Slashdot Mirror
Judge Thinks Linking To Copyrighted Material Should Be Illegal
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."
While this seems like an opinion that runs counter to many tenants slashdotters hold dear, I think we should at least consider it. By any measure, Posner is one of the most impressive judges on the bench today-- and in my opinion, one of the only judges that really 'get' all the issues surrounding copyright and digital things in general.
I'm hardly alone-- Lessig has noted that there isn't a federal judge I respect more, both as a judge and person, and Posner was Obama's first choice when asked which sitting judge he would most like to argue before.
So you may disagree with this opinion-- I'm leaning that way too-- but it's worth fair consideration. Go and actually read his post before passing judgment. When he was guest blogging about copyright law at Lessig.org back in 2004, he noted, "I am distrustful of people who think they have confident answers to such questions." That goes for both sides in this debate.
Sort of a hack job by techcrunch actually.
While it might be the death of "Big Media", it will be the birth of "lite media" which consists of the blogosphere, twitter, and Facebook. When the incentive to compile news is financial, we will only get news that is sensational and designed to be sticky. However, when that incentive is removed, we will be able to see a rapid advance in news gathering for its own sake. Such an evolution in news gathering is a huge breakthrough for the little guy who prior to this would never have had his voice heard.
Old Media is shaking in their boots at the thought of being overrun by so-called "unqualified bloggers". Take the recent election, for example. While many people tuned in to CNN and the NY Times for information, many more relied on Little Green Footballs, the Huffington Post, and the Daily Kos for up to the minute election data. As more little guys enter the market, we will finally see real competition. Since competition leads to improved product, we can only expect to see better news once the corporations like NY Times and CNN wither away.
If a search engine is located in another country, how do you stop it linking to your copyright material? Fines that they won't pay? Extradition? Blocking their site?
I'm pretty sure that this also means the end of the Dewey Decimal system, since it links to copyrighted material.
Other than this text, there is no discernible information contained in this sig.
It would be so hilarious if they made this a real law. Sites like Slashdot would not die... sites that sued for being linked to would die. See... if you are in the search engine then the search engine *has* a link to your material. That means if you copyright your work and post it and linking to copyrighted material is illegal *then* you work will be invisible. If you can't be found on a search engine then you don't exist on the internet.
People won't be able to email links to your stuff to each other since that would be illegal so effectively no one would be able to tell others about your work. It would mean the death of copyrighted material on line.
In other news they just passed a law in my state that all online sales to sites hosted in this state must pay sales tax. Guess what that will mean? No sites will be hosted in this state.
I have to disagree slightly. I don't think persons who would pull the plug would do so to save their margins. They would pull the plug because they can't control the Internet, and this goads them. They have built a perception of their own power into which the Internet doesn't factor. In these cases complaints about lost profits are often a red herring--it's about power.
Actually I predict if this kind of asshattery is allowed that all the sites like Slashdot will simply be moved out of the USA to a place with more sane copyright laws. If they keep this shit up the USA is gonna be left all alone as some "insanity island" while everyone else gets with the program and moves to the 21st century.
Why do you think China is kicking our asses so hard? Yes, it is partially lax environmental laws there, but I would argue that it is also because they completely ignore American copyrights and patents and therefor have a more cutthroat business model where "he who makes the best widget wins" while we have a "patent and copyright the hell out of everything, then sit back and sue" model going and it sucks. Does anybody else think that if Linux or some other OS suddenly shot up to...say 15%+ market share that Apple and MSFT would bury them in lawsuits? Nope, me neither.
Our patents and copyrights have simply choked the life out of all innovation here. Trying to get anything done in the USA is like navigating a minefield, with the millions of patents and copyrights and patent trolls just waiting to pounce. I predict the USA will just be stuck more and more to the sidelines while the third world explodes with new ideas built upon American ideas but without a bunch of copyright and patent bullshit to slow them down. I am not saying we should abolish all patents and copyrights, I am saying we need to bring sanity back to the discussion. I would say patents should be a flat 25 years, copyrights 5-15 due to the ease of selling ideas thanks to the digital medium. Either way our copyrights and patents have gotten too ridiculous as the judge proves and will just serve to have more business avoid the USA like the clap.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Then he's a cock-end, because his job is to fucking well interpret the law as it is.
And let's not forget how Posner, Bork et. al. castrated Anti-Trust law, ("hey, what's so bad about monopolies?"), which is, after all, statute law.
The guy is a third-rate intellect and a dangerous ideologue who should never have been let anywhwere near the bench.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke