Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Ruling May Create Memory Hole
dublin writes: "C|Net's News.com reports that the recent US Supreme Court decision granting freelance writers stronger control over distribution of their work (a la RIAA) will result in the removal of large chunks of archived internet content from a large number of sites. The article reports that this will eliminate about 8-10% of the content at large publishers' sites. Will this marginalize freelance writers in favor of staff flacks more interested in the company line than the truth, concentrating even more power in the hands of the media moguls? What are the implications of that much content disappearing down the memory hole without a trace?" I bet a lot of lawyers are recasting boilerplate for future contracts about now, too.
This was argued extensively when DejaNews first surfaced. The resolution was that (1) Usenet posts are 'published for distribution' by intent - you wouldn't have put it into Usenet if you didn't want it distributed in a public manner; (2) Usenet distribution takes a number of forms, some of which are time-delayed (for a while there was Usenet distribution by backup tape to sites that didn't have network connectivity, for one extreme example), DejaNews is just another distribution mechanism; (3) You can exempt yourself with the X-No-Archive header; (4) your copyright still holds, you just gave Usenet permission to distribute.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
No, there's not going to be a memory hole.
First off, the contracts from the about '94 on (or even earlier) included Internet rights. But many organizations with big databases of older articles charge for access, so it's worth money for them to have these articles. Meanwhile, freelance writers always could use more money.
So what will happen now is that the major database holders will negotiate a settlement with the free lancers, and they have an incentive to do so. If you don't make a deal and your competitors do, researchers who pay several dollars per article to track down old stuff will go to your competitors.
The funny thing is that, freelance authors, eager for more money from online distribution of their work, may have just destroyed that very source of income.
:)
Don't be absurd. We generally don't get any more money from Internet distribution contracts.
In my time as a writer I have signed contracts that forbid me to publish my work on Mars (all Earth territories and beyond I think was the phrase): did they pay me extra for my lost Martian readership? Nah...
I haven't got a penny extra, for any variation or extension in an IP contract. Why? I'm not Tom Wolfe, at a guess. I write reviews and features for computer magazines, which is the kind of thing the vast majority of these affected freelances do. It's low paid transient work (although it does have its benefits - working college student hours is one of the more obvious ones)
Beautiful Irony, that.
Just as an aside: Does anyone have any theories as to why the 'gift culture' model doesnt seem to apply at all to the arts world? You'd think freelancers would appreciate the online exposure (it's basically free advertising, which can lead to further work for the print rags, but no one seems to see it that way).
Yeah. It doesn't lead to more work. Danny O'Brien at NTK made a living by parlaying his webzine experience into features and columns for real magazines but he's the only example I can think of, and I know he didn't make as much money as he could have as NTK was so much work. (Plus which, Danny is a good writer and would have probably got that work without NTK).
We spend our copious free time as freelancers ringing people up begging for more work, invoicing and doing accounts. You know, work stuff.
-- need more time?
yes, you read that subject right. i used to work as a journalist for K. Rupert Murdoch, of News Corp. fame. i've heard many accusations of bias in large corperate media institutions, but never do i hear a theory for how this actually occurs. do editors lean over the shoulders of writers and tell them to bias the news in corperate news organizations? the answer is no. here's the real skinny:
on everyone's desk at the Fox News Channel, the New York Post and other News Corp. properties is a Pilsbury Doughboy-sized replica of Rupert himself that watches your every move. any time you consider writing about things like the WTO protesters, Ralph Nader, or fluffy bunny rabbits, the Rupert replica will cluck his tounge or shake his head dissaprovingly.
this is why i enjoy being a freelance writer now, because i don't have to labor under the Rupert's watchful gaze.
seriously, does anyone think there's a difference between freelance and full-time journalists? the copy gets worked over by the same editors anyway.
Just raise the taxes on crack.
Oh yeah, those writers -- they're greedy motherfuckers. Here I am working my ass off to pay for my house and my SUV when those motherfuckers just sit back and eat their ramen noodles in luxury and collect royalty checks for stuff they did years ago. I'm sick and tired of those fat cat writers lording it all over me.
Seriously what you say makes no sense. Exactly what source of income did they destroy? Oh the websites that pay them exactly nothing for the use of their work.
The reason why the 'gift culture' model doesn't apply to writers is because writers have to actually make a living from what they would be giving away. And freelancers are still free to give away their work (and many will continue to do so) -- companies like the New York Times just can't do it for them against their will.
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
Um, isn't this a Good Thing? I mean, now freelancers have *more* control over their own work. Why would one suggest that this would "marginalize freelance writers in favor of staff flacks"? Those freelance writers will divert their content to more freelance/independent-friendly publishers/outlets. It's sort of like saying "Giving artists more control might leave the big record labels with only retreaded pre-fabricated pop bands, that's *awful*!" GOOD. It will mean people turn away from the conventional media sources to alternative ones that better reward artists/authors.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Unfortunately at least our local university library (University of South Florida) has moved to electronic journals with a number of publications. Not only do many of these not allow you to browse them, they also require a computer (and power) to view and often lack crucial graphics and pictures.
In this case, if there is no paper copy of a publication in a library, and the library relied on the electronic database, the worry is real.
This of course also raises the question on whether paying users of these databases can get a refund, since they don't have access to the content they were promised.
As an occasional freelance journalist (an index of my writing can be found on my homepage,) I'm a member of this union, and I'm actually quite proud of that.
Do domain names matter?
If the company must pay for the period that is on-line already, why not keep it further.
Since this issue has been around since 1993, the number of post 1993 contracts w/o internet included will be small.
There may be a statute of limitations question on items written before 1994. If it was posted in 1994, the time may have run. It may a publsher company from now posting their pre-1994 pieces, if they have not done so already. Keep in mind, there is one appeals court that said that a photo could not be taken down, but it had to be paid for -- since it had already been published in violation.
Fight Spammers!
Unless I'm mistaken, the case was about internet publication of articles written for magazines and the like. Those articles aren't going into a black hole. There is still this thing called the library, and they do still actually keep archives of periodicals.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
RULING - Online distribution of copyrighted music is illegal.
People - But we thought we owned it since we bought it...
Time Warner - You merely bought the right to use it the way we see fit.
On Journalism:
RULING - Online distribution of copyrighted freelance jounalism is illegal.
Time Warner - But we thought we owned it since we bought it...
People - You merely bought the right to use it the way we see fit.
HAHAHAHAHahahahahahaha............
bm :)-~
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Stimulus: Hey, Mathworld is down! CRC Press is claiming ownership over the internet version of the work!
Response: Greedy corporate bastards! Think they can take away our free content!
Stimulus: Hey, the Supreme Court ruled that freelance authors have rights over the internet versions of their works!
Response: Greedy author bastards! Think they can take away our free content!
Sigh.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Actually, Nicholson Baker has been raising a cry over this very issue; it seems that, in many cases, the libraries aren't keeping the hard copies. So the loss may be real.
-- MarkusQ
As a freelancer, I believe that the author hypes that freelancers will outprice lower-cost in-house writers for web publishing. Sounds good on the surface, but one has to ask why a publisher goes to freelancers in the first place. There are three primary reasons:
... as these freelancers are performing "works for hire". Nothing new here either.
1. unique works by hard-to-find specialists
2. notable authors
3. fill gaps in their internal staff.
For the first two categories, you get what you pay for. If a publisher wants to produce specialty works in-house, then the publisher must significantly beef up their internal staff. This is nothing new. If you license something, you play by the rules, just like GNU.
For the gap-fillers, the standard contracts are virtually always to the benefit of the publisher
In conclusion, the author of this article is hyping the situation. The ruling only confirms freelancers rights and licensing rights, while not significantly changing works-for-hire or the honest web publishing business models.