Making Content More Valuable or Stealing Revenue?

TechDirt has an interesting look at the short history of complaints over meta content delivery and traffic generation. Looking at everything from complaints over Google's Print program to RSS companies delivering ads on someone else's content the article begs the question, where should the line be drawn? One of the examples, Jason Calacanis of Weblogs Inc., even chimed in as one of the first few comments.

Comments

I'm gonna sue Mozilla

[Harmonious Botch]

Let's get to the root here. If this works, I'm going to sue Mozilla - maker of Firefox - because their program presents my blog to people. Ahh..no I'm going to sue Microsoft for making IE which does the same thing. And they have more money.

Re:I'm gonna sue Mozilla

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds crazy, but similar things have happened in the past. And there have already been lawsuits over just hyperlinks. Any time you make content available (by link or summary) you are bound to get sued by someone. Now we will start to see lawsuits for royalties over the summaries (because google uses context ads and makes a profit from them)?

Re:I'm gonna sue Mozilla

[GradiusCVK]

As easy as it is to jump on the fair use bandwagon, taking that stance is an uphill battle... if it weren't, this matter would have been settled once and for all long ago. The fact of the matter is, these companies really are making money as a direct result of other people's work, even if they are "adding value" in some way... and are doing so without direct compensation. Whether increased traffic counts as compensation is a fuzzy matter at best. It would be MUCH more effective for the really popular news aggregators and so forth to whole-heartedly comply with those content-producers that are upset about this.... simply remove the offending material. One might argue that this wouldn't work if every one of these content-producers made the same requests, but I am pretty sure that most would not... after all, there is an undeniable benefit these producers receive from these services, whether it is direct enough to count legally or not.

Re:I'm gonna sue Mozilla

[Anonymous Coward]

You should also sue the fool that misused "begs the question" since he'll probably misuse a variety of legal phrases in court and lose.

Re:I'm gonna sue Mozilla

[AdamKG]

What? Why should content aggregators (or anyone) have to take proactive steps to avoid stepping on people's toes when they put it online in syndicated RSS feeds, which have the effective purpose of being aggregated?

If they were really so upset over having their content show up in other places on the interwebs, my question is, why don't the content producers remove the offending material? After all, that would be the most immediate and effective action if you don't want people 'stealing' your revenue.

The tendency to litigate indicates to me that the outrage is simply faked- they're after money like every other trigger-happy lawyer.

Re:I'm gonna sue Mozilla

[GradiusCVK]

Why should content aggregators (or anyone) have to take proactive steps to avoid stepping on people's toes when they put it online in syndicated RSS feeds, which have the effective purpose of being aggregated?

This is the exact type of argument that I believe cannot win without an unnecessarily long legal battle. Consider an analogy; record companies sell licenses to radio stations allowing them to distribute music... radio stations provide the music over the air for all to hear for free in some aggregated block of music programming time (really simple syndication), and they make money through ads. The record companies are happy with this because the radio stations both pay for the right to play the music, and drive spending by promoting the music... it's win-win, with a doubleplusbig win for the record company which effectively gets paid twice.

However, what if some third-party radio station starts recording the music that other stations are playing, organizing it, then playing it over the air without the original radio station's ads, but with it's own ads. This goes far beyond mere peer-to-peer music sharing (which I feel is truly a boon for record companies that they are failing to recognize)... this third party is making a significant profit off of this work, without any reimbursement to any of the original parties involved. I think even the most ardent supporter of copy-left can recognize that this activity is at the very least illegal, if not outright unethical. This is effectively the legal reason why "content aggregators ... have to take proactive steps to avoid stepping on people's toes".

If they were really so upset over having their content show up in other places on the interwebs, my question is, why don't the content producers remove the offending material?

This statement is tantamount to saying "why doesn't the legal radio station go off the air."

Of course, this analogy fails in one unique way... in this case, the "radio station" (the Google News) is actually encouraging and facilitating people to listen to the radio station which legally played the song. While this is probably not a good legal defense for the illegal station's actions, it is certainly a benefit to the legal radio station, which will lose some potential listeners to the aggregator station, but will gain many actual listeners thanks to the free advertising.

The tendency to litigate indicates to me that the outrage is simply faked- they're after money like every other trigger-happy lawyer.

Of course you are correct here... the "legal" radio station has nothing to be really outraged about... it is making more money than it would have otherwise. However, the fact remains that the "illegal" radio station is breaking the law, and because lawyers and companies love money, the legal station will sue they hell out of the illegal station, hoping to strike a deal where the illegal station will continue to advertise for free, but will also pay the legal station licensing fees. This is doubleplusgood for the legal station as well. Now the legal radio station is basically a useless middleman which has contracts ensuring it continues to get paid for no reason.

Really, these content aggregators haven't got much of a leg to stand on except the fair use angle (since they aren't providing the entire item, just the most important parts summarized)... and as we all know fair use is no longer protected the way it should be. In all, these guys will have an incredibly hard time defending this. The easiest and most effective way out is simply to end the free advertising for those content producers which no longer want the increased revenue (due to free advertising). When put in those terms, I would guess that very few content producers actually fall into that category.

Re:I'm gonna sue Mozilla

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not argue the point instead of ridiculous fucking semantics? Who cares whether he used it right or not, you know exactly what he meant as well as I do.

Re:I'm gonna sue Mozilla

[edumacator]

It would be MUCH more effective for the really popular news aggregators and so forth to whole heartedly comply with those content-producers that are upset about this.... simply remove the offending material.

I don't work that much with meta data, but can't you add a robot.txt file to keep those aggragators from gathering your content?

The precedent is touchy at best if we lay the responsibility on those organizing the information. If they have to check with every source they gather information from, we are likely to see aggragators drying up. There needs to be some common sense in play here. If you get into a cab, and ask the driver where the best food is in town, and they charge you to take you there, does the restaraunt deserve a percentage of the cab's profits?

Fair Use is the only viable solution. Google's aggragator isn't, IMHO, displaying enough information from the content provider to warrant content abuse.

Re:I'm gonna sue Mozilla

[ronanbear]

That's a good analogy but it doesn't really sum up what feed aggregators do. What Google News does is more akin to producing a TV guide of what's playing now and what's popular. People use a TV guide in the same way that they use Google News to find out what's on.

I know some networks charge for TV guide information and TV guides make money from advertising (and even subscriptions). In a radio sense it would be like having a station that lists what song other stations are playing to help you find the one that you are more interested in without having to cycle. Maybe the radio stations don't like that you might hear a fraction of an ad on their station while flipping around. Most I would imagine would just be happy that more listeners are being directed to what they want to hear (more relevant advertising).

Re:I'm gonna sue Mozilla

[JasonKChapman]

This is the exact type of argument that I believe cannot win without an unnecessarily long legal battle. Consider an analogy; record companies sell licenses to radio stations allowing them to distribute music... radio stations provide the music over the air for all to hear for free in some aggregated block of music programming time (really simple syndication), and they make money through ads. The record companies are happy with this because the radio stations both pay for the right to play the music, and drive spending by promoting the music... it's win-win, with a doubleplusbig win for the record company which effectively gets paid twice.

This analogy falls apart sooner than you state, though. The RSS feed is already stripped down to content only. If the radio station were somehow putting out a separate stream of nothing but the music, without chatter or ads, that would be equivalent to an RSS feed.

RSS feeds don't currently match existing models. In the publishing model, to get reprint rights for a print article, you go to the rights holder and pay for a license. There's a gate-keeping function in place at which the rights holder can collect revenue.

In the broadcast model, the ads and source ID are inserted directly into the stream. The equivalent of a republisher in this model would be a restaurant or retail store that replays that stream in their establishment. Technically, they're supposed to pay a license fee to do so, such as when a sports bar shows events. There's no gate-keeping function, but then again, the ads are inserted into the stream.

If content producers want to match those models, they'll have to match the mechanism of those models. They can either insert text-based, editorial-style ads directly into the stream (similar to "sponsored results" in search engine results), or they can use a feed mechanism that includes authentication to provide some kind of gate-keeping function at which revenue can be collected for subscriptions.

Outside of those solutions, forget it. The Internet will continue to do what the Internet does. If you put a free, unrestricted feed of your content out there, it's going to be out there. If you want the traffic to come to your site, limit your feed to "teaser" portions of the articles including a linkback to the original. Otherwise, just accept it. "You can't stop the signal, Mal."

Re:I'm gonna sue Mozilla

[arb]

TV Network sues electronic program guide company.

Re:I'm gonna sue Mozilla

[Zarniwoop_Editor]

I've never really understood this issue. Sounds to me like it is a simple greed issue. First, The RSS feeds are a tool to promote your content. Search engines and aggrigators use that to produce customized lists of links to content someone may be interested in. ( Promoting the content of the RSS feeder )
I wonder how the law suits would shake out if let say Google REFUSED to index someones content or RSS feed.

People complain that the aggrigator is making money of their content. I would argue that the aggrigator is making money of their value added by collecting all the sources (rss feeds etc) and organizing them in some customized way.

As long at the aggrigator is keeping the links to the content and not trying to claim it is their content then I think it is a win win for both parties and as someone has noted, if you want to be removed from someones aggrigation I'm sure they would comply with the request and promote someone elses content.

Re:I'm gonna sue Mozilla

[Jotii]

IE which does the same thing.

IE can't present my blog.

Re:I'm gonna sue Mozilla

[MacDork]

However, what if some third-party radio station starts recording the music that other stations are playing, organizing it, then playing it over the air without the original radio station's ads, but with it's own ads.

Your analogy makes no sense at all. No one would ever do it. Why not compare the use of RSS to something like a TIVO. It gathers content from different stations, allows you to remove ads from the original content, and could be used to deliver ads itself to make the producers of the TIVO money. As far as I know, all of that is perfectly legal, and TIVO is still in business. But I don't own one and could really care less about TV and radio programming anyway... so, whatever.

BY-NC

[Wellington Grey]

How do you define ... non-commercial use in this context?

This is the question I've always had with creative commons: just what counts as non-commercial? If I take a BY-NC image off flickr, and want to use it in my blog, is that OK? What if I have google ads on my blog? Is that still OK? Does it make any difference if I'm actually making a profit or not? I've gone so far as to email some of the CC lawyers about this issue, and there seems to be no clear answer.

-Grey

Re:BY-NC

[aussie_a]

Non-commercial depends on how much money you have, how big the business is that provided the content under the license, and whether or not they're bored.

Re:BY-NC

[SeaFox]

I've gone so far as to email some of the CC lawyers about this issue, and there seems to be no clear answer.

The cynic in me says they provided no clear answers to you on purpose. If they laid out some clear guidelines that would keep you out of trouble, you would follow them and never need their services. They are much more interested in telling you what to do when it's too late and they're tracking billable hours on your dime.

Re:BY-NC

[91degrees]

It's a vague concept, probably delibertely so, like Fair Use.

Is it commercial to look at something and then use that as the basis of a business decision? Possibly, but who's going to sue? The creator probably isn't going to find out, if they do, they probably won't care too much, if they do, they probably won't sue, and if they do, they'll probably not win a vast payout. It's a low risk violation. If I take the content, and sell it, then it's clear and obvious violation of the terms. The creator could sue and win.

Re:BY-NC

[nath_de]

That's the reason why one shouldn't use the NC licenses. Use SA instead - it is clearer defined and better anyway.

Re:BY-NC

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the reason why one shouldn't use the NC licenses. Use SA instead - it is clearer defined and better anyway.

May I take the liberty to point out that NC and SA are orthogonal issues? You can have both at once or neither or just one of them. Saying "instead" makes absolutely no sense in this context, as they do not solve the same issue.

Re:BY-NC

[vita]

The answer is, it's only a problem if somebody figures you have some money and it's worth going after you. That's why media companies have to be so very careful about everything they do that they stifle themselves and pay huge sums for insurance, while bloggers can copy and paste with abandon, and nobody cares. Look poor, and you're safe.

    Unless you're the one person in a million selected by the RIAA, of course.

Don't view ads, simple as zat

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't look at ads. I don't. I don't complain.

Yeah well in another article

[A beautiful mind]

I was talking about how the networking modell kills the current copyright model.

Partly this is what I ment. Wouldn't it be so much easier if we just didn't have to put up with all this copyright mess (because frankly, most of these services are good things to exist)?

Content == Information. Someone else's information? That is only a valid phrase if noone else has that information. AKA, content creators should be only compensated for that and not given distribution rights afterwards.

Re:Yeah well in another article

[RAMMS EIN]

``Content == Information. Someone else's information? That is only a valid phrase if noone else has that information. AKA, content creators should be only compensated for that and not given distribution rights afterwards.''

I wonder if they should even be compensated at all. Of course, the theory behind copyright is that we want more content, and therefore, we offer a financial incentive to produce it.

However, I can tell you that most of the content I produce, as well as most of the content I use, are produced _without_ the financial incentive of copyright (Slashdot posts, open source software, Wikipedia articles, etc.)

Combined with the vast extension of the term of copyright and the criminalization of producing, spreading, possessing or using tools that can be used to circumvent restrictions imposed by copyright holders (note that this is different from restrictions imposed by copyright), it looks like, nowadays, copyright serves not to provide an incentive to produce more content, but only to make some corporations a lot of money.

Re:Yeah well in another article

[kurzweilfreak]

However, I can tell you that most of the content I produce, as well as most of the content I use, are produced _without_ the financial incentive of copyright (Slashdot posts, open source software, Wikipedia articles, etc.)

Take into consideration, though, the cost of production (money and time) of that particular content, as well as the quality of said produced content.

Re:Yeah well in another article

[mollymoo]

I wonder if they should even be compensated at all. Of course, the theory behind copyright is that we want more content, and therefore, we offer a financial incentive to produce it.

However, I can tell you that most of the content I produce, as well as most of the content I use, are produced _without_ the financial incentive of copyright (Slashdot posts, open source software, Wikipedia articles, etc.)

Copyright doesn't offer a financial incentive, it offers control over distribution. Of course, many people choose to restrict distribution to people who give them money, so the incentive can be financial if you wish. But rather than money the incentive could equally be photographs of cats, exceptionally shiny pebbles, a promise to help an old lady across the street or GPL-style reciprocity. The reciprocal sharing required by the GPL and similar licenses is an incentive to create content and it's enforced by copyright.

I'm all for copyright, but I agree it's being taken too far. I doubt anyone could show me a single work which wouldn't have been created if US copyright still lasted for life + 50 years instead of life + 70. If extending the protection copyright offers doesn't produce more works it's detrimental to society.

Whoever says "begs the question" on slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

begs for trouble.

Re:Whoever says "begs the question" on slashdot...

[rm999]

How about - first person to say something gets shot. I think we can all agree on that.

Re:Whoever says "begs the question" on slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re:Whomever says "begs the question" on slashdot...begs for trouble.

Fixed.

Re:Whoever says "begs the question" on slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re:Whoever says "begs the question" on slashdot...begs for trouble.

Fixed.

Ditto.

Re:Whoever says "begs the question" on slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re:Whomever says "begs the question" on slashdot...begs for trouble.

Fixed.

Oh please, ineffectual pedant. Whoever says ....

Now that I've reduced it to its simplest terms (two words), can you now see that "Whoever" is the subject of "says"?

Now well and truly fixed.

Please write on the board 100 times, "The hoity-toitiest is not always the correctest."

where should the line be drawn?

[Threni]

It's my browser - I'll decide. I'll decide if I want to block ads, look at RSS feeds, remix data from multiple sites into one Firefox tab etc. That's one of the things content providers have to deal with - that once the content is out there, it's usable by anyone in any way. It's not like they can do anything about it.

Re:where should the line be drawn?

[CentraSpike]

Sounds like you're daring someone to come up with a DRM system for text content - oh good :(

Reminds me of some of the annoying PDF API documents i have to work with, where some bright spark has decided to protect there copyright by disabling copy and paste (yes, this can be done in Acrobat Reader). It's extremely annoying when you just want to copy and paste a long function prototype into your code.

Re:where should the line be drawn?

[RAMMS EIN]

``once the content is out there, it's usable by anyone in any way. It's not like they can do anything about it.''

Well, some uses are prohibited by law (often copyright law). So they could sue you and win.

Re:where should the line be drawn?

[ajs318]

Then download and build xPDF (or kPDF or gPDF). There's a patch you can apply which disables the disabling of copying and pasting.

Weblogs' Logic

[giafly]

If we allow folks to sell advertising against our FULL content then we will lose 90% of our revenue. People will republish Engadget and Autoblog, call it an RSS reader, and sell ads against it - Jason Calacanis of Weblogs via Techdirt

No, no, no! The downside is that you lose part of your potential revenue, not your actual revenue. The upside is that more people learn about you and you therefore get more visitors and more revenue. One of the issues is where this balance lies.

Re:Weblogs' Logic

[shri]

I'd like to see how any of the pro-bloggers react if other websites stopped linking to and / or republishing their stories (in full, or edited or editorially revised).

Bloggers (oops sorry .. online publishers) have to stop behaving like dead tree media and hoarding their content.

I'm all for full exposure, specially now that the search engines have become semi clever in figuring out who the original author is and ensuring that when someone searches for a relevant term the original article shows up (often thanks to the links from the republished articles).

Re:Weblogs' Logic

[Rocketship Underpant]

If Mr. Calacanis is complaining that he publishes entire articles in his RSS feed, and then complains about where and how people read his RSS feed, he's a moron.

Re:Weblogs' Logic

[im_thatoneguy]

This assumes an unlimited number of untapped potential customers. If engadget is reaching 100% of its potential market, and someone else releases a slick new interface which redirects 90% of its traffic, then it only loses. There is no up side for engadget.

Re:Weblogs' Logic

[Anonymous Coward]

More like where the lies balance.

Sorry, had to do it...

Got a call from a lawyer about personal video

[Anonymous Coward]

I was told by a lawyer to take down some videos I shot at an event and posted on my web site. It was my personal home video. I put them out on my web site for people to see for free. I was not profiting in anyway. I didn't want to spend the money on a lawyer to fight it so I took them down.

You can say all you want about fair use or freedom but being right doesn't make a lot of difference. Hollywood and the **AA has created an atmosphere of FUD.

Since there was a lawyer involved I am posting as AC.

No, it raises the question

[Xanni]

Maybe a slash coder could add something to red-flag Slashdot editors when the phrase "begs the question" appears in a summary?

http://begthequestion.info/

Re:No, it raises the question

[Xanni]

I certainly agree that language changes over time. However "begging the question" has a very specific and useful meaning. If language changes make "begging the question" have the meaning that "raising the question" currently has, how will we actually say "begging the question"?

Re:No, it raises the question

[Anonymous Coward]

I supposed I really don't know. Thats the best argument against the changing of language I've ever heard.

Attention Whores...

[Anonymous Coward]

Those lousy attention whores.. start blogging and want to gain more attention by using RSS and then wonder that the download counter of their photo stalls since their RSS feeds are xml-only and can only include a link to the png with their face... but nobody cares about attention whores pretty face and TV is still a dream and not every attention whore is as loved as Jack Thompson or the administration members... :'-(

Now all the attention whores are upset and come back to slashdot to get at least some karma points for their FUD... but unfortunately they forgot to log in... damn this ignorant, attention whore hating world!!!!

Rules of thumb for peaceful co-existence

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Does the source you link to want not to be linked to? If so, then don't link.

2) Does the source provide an RSS feed, implied (without limitations stated in a FAQ or otherwise) that you can use it in any way you like? If so, then you can place it on your ad-supported webpage.

3) If neither 1 nor 2 is the case, you may link to content produced by others so long as your linking does not detract from their revenue model, typically advertisement. If your article summaries are extensive enough that someone reading them don't feel any need to visit the original source, then shorten your summaries. In practice you can't know whether someone skips the real source because they were happy with yours or because they weren't interested, so this rather becomes 'don't provide copies of entire or even most of articles'.

4) If the content provider becomes unhappy with this, see 1.

Doesn't anybody EVER learn?

[WML MUNSON]

How many times are we going to improperly use the phrase "begs the question?" Every time it happens, around 25% of whatever thread it was gets taken up by posts discussing its proper use. You think people on Slashdot would take this opportunity to learn something about proper usage.

It shows just how little of the forum discussions people submitting these stories read, either that or they're just doing it as a joke now.

Or, they could just be really fucking dumb.

It's almost as if the people submitting the stories care about nothing except seeing their name on Slashdot's front page every day. They spend so much time trolling for submittable news links on the internet that they can't be bothered to actually read the site itself, because if they DID, they wouldn't make this mistake roughly five hundred times a week.

Association is important.

[meburke]

A lot of money has been invested in creating messages to be disseminated across the 'Net. Additional money has bee invested in making these messages attractive, and in enhancing the reputation of the creators and authors. Now some sleazeball desseminates the message at a lower tier, and packs it with adds, thus diminishing the value of the original investment on one hand, and possibly marginally increasing the value on the other. I can see the points on both sides. Unfortunately, once the vehicle has left the showroom it gets scratches.

Hmmm... Suppose Bob takes a great picture of a pretty girl in a bikini and uses it to promote his photography. Suppose a notorious porn site uses only the headshot portion and even provides a link back to Bob's site.

On the other hand, suppose a site that is a directory for photographers uses Bob's picture to provide a link to his photography site.

Somehow I would think it's appropriate for Bob to be able to get the picture removed from the site that makes him look like a pornographer, but that means he also has the right to get it removed from the directory if he wishes.

Bob should have the right to control his picture, but unfortunately, it has left the showroom.

Keep in mind, we have a different situation if one or the other downstream sites has purchased the right to use the picture as they see fit.

Hmmm. If I purchase a print of Bob's picture, do I have the right to cut it up, paint over it and make derivative art? (Maybe, it depends on my written agreement with Bob.) I certainly have the right to take a picture of it and keep it in my insurance records to record my household goods. Do I have a right to make copies and give it to my friends, even if some of them actually go out and buy signed print later on? (That would be enhancing the value, wouldn't it?) If I don't charge for it, it's not a commercial venture, right?

Sorry, folks, but I think the author should retain the rights.

Re:Association is important.

[BiggerIsBetter]

Sorry, folks, but I think the author should retain the rights.

That's really what it comes down to here, IMO. Just because it's on the 'net doesn't mean you can do what-the-hell-you-like with it. As always, fair use is still fair use, and republishing is still republishing - blogger with ads, RSS, or whatever.

Re:Association is important.

[pereric]

There is a juridical difference (at least in Sweden, and many other places in Europe) between moral (artistic) and economical rights. If someone is using your picture in the above context, you could easily claim that your moral rights are being violated. You dont need to have the same set of restrictions for the economical "monopoly" and the moral rights, because they serve different needs. Actually, according to law you can't even transfer (sell) your artistic rights to someone else. /Per Eric

Re:Association is important.

[Overzeetop]

I think the author should retain the rights.

I agree. And I also believe that those rights should never extend beyond 27 years or the death of the author. I also believe that no corporate entity should hold or maintain exclusive right to any copyrighted work.

You can easily guess how popular those feelings are in the current US congress (and many other governments in the world, for that matter).

Re:Association is important.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're forgetting the fact that the girl in the bikini would have had to sign a model release in order for Bob to use the photograph of her to promote his photography. Such contracts would almost certainly stipulate that the photograph isn't to be used in a pornographic context. If Bob DIDN'T chase down the people that cut up the photograph, he'd be in breach of his contract with her, and she could sue him for a lot of money.

Copyright owneres are paranoiacs

[Anonymous Coward]

They are deathly afraid that someone else is making money of their content. Whether they want to make money off it themselves in that way (risk vs reward) is irrelevant to them.

Copyright no longer works on the internet. Don't put it on there if you don't want it "stolen".

Re:Copyright owneres are paranoiacs

[ThosLives]

I think the bigger issue is still the concept of 'owning' an idea. Most economic activities - including things like licenses, etc. - are based on the idea of scarcity. I'm still not convinced that ideas are scarce goods, and therefore all the conventional economic thought doesn't really apply.

What are, to some extent, scarce are the idea producers. The thing that scares "the industry" is that it is now with unprecedented ease that ideas can be developed and disseminated; the 'idea producer' is now not as scarce as it once was. This is the problem - when people before said they were protecting 'ideas' they were really protecting the equipment and expertise to generate those ideas - now expertise and equipment are so readily available that the value of 'thinking' is actually becoming diluted - it's really just the old supply and demand situation.

Re:Copyright owneres are paranoiacs

[Anonymous Coward]

If ideas are not scarce goods, then even with those old outdated economic concepts, the price would naturally drop to zero as scads of good ideas were constantly produced.

Moreover, the concept of intellectual property wouldn't bother you in the slightest. If ideas aren't scarce, then what do you care if someone wants to be paid for idea X? You'll just pop out ideas Y and Z and ignore the holder of rights to X.

Since this doesn't actually happen in real life, it follows that your premises are false. Good ideas aren't so easy to come by. More importantly, good ideas that are developed into actual usable products are even more scarce.

The only means we've ever found to reward this conception and development is to award rights to production as well. Otherwise, someone else can just intercept the idea at the point of production. Thus, not only would you have to generate and develop the idea, you'd also have to be expert at production, too. But, in the real world, there's generally a company that's already good at producing something at least somewhat similar, with suppliers, distribution, sales, workers, capital, and so on already lined up and optimized. Production isn't a level playing field for your basement genius -- hence the protection mechanism.

That still doesn't stop the "content abuse"

[Anonymous Coward]

It just means that they may be able to get restitution.

money is the root of all evil

[Anonymous Coward]

What's ironic about this discussion is that during the first internet bubble people were giving away everything for free leading old-time economics to wonder how they wll make any money. Now, we have people squabbling over pennies of revenue because to their thinking nothing on the Internet should be free.

There's no line

[suv4x4]

"Where the line is drawn" is thinking like a kid would.

There's no line: there are business models, with different objectives and different strategies. There's different perceptions, and different fears.

Ultimately, if there IS a line, it's different for every single person/company and will change for every product in time due to a number of factors, even someone's current mood.

There's no point guessing, no one is THAT smart. Just let things balance our and wherever it goes, it goes.

The more productive thinking would be "where I draw the line for MY content" and "how I can use the current situation to profit with my content".

Begging the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop abusing this phrase. It just makes you sound illiterate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

missing the point

[darkchubs]

the point is, that a company like Google and its google of lawyers gets away with murder... if I started a company today that jsut copied books, videos and websites and displayed then on my URL... there would be a 3 second trial that would result in my hanging. Google also aquired... the largest video piracy company youtube.com. A perfect fit since Google is in the piracy or at best copy right infringment business and allready has its leagal department geared up for those fights.. it does *not* matter whether they help or hurt the person they are violating..

Re:missing the point

[Gorshkov]

[blockquote]the point is, that a company like Google and its google of lawyers gets away with murder... if I started a company today that jsut copied books, videos and websites and displayed then on my URL... there would be a 3 second trial that would result in my hanging.[/blockquote]

I just bought myself a scanner. I'm going to get every book I can lay my hands on, and scan them into my computer system in it's entirety. Then I'm gonna open a kiosk downtown and, for the grand price of $1.99, I'm going to let anybody who wants to do a search on titles, authors, phrases - whatever they want.

When they get a match, my system will print out a list of all the stores in town that will sell them the book in question - and I'll even throw in the price of the book into the printout.

Now -just how bloody long do you think it will take for EVERY BOOKSTORE IN TOWN to be clamoring after me to make sure that I have their entire up-to-date pricelist?

About 30 seconds, max. Becuase I'm NOT "stealing their revenue". I'm NOT making money by illegally copying their content. I'm providing a service - and that service ENHANCES the value of their business, and will increase their sales.

The only judge what would even think about convicting me would be the one who just received the FOAD letter from the 37th publisher refusing to publish the gripping courtroom drama he's been writing since collage.

Re:missing the point

[darkchubs]

yeah its Google employees that read this ... if you made 12 mill in stock for coding a a page scraper you would be in on the cover up also :) wait till the men in black show up at my door :) I already have the Pentium disco guys after me and I'm pretty sure I saw the blue man group in my drive way last week...so this is about par for the course..

Re:missing the point

[darkchubs]

yeah and you know what, I think I'm gonna take star wars episode 1 and edit out that lizard donkey thing that they thought was a-kin to an ewok... its enhancing the value... since apparently in your opinion.. thats not for the copyright holder to determine :)

It's obviously stealing

[Digital Vomit]

It's obviously stealing revenue. I mean, I've got over $200,000,000.00 in a box at home that I've saved (I mean, stolen) because of piracy. All those media cartels are right: pirates have collectively stolen trillions of dollars from them over the past few decades. Check under your beds; you'll probably find a big box of money like I did.

I think it works like this:

• For every mp3 you download, $2 appears under your bed.
• For every movie you download, $20 appears under your bed.
• For every half-hour of television you download, $5 appears under your bed.
• For every game you download, $50 appears under your bed.
• For every book you download, $10 appears under your bed (upwards of $100 or more if it's a textbook or reference book).
• For every video clip of a movie or TV show you see online, $0.25 appears under your bed.

Try it (not that I am advocating stealing, mind you). It's amazing! And all this money is coming straight out of the bank accounts of various media cartels. I think it has something to do with that "voodoo economics" I heard about a few years back.

I don't know why it doesn't work when you steal shows or movies over the TV, or music over the radio. Maybe because it's older technology and the media cartels put anti-theft technology in it, and with computers they have yet to do so because that's newer technology.

Oh, crap. I just thought of something. I just posted this on Slashdot! Now thousands of people will be stealing it from me! That's what I get for posting my two cents worth of intellectual property. :(

Re:It's obviously stealing

[Pharmboy]

?That's what I get for posting my two cents worth of intellectual property. :(</em>

Don't worry, for each person who steals your ideas, they will only get 2 cents. Not worth the time unless someone creates a botnet to steal your idea enmass to spam it:

----
To: luser@slashdot.org
From: bettysue@comcast.net

Lo0king f0r a w ay to mak e more mone y?

Triy pirat ing! Make upt o $60,00 a yea r! Vis it n0w for you're m ore inf0!

http://it.goecities.com/somelamer666

The yellow dog was found to be absurd. Don't yell at the indifference of the primary system. Why he didn't cower at the sight of the new pages was unknown...
----

I'm begging you to stop using "begs the question"

[KutuluWare]

For the love of god, STOP ABUSING THIS TERM. I don't think I've once seen it used properly in my 4 years of reading /., and I doubt I missed much before that. Begging the question is a logical fallacy that invalidates the subsequent argument. This article raises a perfectly legitimate question that follows naturally from the preceding information.

Or, to put in in more /.-friendly terms: "Begs the question. You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Mode Parent Up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mode Parent Up!

Re:I'm begging you to stop using "begs the questio

[poot_rootbeer]

"Begs the question. You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Look, language changes over time. "Begs the question" now means "Leads one naturally to ask the question". "Moot" means "NOT worthy of discussion or debate". "Inflammable" means "flammable". Accept it.

Take them at their word

[AlecC]

Google should take them literally. Since Google makes money by selling ads on searches, Google sshould interpret their request as one to remove all their material from all their sites. This would opt them out ofg the worlds top search engine - at their own request. I wonder whether they would like becoming invisible to half the users on the Net.

Re:I'm begging you to stop using "begs the questio

[TheDreadSlashdotterD]

R u saiing dat dis 's also a natral evolusion o englsih?

Re:I'm begging you to stop using "begs the questio

[AlecC]

Not this (right) side of the atlantic, it doesn't. "Begging the question" is, and always has been, a precise term for a particular logical error. You are attempting to foorce a change in the language to match your own particular taste; I and others will fight back with what is not only historicalusage but our everyday usage. (Likewise with your usage of moot. Inflammable has never meant non-flammable; it means capable of being inflamed, rendered into flames. The in- prefix has two sources, one meaning not from Greek and one meaning into or towards from Latin - this is the latter).

More techdirt

[Jack9]

I cant believe another flamebait article from the shitpile, Techdirt, is supposed to be news. There should be a Katz AND Techdirt filter.