and saved", especially in the light of things like IRC. Still, logs abound, so things on the internet are much more likely to be tangible than in real life.
--
But what if I'm a freelancer who wants to exclusively sell an article to a paper printing in NY and one coming out in LA. Can I insist that if the NY paper has an LA edition my article not appear there because I have signed an exclusive contract with a different paper in that city? Is that a more similar case?
Ñ'
I think we should try to steer clear of legalized content control for both corporate and private content producers.
Ñ'
Well, that about wraps it up for Google, doesn't it?
All this decision does is enforce the notion that 'content on the internet' is subject to different laws than content that isn't on the internet.
I can see how the writers have a problem with the publisher profiting from their work independently from them, but surely a standard licensing agreement with a clause that states republishing on any medium other than those expicitly agreed to by the writer/publisher is not acceptable.
This ruling is just giving ammunition to the RIAA/MPAA etc, who argue that because a recording is in digital form, it is suddenly exempt from fair use requirements etc.
'It's different when its on the internet'
I'd like to think this was the courts standing up for the little guy, and preventing big media from ripping them off, but to me it sounds more like the RIAA/MPAA just bought a whole lotta justice.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
I am sick and tired of the greed of a lot of modern artist whether they are writers or musicians (or wanna-bes). This is going to suck in the future. Not mention that all the links to the older stuff that links to it from outside the actually site (like slashdot's links) will nolonger be valid, and this also means it will not be as easy to go back and reference an article (and other types of information done by freelancers) for any reason because the informaiton might be gone.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
Whether or not this decision was right, it's NOT good news for web users.
Perhaps, though I don't see how the Court could have found otherwise. Consider that they did decide that the freelancer's property could be confiscated without payment - what ugly precent could this have established?
Faced with that alternative, I'd have to believe that recognizing their property as such, and allowing them to rightfully negotiate the reuse of that property via contract with the publisher was the correct resolution. Which leads me to ask, per the cnn article:
Justices Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens dissented.
What on earth were they thinking? I've been noticing these two dissenting on nearly everything associated with individual liberty, free speech, property rights, etc. I'll have to read the minority opinion to figure that out.
In fact the only surprise here is that Souter (worst appointee in the 20th century) isn't in the mix of dissenters. What did he find right with the majority?
*scoove*
Publishers say the decision means they now must begin removing hundreds of thousands of articles, photos and drawings from their digital archives.
Yeah, or actually pay royalties to the freelancers. So it looks as if the net effect of this decision is going to be the removal of lots of valuable content from digital archives and not, in fact, increased revenue for freelance authors.
Crap.
---
This is disgusting that /. is behind these pigs who want to exploit you and charge filthy lucar for information that they've already made a killing on somewhere else. The publishers are just trying to make the information available to the free man, the common sod, the regular Joe.
Someone you trust is one of us.
a poster to Slashdot could later demand it be deleted?
This case is different from Slashdot in two ways:
This is akin to saying that a game developer who sells his idea to a CDROM publisher does not automatically forfeit the web publishing rights, nor any movie rights, nor any future medium such as on-site virtual reality theme park rights, and so on.
[
So does this mean Eric Weisstein's World of Mathematics will be back up?
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
-Legion
Anybody who seeks to make a profit off of your labor is fair game. It's war, after all. Battle to the discomfort- to the quality-of-life-reduction -to the resource pinch. Would you prefer to be incrementally smothered or outright shot?
There are no artists anymore.. just ipists.
Linus has,in fact,grown,and explosively-JonKatz
Well, the writers had allowed publication within a particular context, that is a particular newspaper. The database owners destroyed that context, and therefore it was not a publication as permitted by the author.
However, this is exactly the kind of context change that happens when you make "deep links" rather than linking to the main home page. Was the Supreme Court thinking of the deep linking issue? (remember the Ticketmaster v. Microsoft case)
Probably not a genuine worry, but only the paranoid survive, right?
Speak for yourself, not every person on slashdot is a hypocritical fascist like you. You seem for IP rights to freelancers and people on "your side", but once a corporation claims IP rights you run around wetting your pants! And there is a reason artists get bad deals with companies -- just imagine the number of failed artists signed to these companies! The companies sustain huge losses from them, with relatively few artists from which to make up the difference. The economy works by tough competition.... not federally marginalizing every large corporation like you would seem to want them to be.
Yes, Openness and Sharing as a result of no copyright.... or _maybe_ people will stop making things public because there will be no way for them to protect their work, thus no incentive to make it! Jesus christ, try having some fucking forethought.
courts can rule you have used to much of the originall work, and thus NOT qualify for a parody.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Once authors realized that they would work for years polishing their craft, and then never recoup a bit of their investment, they stopped writing in French.
And so they started writing in what instead? English?! That sounds like an urban legend, actually; french people are rather proud of their culture, and have been both before and after Voltaire et al. Abolishing copyrights may have been causing (and may cause) problems, but scenario like you suggest (which makes french literature and other culture sound like Hollywood-level garbage) sounds rather far-fetched.
Not that I'm all that against certain kind of copyrights (or other mechanisms for trying to support artits capability of earning their living from their work), but it's silly spouting nonsense like this to support your beliefs.
Also... What exactly did ex-president Clinton do different (in copyright front) than the war crazy national-debt-loving second rate actor Reagan? (here I am quoting a widely held french, or european, belief of mr. RR by the way)
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
If I was /. I'd ask someone to post a link in a post and that would ensure that any site I didn't like would get /.'ed
---
This
I don't remember creating such a beast. I must have been drunk at that meeting. Oh well, time to buck up and face it...
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
After all, isn't what censoship (as of late) has been all about? I don't make enough money selling 5,000,000 of my albums, I need more money and I think Napster is the reason I didn't sell 5,000,001.
Not that I don't think people have a right to what they want with the stuff they create, I just find it hard to believe that so many people are such pricks about it. I'm sure that Napster also had a little larger effect on the Music industry than that, but you get my point.
Let's take the freelance writer, for example. This is how he makes his money. Writing stuff to see if he can get a newspaper/magazine/tabloid to publish it. If he is successful, he doesn't want it on the net because that should mean more royalties for him. After all, it means more royalties for the publisher through advertising and what have you.
In my opinion, if I purchased the right to use your writing, then I should be able to publish it how I see fit. If that's in newspaper print or HTML should make no difference to me.
My point? Probaly never had one, but it does seem that what is behind this facet of censorship is greed. Money - we all have it, but we all want more.
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
So, I have to ask the question: Is it the words and phrases that the person has copyright to, or is the paper that it's published on? Or the bit's that it's represented with?
;)
If it's the words, then the publisher can put those words into any medium they want to, as long as they fulfill the general contract and call it another copy of the work used/sold/viewed.
If, instead, it's the material/medium that the words are found on, can writers then claim ownership of the area on my hard disk that a copy of their work resides, in my browser cache? Am I going to have to worry about my RAM being taxed at purchase time to pay writers royalties?
Are some forward-thinking authors going to commission a worm-app that fills up your hard drive with copies of their works so they can claim it as their own property, or charge rent for your use of it? (They would have to fight Micro$oft though for a few gig on most machines, so maybe not all of it.)
"All your hard drives are belong to us!" might show up one day instead of the startup screen
Don't steal. The government hates competition.
Although I regret that we might lose a lot of content, I think the Supremes got this one right: Puiblication on the Web is a distribution in a new form, not just an archive. How does it work with, say, books-on-tape? I would assume authors must consent to that before a publishing house can release it.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Now, having said that, would you like to take a moment to calm down and cite some sources for your accusations?
for trolling, isn't it ;-)
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
__
I think people use "boxen" to be cute and "virii" out of ignorance or desire to anger spelling nuts.
The -en suffix is sort of a hackish tradition. "A room full of VAXen." I don't think anyone ever took it seriously.
Correction: Jule Verne's sci-fi literature didn't come out until after the revolution. Golden age, my ass!
This decision is a NOOP. Smart publishers have been securing digital rights to "works for hire" for years now. As a magazine editor, my contracts always state that the article is a "work for hire", and the magazine buys all rights explicitly stated, or implicitly implied. It's true that I pay more per article than others, but it's worth it.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
I didn't say it was out of ignorance. It has been around for a long time.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
"Mediums" is a word, but (to borrow a phrase) I don't think it means what you think it means.
On the other hand, we could just start using the word "mediums" incorrectly to annoy spelling nazis, sort of like what many of us do with fake words like "virii" and "boxen".
If you didn't rush to defend your incorrect use, you might have convinced us that that's what you were up to. :)
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I'm sorry, but delivery does matter in this case.
Publishers can seek any number of different publication rights when they offer to do business with a writer. By far, the most commonly-sought publication rights by U.S. publishers are FNASR, or First North American Serial Rights. That means that the publisher has purchased the rights to publish a previously upublished written work in a periodical for the first time in the U.S. or Canada.
FNASR is basically an exclusive, one-time "use right". After the work is published, the rights revert to the author who may sell the work again if he or she so chooses (although he may not again offer FNASR on the piece).
With the advent of the digital age, several publishers will negotiate for electronic rights, which can mean archiving in a database or to a CDRom; writers should be careful to specify any "exclusivity" clauses or "first time Internet rights," etc. to avoid accidental loss of use rights. It's all part of the contract negotiation.
What publishers have been saying, however, is that they automatically have the rights to publish the work in every new medium as it is invented, without needing to compensate the author or negotiate for rights--as it continues to derive new income from those works.
I think a point that many folks are missing here is that the authors aren't pursuing fans who've knowingly or unknowingly violated copyrights-- the villain in this piece is the fat corporate cats like AOL Time Warner who cry for protection of IP while trying to deny the same rights to authors.
Because cyberspace has distinctly non-tangible dimensions, enforcers of copyright law are finding it to be a hard retrofit. Many of the higher court and Supreme Court justices do not even know how to use a computer (that kind of scutwork is reserved for their clerks), so they are struggling when cases like this come before them.
But why does this decision matter today? Because there's an awful lot of stuff that was written before the "smart publishers" wrote these newfangled contracts. And the "dumb publishers" like the NYT have been republishing this stuff and thinking that it was OK, but it was not OK and they were violating copyrights the whole time. And now they are on the hook, big time, for all of these violations. They'll have to yank a lot of stuff down from websites, and recall a lot of CDs, and renegotiate a lot of contracts. I would not call this insignificant.
Interesting how its the two hardcore leftists who disagree with this decision.
Does this mean that a poster to Slashdot could later demand that it be deleted? This could be bad for community sites, or in fact any that depend on submissions by others.
sulli
RTFJ.
After reading the decision, I feel that it has implications for the legality of Google's practice of offering a cache copy.
The equivalent of the freelancer here would be the webmaster who owns a copyright on his website. Google creates a copy of files (and now thumbnail images as well) that is fragmented from the original context of the site.
The big difference is that Google never contracted with the website to begin with. All Google has is the implied permission of a failure by the webmaster to "opt out" with the robots.txt or META no-archive option. It seems to me that Google should pursue safer ground, and change their cache policy to an "opt in." They could easily do this by requiring a special Google-specific permission file on the site before flagging any of the files as cachable.
The essential points for the website owners are these: 1) the cache copy shows a fragment of his site out of context, and 2) the site owner loses control over distribution, and 3) the failure to opt out is not the same as signing a contract with Google.
Many website owners like the referrals they get from Google, but don't like the loss of control represented by Google's cache. In other words, they aren't in a position to exclude Google entirely with their robots.txt. As for the META no-archive for each individual file, this is clumsy, and may in fact flag the site for adverse scrutiny from Google.
Well, your post seems intent on getting people mad rather than constructive discussion. You can tell because you stereotype the 'gnutella sorts' as ruthless unprincipled pirates who don't have any justification for their opinions about copyright. This is unfair and tarnishes your otherwise well-made point.
Still, although I don't believe intellectual property is a good thing, I have a hard time getting upset about this decision. Why? It protects the little guy, the individual authour. Giving copyrights to individual authors in general works against what most of us who oppose intellectual property thinks is the most dangerous aspect of ip: namely, the ownership of ideas by corporations. Of course it would be better if there was no ownership (although I don't have time to engage the French case with you now), but any move that restores copyright to authors rather than corporations is a chip from the wall, not a new set of bricks.
Bryguy
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
As the article notes, the big media companies have included clauses that DO explicitly give them rights to electronic vesions for the past decade or so. So this is (mostly) going to apply only to 10+ year old articles or other works that were later put in electronic archives.
The reason why (big corporate) copyright holders are so into (and so afraid of) the Internet is precisely because *everything* in cyberspace is DISTINCTLY tangible. Everything's a bunch of bits, recorded somewhere. For purposes of copyright, this is tangible, which is why it's so easy to claim a copyright over digital content. [Now that I think about it, I can't think of one thing in cyberspace that's intangible. Even streaming live performances are converted into a digital stream, and if it's saved simultaneously (which it probably is) it's "fixed" for purposes of copyright.] Then what's intangible? E.g., like you mention, spoken, unrecorded words; styles of live performance.
Personally I'm fed up with _paying_ royalties to copyright owners every time I _buy_ the same damn thing but on a different medium. Does it seem right to you to pay to use a newspaper on the web even if you own a subscription to that newspaper? Does it seem right to you to have to pay full price for a CD that you own on record? Or DVD vs. tape?
No offence to writers, but give me a friggin' break.
- Ordinarius
now everything i post on slashdot is my own copyright (goatse.cx) cool now i own that website (microsoft.com) (time.com) ...
[this is a stupid pointless not-funny joke that i felt putting up here because i've maxed out my karma and need to get back down to zero]
thank you
Hmm, yeah French literature slid all the way down to Rimbaud, Artaud, Genet, Celine, et al...an admittedly sordid bunch, but all artistes cannot be arrogant sacks of shit like Hugo, nor pamapered courtiers like Voltaire... If a writer has starving children, he should get a goddam job. And learn to write better. Just because you can produce something does not necessarily mean it is worth anything. The law of supply and demand applies to artistic goods as well as consumer goods. I think Ronny'll back me up on that one...
Some of us have fallen in love with the notion of giving without reserve-Raoul Vanegiem, Revolution of Everyday Life
The justices draw upon a specific clause in the 1976 copyright act (201(c)) designed to prevent frelancers from losing all their rights to a work. From the decision here (pdf);
JUSTICE GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court.
This copyright case concerns the rights of freelance
authors and a presumptive privilege of their publishers.
The litigation was initiated by six freelance authors and
relates to articles they contributed to three print periodicals
(two newspapers and one magazine). Under agreements
with the periodicals' publishers, but without the
freelancers' consent, two computer database companies
placed copies of the freelancers' articles-- along with all
other articles from the periodicals in which the freelancers'
work appeared-- into three databases. Whether written
by a freelancer or staff member, each article is presented
to, and retrievable by, the user in isolation, clear of
the context the original print publication presented.
The freelance authors' complaint alleged that their
copyrights had been infringed by the inclusion of their
articles in the databases. The publishers, in response,
relied on the privilege of reproduction and distribution
accorded them by 201(c) of the Copyright Act, which
provides:
"Copyright in each separate contribution to a collec-
tive work is distinct from copyright in the collective
work as a whole, and vests initially in the author of
the contribution. In the absence of an express transfer
of the copyright or of any rights under it, the
owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed
to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and
distributing the contribution as part of that particular
collective work, any revision of that collective work,
and any later collective work in the same series." 17
U. S. C. 201(c).
Specifically, the publishers maintained that, as copyright
owners of collective works, i.e., the original print publications,
they had merely exercised "the privilege" 201(c)
accords them to "reproduc[e] and distribut[e]" the author's
discretely copyrighted contribution.
In agreement with the Second Circuit, we hold that
201(c) does not authorize the copying at issue here. The
publishers are not sheltered by 201(c), we conclude,
because the databases reproduce and distribute articles
standing alone and not in context, not "as part of that
particular collective work" to which the author contributed,
"as part of . . . any revision" thereof, or "as part of . . .
any later collective work in the same series." Both the
print publishers and the electronic publishers, we rule,
have infringed the copyrights of the freelance authors.
If the publishers were to distibute a "pdf" doucument (which would be like a microfilm-the opinion specifically mentions that) of their original publication, I don't think the freelancers could do anything about that though (IANAL).
Another very interesting thing is that the decision cites the original congressional record when the 1976 copyright law was being drafted to help determine its intennt.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Mod the parent up please. This is an interesting question. It is very hard for a person to state that this ruling is correct and at the same time argue that musicians or other content providers should not have the choice of deciding if their work appears for free on Napster. So what's Slashdot's stance? Strong intellectual property rights, or users choice?
Someone could change one word of the work, and call it a parody, claiming it's fair use. Even if this is obviously wrong, what freelance writers can step up against the big boys in court?
If I (as an independent contractor) develop a piece of code for distribution in a particular package and the client then chooses to use it in another software package, why shouldn't I get paid again? That seems pretty analagous to the writers situation. They write a piece for one publication and if it ends up in another medium or publication they get paid again!
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
Music artists get to control distro by the 'Net. Folks who publish in print collections gleaned from the 'Net. Wow. Authors actually having to be considered when their work is distributed. This will make the new alliances of the record companies to distribute over the 'Net really interesting as they have already claimed they had the right to do this. The MPAA can't be to happy either. Nor will the leaches of the net who publish others works originally distro'ed on the 'Net for free as printed works at outrageous prices. Obviously if you have waived the rights contractually, well, too bad.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
Funny...when a similar claim to rights was made by the Voice Actor's Guild for the voices of commercial actors over internet radio, it was lauded as the death of the medium. Seems paradoxial in a way, to expect one set of rights to apply to content and another to advertisement. After all, how can one monetize something as transverse as money gained from a website? In the case of some websites -- notably those which don't utilize any advertisement or subscription online, but instead rely on their web experience as cursory entities driving extra-web media -- no "real" money exchanges hand over web content, though the web experience may heighten and therefore expand the product. An example of this is a news program which may add transcripts of its editorials on their websites. Surely, some of these may be written by freelancers, and therefore come under the realm of this ruling. Should a freelance writer be allowed the ability to immediately naysay this service (providing as it does an essential link to the extra-web media and additional utility for the consumer who might not have videotaped it) simply because the news service can't provide additional cash to the writer?
Of course, what this probably means is nothing more than an addendum to freelance contracts giving the rights to utilization of content in additional media to the media owner -- meaning a few extra lines of small print, and no real additional cash in the pocket of John Q. Freelance. Writers are a bit more savvy that other artists when it comes to not getting screwed out of their rights, but not much so...and the question remains as to whether this makes it possible for freelancers to fully sign over their work accidentally under the guise of "medium transferrance."
More murky legislation...I applaud the effort as a writer, but would prefer a more definite "content rights can never be bought or sold in any way without explicit and particular consent of the author" legislation. You know -- something to protect everybody artful, so Prince can keep his name if he moves labels and Corey Feldman can get a little say in the upcoming Goonies DVD.
I guess reading salon a lot has caused me to ask the question: why do we keep treating the arts, an almost exclusively romantic pursuit, the same was as classic pursuits such as law and economics? Artists don't understand numbers and calculators don't understand art, which means that "content creators" are getting screwed by people who don't even realise the impact of the money they're making. This is how the media can be controlled by incredibly rich companies and we still get shitty programming -- anybody savvy enough to climb the ranks no longer as enough taste left to make a quality decision, and anybody with the taste is loathe to discuss anything as vulgar as money and ratings.
If you give artists total say in what happens to their work and total rights based on money made (with an exception granted for non-profits), you end up with a situation similar to that of pre-mass media times: people make something beautiful or appealing and when it is exploited they are at the very least paid.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
What are Slashdot's guiding principles on intellectual property rights? Here Hemos defends a decision in favor of strong intellectual property rights on the part of the creator of a work (i.e. freelance writers), but Slashdot has also argued against strong intellectual property rights (Napster et al.) These two positions are not necessarily contradictory, but what are the guiding principles behind these positions? Or is Slashdot just against "big media" (publishers)?
Just curious. Glad I'm not a cat.
For all those asking basic questions about copyright: the basics in 600 words. It's UK-based but so simple that the only major difference from the US is the near-total absence of "moral rights" over there. /. contributors who can't be bothered to follow
the link: there is no copyright in facts,
just in expressions . And today's
ruling quite clearly has nothing to do with
linking.
That quote about the SCOTUS decision affecting only articles before "modern" contracts were introduced is from the NY Times and begs the whole issue. The NY Times company is pressing freelances to sign away all rights in their work for the same amount they used to pay for a one-edition license. Then they plan to license the work to individual archive readers for $2 a shot. Not surprisingly, freelance writers and photgraphers are objecting - not signing. As a freelance writer, I'd be happier to negotiate that I got half a 10-cent charge. What SCOTUS has done is to say to the corporations: yes, you do have to negotiate with freelances.
Well, Microsoft Word's spell checker didn't catch it, so that's why it is spelled the way it is. Also, Merriam-Webster Online (see: www.m-w.com) has Mediums as an acceptable way to make Medium plural, so I wasn't incorrect.
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
What is
"Just hope it doesn't become a problem..." ???
That would be 1789 for The French Revolution. Does not change the argument, but still....
Assuming of course that you show up early enough so that your comment will be modded up before fm6 gets to it, and also assuming that you consider "totally ignored" to mean fm6 didn't read it.
Kingsfield: What is the law, Mister....Bliss?
Bliss: If you cite your sources you can do almost anything.
Kingsfield: Mr. Hart, is he correct?
Hart: No sir. In fact, that's kind of retarded.
Kingsfield: Exactly. Thank you Mr. Hart. Mr. Bliss, you come here with a skull full of mush, and I see you still have it.
I seem to remember that historically, the situation used to be much worse for writers as well. Was it that they organized what let them retain these rights? Maybe programmers should do the same.
Power to the Peaceful
It would if you got your dates right. The French Revolution happened in 1798. Hugo was born in 1802 and Verne wasn't born until 1828.
This decision gives writers more control as to what fortune tellers their art gets distributed in
OR
This decision gives writers more control as to what middle-sized things their art gets distributed in
that is.
m00.