Share a News Story With Coworkers, Pay a Fine

An anonymous reader sends us to InfoWorld for news that Knowledge Networks, an analyst firm, has settled a copyright complaint, agreeing to pay the Software and Information Industry Association $300,000 for sharing copyrighted news articles internally with employees.

Comments

now that I've told my office

[yagu]

Now that I've distributed this article to my office peers, I suppose I'm now open to legal scrutiny. WTH?

Supposedly the antagonists in this story claim this is not a common thing for companies:

Asked if internal distribution of news articles was commonplace at many companies, SIIA's Bain disagreed. "Companies do not do this all the time," he said. "Some companies have compliance procedures in place to keep it from happening."

I suspect quite the opposite. Sure there are companies big enough and diligent enough with deep enough pockets to engage in OCD behaviors such as this one -- applying bizarre policy to bizarre and grey legal matters.

I can't help but wonder what these antagonists think... do they want as few people reading their material as possible?

And, talk about hostile controlling behaviors, also from the article:

Knowledge Networks, based in Menlo Park, California, has agreed to take steps to avoid further problems, including sending its staff to an SIIA copyright course, SIIA said.

In a statement distributed by SIIA, Knowledge Networks said it regretted the actions.

So, to appease SIIA, send staff to their copyright course (wonder if it's free... probably not), and let SIIA issue public releases stating offender's public remorse for it's transgression.

Sometime I'd just love to find an employee of one of these types (SIIA, RIAA, you name it), and follow him around for a couple of days and issue a complaint the first time I see him reading even a snippet of an article over someone's shoulder on the bus or train, or tapping his foot to even a motif from some else's music player.

What a crock!

Re:now that I've told my office

[HTH NE1]

I can't help but wonder what these antagonists think... do they want as few people reading their material as possible? They just want complete and total tracking over who reads the articles so they can measure their worth in ad dollars. Much like music, except they pretend that it is so the artists can be compensated for every person who hears the music.

Copyright becomes trackingright to squeeze every possible cent out of the work. If you dare come up with a new way to derive enjoyment from a work, they'll seek ways to ensure they get paid for that too.

Re:now that I've told my office

[SatanicPuppy]

This isn't about reading anything. It's unauthorized copying and distribution of a copyrighted work. You can argue fair use if you send someone a copy of an MP3, but you can't argue fair use if you burn a copy of the CD for everyone you know, and that goes a million times more if it's a company doing it as part of their corporate policy. That's just horseshit.

Bunch of damn anti-copyright zombies not reading the damn story. This is what copyright is supposed to be about. You write a well researched article that ends up in a trade magazine, and then some PHB at IBM decides he likes it, sends it down to the printshop, and runs off 10,000 copies so he can give one to every employee, and what do you get? Squat.

What do you think someone is going to get out of free distribution in this case? You think Bob, writer of economic trend stories, is going to get more people buying his articles because some joker ripped it off? Maybe he'll sell more seats at his concerts! Come on.

Re:now that I've told my office

[karmatic]

What's wrong with squeezing every penny out of the reporter's work? Don't you want every penny of salary you're entitled to get?

The issue is that they aren't entitled to every penny they can get.

Copyright law (to the extent it's compatible with the US constitution) is an government granted exclusive monopoly on distribution of works for a limited period to the extent that it promotes the progress of science and the useful arts.

The natural state of things is that ideas, knowledge, etc. are yours, until you choose to share them with the world. Copyright (again, to the extent it's constitutionally protected) extends the natural protection with an artificial incentive to produce works by providing an additional measure to increase the ability to capitalize on your works, allowing sufficient time to capitalize on the production before it reverts to it's natural state - a free for all idea in the wild, which others may build on.

The original copyright period was 14 years, with good reason - given the relatively slow pace at which one could manufacture, print, distribute, and sell works worldwide, it was decided that this was enough time to allow the author to make enough of a profit to make it worth doing in the first place - promoting the progress of science and the useful arts. Given the speed of technology, distribution, and the number of books competing for readers (reducing the time a book can stay "on top") - copyright protection should be getting shorter, not extending longer and longer.

Furthermore, fair use was an integral part of copyright protection. Remember, the purpose of copyright law is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. Allowing an absolute monopoly on works is in direct opposition to the very principle copyright law was founded on. It's been horribly abused, and is in fact the basis of the original EULAs. When you run software, it's copied to RAM, so you need a copyright license to run it. This legal theory was used to justify the position that they could take a license (which grants freedoms subject to terms), and use it as a means to circumvent both the doctrines of fair use and first sale. Fortunately, the law now contains a specific exemption for running, installing, and backing up software, which would render the argument moot. Unfortunately, companies now just pretend that the EULA is a contract (which opens up other legal issues, but it's rarely challenged in court).

I ask you this - do you honestly believe that there is a single author on the planet who would choose not to write a book simply because his descendants only could profit from the royalties for 50 years after his death instead of 75? The lack of such people shows that modern copyright law is unconstitutional, and the modern enforcement of copyright law (DMCA, EULAs, $150,000 statutory damages, Blizzard vs BNETd, copy-protected door openers, chipped printer cartridges, etc.) show that the system is being used in direct opposition to it's intended purpose. With the notable exception of so-called "copyleft" licenses, copyright has become a tool to bludgeon people into submission, to suppress thought, stifle innovation, and quash competitors. As such, is it any surprise that so many people have distrust or outright hostility for the entire illegal system? Is it really any surprise that so many people choose to disregard the potential consequences and infringe anyway?

Even those who simply want free music and don't figure they will get caught demonstrate the issue at stake here. Just laws, right laws, laws that society supports are enforced vigorously. Murderer, child molesting, etc. are met with some of the harshest punishments available nearly everywhere. There aren't many "murderers rights" lobbyists, and child molesters often have to be separated from the general population in prison to avoid serious harm to them. People demand punishment for what they consider to be just laws, with genuine victims. Politicians cater

Ain't Just Whistlin' (C) Dixie

[Doc Ruby]

All content is copyrighted whenever it's published. Everyone carries mobile phones with mics, and soon cameras will be universal. By then, speech and image recognition will be accurate enough for copyright holders to claim infringement whenever they have any evidence, however unreliable, to make the claim.

The copyright industry will force everyone to keep quiet all the time. But the phones will still ring in movie theaters - they just won't be able to record the movie without getting caught.

The Congress shall have power [...]
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

The current overreaching copyright regime inhibits, rather than promotes, the progress of science and useful arts. It secures for unlimited times to parties other than authors, like publishers and agencies, exclusive rights. That inhibit, rather than promote the progress that justifies the Constitution's original compromise with our inalienable freedom to express ourselves, even by copying another's content.

At one time, for a few hundred years, economics meant copyright was the compromise between perfect freedom and perfect commerce. But now technology and global interconnectedness have reduced the time in which exclusivity is justifiable, even as corporations have extended the "limited times" to longer, indefinitely long, periods.

We have to scrap this thing and start over with new limited times, shorter than the original 17 years (a human generation) of the late 1700s. Or it will scrap us, as it has already done for far too long.

Evil, and More Restrictive than Paper.

[twitter]

I can't help but wonder what these antagonists think... do they want as few people reading their material as possible?

They want money, what else? The proposed remedies are an extortion - pay $300,000 per year in "compliance staff" or $300,000 in fines or some kind of "reasonable licensing" fee. This case also has the stink of nailing a smaller player to score propaganda points and lay down favorable judgement before they go after bigger fish like Google.

The sickest thing about this is that the end result will be more restrictive than paper. People have shared newspapers, magazines and clippings from them. They did this even before copy machines made it easy to duplicate the material. Now that computers have made it costless to duplicate information and make sure everyone who needs it can have it, these turds come out and advocate technology that's about as restrictive as clay tablets. You have to wonder if sending lists of links with excerpts is next on their list of "piracy" and how any organization can tell anyone anything if they win.

Sensationalist Headline

[Some guy named Chris]

This settlement is not about sharing a news story with a coworker. This is about a company building internal procedures around photocopying news articles, putting together a news packet, and distributing these packets around as form of employee education.

So, everybody who's yelling about getting in trouble for reading over a coworker's shoulder, or not being allowed to email links just needs to calm down and read the fine article.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Article Text

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Really, though, what's the gripe? Isn't the whole point of writing an article that people read it?

Maybe when producers of culturally relevant material actually recognized that they were participating in social process, but not anymore. Now, the sole purpose of producing anything is to get as many people as possible to buy it, and treat the rest as criminals because they might read/hear/see it without paying for it.

No, copyright holders have lost all perspective and have long since abandoned the idea that their place in the world does not exist solely to make them richer.