Slashdot Mirror
11-Word Extracts May Infringe Copyright In Europe
splodus writes "The European Court of Justice, Europe's highest court, has ruled that a service providing 11-word snippets of newspaper articles could be unlawful. Media monitoring company Infopaq International searches newspaper articles and provides clients with a keyword and the five words either side. This practice was challenged by the DDF, a group representing newspaper interests, as infringing their members' copyright. The court has referred the issue back to national courts to determine whether copyright laws in each country will be subject to the ruling. The full ruling is available at the European Court of Justice Web site."
Europe's highest court held that the 11-word extracts were indeed "reproduction in part" under intellectual property laws. The court described transient acts as being "created and deleted automatically and without human intervention," such as those allowing for database browsing and caching. Such acts must also be incidental, the court said.
They didn't say it had to be continuous...
Always proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
Perhaps eventually quoting the law that makes quoting things illegal will be illegal. Why not, wells fargo is suing wells fargo and AT&T charging a discount fee for discounts it would make perfect sense.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
So a company searches the intarweb for news stories and displays a snippit (11 words) of this on their site with a link to the newspaper (driving up their readership). This is free advertisement for newspapers, and as they should know free advertisement is almost as awesome as free beer!
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
"The has that a of could be and with a the."
De minimis non curat lex.
I really don't understand how Newspapers would not want the traffic that a link would generate. There is nothing more than I would love to have than a thousand sites with 11 word snippets of my articles linking back to me.
Seems foolish.
This is my sig.
It comes-down from the oligarchs sitting on the Supreme Court, so I'm not surprised that the European court might reach a different conclusion (i.e. even 11 words violates the artists' exclusive copy license).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
From TFA:
A Danish pressclipping company could be violating copyright by printing
Expecting to be sued for copyright violation in 3...2...1...
As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
In theory, copyright is upheld to allow amortization of production costs through reproduction sales. Quoting portions of a text in a search response only serves to help that text be located, and perhaps, a sale made. There should be a law against convoluted laws.
More problematic is the absence of any concept of fair use. The court did not say that 11 word quotations were necessarily infringinig, though: they pushed that decision back on the lower court.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
In the end, even a 1-word extract will be copyrighted and we'll no longer be able to say anything without violating someone's copyright.
I could safely bet the next 10 stories will have the tag '11words'.
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson
Not that I agree with the ruling, but if you look at the case in terms of US fair use (which I admit is not applicable in Europe), there's a significant difference between quoting eleven words in a newspaper article, which is fairly short, and quoting eleven words in a book or short story. Proportionally, the amount used is significantly greater.
Nevertheless, I agree that this is a reasonable, non-infringing use. It doesn't harm the commercial aspects of the newspapers, since it's not like anyone is going to get their news from these eleven-word snippets.
By far most articles would fail under "fair use" but if the 11 words happened to include the a majority of a very small article, there could be problems.
There is also another risk: If the newspaper article quoted someone else, and that quote was lifted without the surrounding text, the 11-word snippet may not be fair use of the original quote.
Here's a contrived example:
I'm a humorist. I make up 1-line zingers for fortune cookies and filler material for community newspapers.
I become famous and a major newspaper does a story on me and prints one of my giggles as an example. Fair use. This search engine comes along and returns the one-liner with a word or two on either side. Sorry, that's not fair use of my original work. Maybe it should be, but in America, it's not.
Yes, that example is contrived but it is possible.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Next, merely refering to the thing will get you sued, until you cant even read the thing without promising you will forget what you read. And sooner or later we will just forget about people copyrighting their work alltogether, and just like Darth Sidious said "and then.. we shall have peace".
Do you D?
The BMW thing does make sense. The time used in replacing your burned out bulb is paid for by BMW on the original lights. It is a light that BMW has confidence in and they know the reliability of the bulbs and thus can reliably predict a cost to themselves. The aftermarket stuff is not approved by them, they know nothing about it, its problems, the cost of the bulbs, or life expectancy. They will not pay for it because they cannot reliably determine what their liability will be.
This is similar to web developers who will guarantee their work and/or provide some sort of fixed fee structure to maintain a site that they build provided the code is only modified by them and no others. Once another developer starts altering code, their confidence on what is going on drops dramatically and they can no longer reliably predict what their time liability will be and thus their own cost to work on the code. They'll then switch to an hourly charge to fix/maintain the code. Makes sense to me.
I'm fed up. Copyright is evil. I'm a graphic designer who's worked as a writer and an editor so, needless to say, a great deal of my living is made on works protected by copyright but enough is enough. It's a joke. The original intent of copyrights has been so grossly perverted and abused that they're simply evil now. They no longer protect those they were intended to protect and they are abused by those who have absolutely nothing to do with the actual creative works. They're evil.
Da Da Da Dum.
Three notes. Not even the notes. I bet you didn't just deadpan it out either.
And I bet you thought "Beethoven's Fifth Symphony" (even if you don't remember the name).
The European Court of Justice, Europe's highest court, has ruled that... nuts
These are the some 11 word extracts from the first few "headlines" on Google News's front page as of a few minutes ago, along with links to their articles:
...the death of an Islamic sect leader whose capture police announced.... (link)
...bombs exploded within minutes near Shi'ite mosques across Baghdad on Friday... (link)
...the economy shrank at a 1% rate in the second quarter. (link)
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
1) You forgot the link to the news article you are quoting from.
2) That's not 11 words.
FAIL.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Don't have to do that. Just do better than they in reporting, etc. and then sue the CRAP out of them when they quote you (Hey, that's infringing!)
Non-copyright violating quote from the original article:
Wells Fargo sueing itself (for default loans) is required to properly acquire payment. It is not like they are going to contest it and sit in court aruging with each other.
Wells Fargo has already contested their own lawsuit. From the summary: "Defendant admits that it is the owner and holder of a mortgage encumbering the subject real property. All other allegations of the complaint are denied."
However, would you like it if, instead of visiting your site every day, they visited a central site that listed the stories on it instead.
You mean like google?
They still have to buy the newspaper or visit the website to read the actual story.
As far as I can tell, the decision said only that the 11-word snippets did not fall under a "transient copying" exception, not that they consisted copying substantial enough to infringe copyright.
Center on the word DDF
"Practice was challenged by the DDF, a group representing newspaper interests"
From that, we can determine that - this is going to be about fair use/copyright, newspapers will shoot themselves in the foot to try to stay relevant^W afloat, and that we should all go to using 10 word snippets, to be safe.
splodus The Court Justice highest has that providing snippets newspaper unlawful.
See you in court
If the newspapers can claim that an 11 word phrase is copyrighted, then a person should be able to claim that a statement is copyrighted,
and the newspapers would be prevented from making direct quotes.
--- a future newspaper article --- ...
With these events, we should be reminded of the words of John F. Kennedy: (paraphase*) "[Do not ask what services your government can provide for you. Instead ask your government how you can help.]".
* The original quote is owned by the Kennedy family,
There are cases, where everything needed is said in eleven words — or even less...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The stupid thing is that the search business that they are suing is actually driving business to them? If only in a minor way (sans advertising).
sudo mount --milk --sugar
Years ago, there was a current story (same day) that was indexed by Google but which the originating site had pulled from the web. Google wouldn't provide a copy of their cache for it and only give me a short snippet in the search results.
So I took two or three words at the start of the snippet, turned them into a quoted phrase, and did a "site:" search of them and the headline. That got me a few more words. Same for words at the end of the snippet. Pretty soon I had the entire paragraph.
However, Google wouldn't give preceding or following words past the paragraph mark, so I had to guess at unique words that would be in other paragraphs, and no clues as to the order of the paragraphs. I do believe I managed to retrieve the entire story in this manner without providing a hit for the originating site, but then, they apparently didn't want the traffic since they'd pulled the story from the site.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
I'm gonna copyright... having dumbass copyrights.
You can't copyright that. That requires a dumbass patent.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
... but if it is, I'm about to violate their copyright: "a temporary and transient act of reproduction is intended to enable".
Seriously, this is just ridiculous. After all... hold on, I feel another copyright violation coming... "a text extract of 11 words, the evidence submitted to the" Sorry. Now, as I was saying this is just ridiculous. How can snippets that small be still covered by copyright? Does this mean that snippets of 10 words are allowable? If not, what about 9? At what point does the copyright status end?
Oh, and one more: "the last act in the data capture process at issue in". There, now the ECJ can come after me for three acts of copyright infringement.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of..."
Oh crap.
Have gnu, will travel.
Ewww
weinersmith
to get overrun by barbarians again ... bring it on mahmoud
beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
As a software developer and musician I appreciate the concept of IP law. However, it has been gamed by corporate interests so much over the last 160 years that it no longer serves society, or the constituency it was created to enfranchise.
Essentially it has become a vehicle for corporate welfare for organizations that don't even create content, let alone art.
Patent law is even worse in that it has become a weapon to stifle innovation and invention rather than foster it, and protect the public interest in expanding the national knowledge base.
The entire IP law system needs to be re-implemented, but I don't see how that could happen until corporations are put back on the strict accountability to public good leash, and heeled.
The public-stock corporate animal is a very intelligent and cunning beast, but like a poorly trained and disciplined dog has become a dangerous, sociopathic liability to society, and seriously impedes the exercise of responsible democratic government. /soapbox