Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Thinks Linking To Copyrighted Material Should Be Illegal

Posted by Soulskill on from the don't-you-point-at-me dept.

An article at TechCrunch discusses a blog post from Richard Posner, a US Court of Appeals judge, about the struggling newspaper industry. Posner explains why he thinks the newspapers will continue to struggle, and then comes to a rather unusual conclusion: "Expanding copyright law to bar online access to copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's consent, or to bar linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's consent, might be necessary to keep free riding on content financed by online newspapers from so impairing the incentive to create costly news-gathering operations that news services like Reuters and the Associated Press would become the only professional, nongovernmental sources of news and opinion."

13 of 390 comments (clear)

  1. So this implies... by gzipped_tar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...probably the death of Slashdot?

    --
    Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    1. Re:So this implies... by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This sounds like a "new methods are making an old business model obsolete, so we should outlaw the new methods" type thing.

      He is about to be deluged with requests by RIAA and MPAA members for him to write about their business model.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:So this implies... by R2.0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "...probably the death of Slashdot?"

      The death of the internet, period. Since, according to the Berne Convention and US law, EVERYTHING is copyrighted at the moment of creation, the logical conclusion is that it would ban hyperlinking to anything external to a site. Now more WWW - Thanks Tim, it was fun, hope everything goes well in prison.

      I don't know what to be more embarrassed about - a well respected appeals court judge who is ignorant of the law about which he comments, or the judiciary lobbying for which laws Congress should make, not the laws that they did make. It's not a very bid step to "Well, if Congress doesn't do it, then I will."

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    3. Re:So this implies... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Banning links to copyrighted material is plainly asinine. If I link to a news item from a news source (NYT, CRN, whomever) that supports its online presence through ad revenue, and if people follow my link and read the news item, I have helped generate traffic, and therefore revenue, for the news source. If the judge's idea is to help newspapers survive in the internet era, perhaps he should first understand internet economics a little better.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    4. Re:So this implies... by Mr2cents · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If I go to a museum, and I point my finger at a painting, will that be illegal too? What if I post a blog entry saying there is a cool painting at museum X?

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    5. Re:So this implies... by risk+one · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not only vastly impractical, it turns the whole idea of the Internet on it's head. The whole idea of putting a file behind a publicly accessible URL is that you are making it public. All the rest, search engines, websites, aggregators everything else is just add-ons to make that act, and the act of typing the url into the address bar to get the file, more user-friendly. The act of putting something behind a URL without restricting access in any way, means you've made it public. That's the rule of the Internet. If you want to restrict access a bit more, you can use http-authentication or session based authentication, there's certainly no lack of options.

      Now if you want to build a business model on the internet, I wish you all the luck in the world, we know it's possible, but you do have to follow the one rule. Nobody forced you to be on the internet, feel free to leave again if you don't like it.

      Now, newspapers can legitimately gripe about people stealing their content, and semi-legitimately gripe about aggregators displaying it, but that has nothing to do with linking, and this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. The fact that he wants to ban paraphrasing others' content as well makes me wonder how the hell this guy came to be a judge.

      That sounds like it would be the single biggest threat to free speech in the last fifty years if it were to go anywhere. Imagine what the media conglomerates would do with a law like that.

    6. Re:So this implies... by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Banning links to copyrighted material is plainly asinine.

      Banning links to copyrighted material would result in the legal destruction of the internet, at least in the US.

      Under US copyright law, copyrights for all material are held by the author (with certain limited exceptions). The vast majority of works never have their copyrights registered, but registration is not necessary for copyright to apply. "Banning links to copyrighted material" is thus redundant, and can be shortened to simply "banning links."

      --
      Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
    7. Re:So this implies... by spyowl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My point is that this man has tremendous influence in the US. He's not an intellectual lightweight. Unfortunately, I can't read what he wrote since the blog entry seems to be down now.

      Now do you see the irony?

  2. Re:Posner by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "I am distrustful of people who think they have confident answers to such questions." That goes for both sides in this debate.

    I have a confident answer: when in doubt, freedom should prevail. This especially applies to freedom of speech and of the press. The burden of proof is on anyone who thinks that freedom should not prevail. In other words, our fundamental inalienable rights are far more important than whether or not a newspaper goes out of business.

    Let's soundly reject this concept, right now, that it is the role of government to determine who wins and who loses in the business world. Newspapers are struggling because they are old technology that is being replaced by a new technology. Even if that weren't the case, their perceived right to do business is absolutely nothing compared to our real rights.

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  3. Won't change anything by javacowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Newspapers want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the traffic that comes from Google linking to them, but they want sole access to the internet advertising revenues associated with their content.

    Also, how does the judge propose helping the newspapers fend off online classified services like craigslist, which are the real threat to newspapers.

    With this judgment, one of two things will happen:

    1) Google stops linking to them entirely and their online business dries up.
    2) All or most newspapers grant Google the right to link to and show excerpts of their stories.

    Either way, the newspapers won't see a revival. Their only hope is to set up some kind of common online newspaper portal to take the place of Google news. Except, this time, there isn't the equivalent of Apple's iTunes to save them from their own stupidity.

    --
    This space left intentionally blank.
  4. Interpretation by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't the community consensus that every publicly accessible URL points to content that the community is free to link to and view at will?

    That is: if you post a document on a web server, then you're granting the whole world the same rights to the material that you would be if you posted that material on a billboard sign next to the highway.

    Why can't judges see that?

    Why do some judges assume that the common understanding of a URL needs to change, rather than just having the newspapers stop supporting publicly accessible URLs to content they want protected???

  5. Re:Posner by brxndxn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why should we consider it? It is a laughable. He is suggesting we change the laws in ways that severely limit individual freedom in a way that is completely impossible to enforce unless we completely change some core fundamental aspects of participation on the Internet. This man could be God for all I care.. If he says something stupid, it is stupid no matter what. We should consider his stupid opinion because he's a great man? That's an error in reasoning. (false authority fallacy)

    Think about this.. He is trying to preserve an industry that is changing because of technology. Just because news as we know it is going through 'evolution pains' does not mean we should stick our stupid laws all over it. Leave our laws be. First Amendment is a pretty damn important law in this country..

    There will ALWAYS be demand for news - and there will always be a demand for truth. By adding new laws that limit the ability to satisfy that demand better, we are actually regressing. Just because the news will change does not mean it will not be better. In fact, I would like to argue that most of our news is completely useless anyway. Let it be free. Let honest people report what they see.. and a group of similar opinions will allow people reading it to distinguish the truth. Right now, if Fox News wants to put their own screwed up twist, they can legally do that.. and they do it all the time! Screw them..

    The newspapers screw the news also.. IMO, right now, there seems to be no good way to get the truth unless you read the news and the bloggers and the comments, and form an opinion of what really happened. So, if you cannot link to an article, how do you comment about it? How do you tell people what you're talking about? Maybe there should not be money in the news.. Let the market figure out how to handle the news.

    And, further, fuck copyright. The laws make the copyright holders so card-stacked against the individual that people care less and less about it and the laws governing it.

    --
    --- We need more Ron Paul!
  6. Re:Posner by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whatever you are smoking, please share. This has NOTHING to do with the first amendment. The death of the Old Media business model is NOT a blow to the first amendment, it STRENGTHENS it, because broadcasted speech becomes less controlled and more democratic. When the cost of entry to the broadcast medium (the internet) is effectively zero, EVERYONE becomes a member of the press. The death of the Old Media business model is the best thing that could possibly happen for freedom of speech.