The Rise of the Copyright Trolls

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In the new mass filesharing suit brought in Washington, DC, on behalf of a filmmaker, Achte/Neunte v. Does 1-2094, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Citizen, and two ACLU organizations have filed an amicus curiae brief supporting a motion by Time Warner to quash the subpoena. EFF commented: 'We've long been concerned that some attorneys would attempt to create a business by cutting corners in mass copyright lawsuits against fans, shaking settlements out of people who aren't in a position to raise legitimate defenses and becoming a category of 'copyright trolls' to rival those seen in patent law.'" And reader ericgoldman notes a case that arguably falls under the same umbrella: "Sherman Frederick, publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, wrote a blog post declaring 'Copyright theft: We're not taking it anymore.' Apparently upset that third-party websites are republishing its stories in full, the newspaper 'grubstaked and contracted with a company called Righthaven ... a local technology company whose only job is to protect copyrighted content.' Righthaven has brought 'about 22' lawsuits on behalf of the newspaper, including lawsuits against marijuana- and gambling-related websites. Frederick hopes 'if Righthaven shows continued success, that it will find other clients looking for a solution to the theft of copyrighted material' and ends his 'editorial' (or is it an ad?) inviting other newspapers to become Righthaven customers. A couple of months back Wendy Davis of MediaPost deconstructed some of Frederick's logic gaps."

Comments

Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[mcgrew]

If one equates copyright infringement with theft, he or she is either trolling of ignorant. The same goes for "think of the poor starving artists, homeless in their nansions", "I don't just have a monopoly, I own the work itself", etc.

Of course, many of these aren't trolls but astroturfing. Sadly, the trolls seem to be winning on all fronts -- copyright trolls, patent trolls, and slashdot trolls.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[cornicefire]

But it can have the same effect on a newspaper or a blog. They make money when people look at ads or buy subscriptions. If you reproduce a large part of the article or somehow intercept the readers, it has the same effect as stealing some money directly from their bank account. So you can quibble over the word "theft", but the comptroller who needs to issue the paychecks and the people who have to write their mortgage checks feel the same thing.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[kalirion]

How about the "information wants to be free" trolls, who insist that just because something can be digitized, it has to be freely available to the masses?

Seems everyone is in either one extreme or the other. Whatever happened to moderation?

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[jedidiah]

Yes, "information wants to be free" trolls like Thomas Jefferson.

Expansive copyright interferes with free speech in general, political discourse and basic academic pursuits. It also allows for Big Media to bully new talent.

The Review-Journal is more in danger of becoming irrelevant than "stolen from".

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you are one of those trolls since I claim rights on that statement and by not paying me you are more or less stealing that money from my bank account. Thief!

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

If one equates copyright infringement with theft, he or she is either trolling of ignorant.

So you are saying if I disagree with you then I *must* be a troll because you are obviously right...

Republishing stories in full without crediting the original author is plagiarism. Basically taking someone else's work and passing them off as their own in order to garner hits, elevate the status of their blog, and possibly earn some revenue from Google advertising.

Even if they give proper credit to the original author, they are republishing the work without the author's consent which equals copyright infringement.

Copyrights exist to protect the works of the authors. The author had to spend money to research their articles and should expect some protection from poachers. I see nothing wrong with fair use that republishes a small portion of the article with a link to the full article, but to republish a significant portion of an article is not only bad manners it's also copyright infringement which is a crime.

The fact that copyright infringement does not equate to what is traditionally thought of as theft does not make copyright infringement any less wrong or any less of a crime. Save your strawman arguments for another time. This has nothing to do with your addiction to share MP3s.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[jgagnon]

By definition, there are no "moderate activists". So nobody is pushing the cause of moderation.

It's a vicious circle of mediocrity. ;)

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[betterunixthanunix]

You know, I can still remember a time when the Web and the Internet in general were being hailed as the coming of a golden age of information availability, where people would be able to find information faster than ever before. What happened to that view of the Internet?

Oh, that's right, a group of people whose businesses are based on information not being available started suing people left and right.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[EvilBudMan]

Yeah, we'll lets think about software patents for a minute....Why? It's totally insane and so is this. Yep, the US is going down the tubes without anyone else left. OK we will have a depression followed by global war. The human race cannot stand another world war so we need to get our stuff together and get rid of nonsense like this.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[postbigbang]

For the sake of argument, consider that search engines aren't perfect, and people often click based on SE captions of hits.

You're a newspaper that uses GoogleAds. You're also the original author and copyright holder of an article. Some other site with a name that suits someone better-- for whatever reason-- has the same article and that person clicks on that third party site-hosted article, instead of the 'original'. The newspaper loses the revenue associated with GoogleAds or whatever clicks that add to their advertiser demographics. They were robbed of the click. Clicks==revenue.

The other site has no license or authority to reproduce an article in whole. Fair use portions are perfectly acceptable. In the case where articles are lifted wholesale, attributed or not, in lieu of an authorization to do so, that site is misappropriating the copyrighted content.

The proof is in the dilution of money-producing clicks. Do you understand it now?

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[cornicefire]

I routinely skip articles after reading summaries on BoingBoing. I don't read them on the original site even if I go to the site regularly. What kind of proof do you imagine?

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[brit74]

Yes, "information wants to be free" trolls like Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson supported copyright. Yes, he supported a shorter version of copyright than we currently see, but don't try to co-opt Jefferson into some extreme "information wants to be free" supporter - which, by definition, requires that Jefferson opposed any form of copyright.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

This has been said a thousand times over, but somehow, nobody ever seems to get it.

Well actually the newspapers have been losing money from the loss of ad sells. This has been very well documented and the primary reason being that advertisers will not spend money when readership is in decline. The reason readership is down is because the articles can be read elsewhere for free.

The reason newspapers are going to the "pay wall" system is that the only ones that benefit from banner ads is Google and bloggers with very little expenses. After all, how much does it cost to cut and paste? Google is like a casino. They don't care who wins or loses because they always get a share of the money. Bloggers are happy with the small amount of money they get because they don't have the expense. Newspapers are screwed because they spend money for the articles, and watch other people benefit from their work.

The problem is not the lack of proof.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[DJRumpy]

And yet you yourself don't use the word 'theft' to describe the same situation, but rather you chose to use 'plagiarism'.

"Republishing stories in full without crediting the original author is plagiarism. Basically taking someone else's work and passing them off as their own in order to garner hits, elevate the status of their blog, and possibly earn some revenue from Google advertising."

Copyright Infringement is NOT theft. The owner of said works can open up their hard drive, safe, or wherever they keep the original and verify it is still there. You can argue that by infringing on their work, you are 'stealing' money from them, yet the money has to exist in their accounts before it can be stolen.

Are these copyright owners suffering financial damage from infringement? Possibly yes, but calling it theft is inaccurate. These people are infringing on a copyrighted work. No more, no less. To be fair, OP did imply that the 'starving artists, homeless in their nansions' were acting like martyrs when they are more than likely far from it, but in any case, it is not theft.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[toriver]

YES it does make it less a crime since theft is a criminal offense but copyright infringement is a civil offense.

The "copyright infringement is theft" crowd seems to use the amusing logic that since they both are illegal they must be comparable. Yet they would not equate speeding with serial rape.

Please cite a copyright case where the defendant was accused of theft, then we can say they have been equated.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[Chowderbags]

Trolls trolling trolls troll trolls trolling trolls.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[mcgrew]

Information doesn't want to be free, but when it isn't, neither are you.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[betterunixthanunix]

You have failed to prove that people who are reading the articles on those websites would have otherwise read the articles on the newspaper's official site. What reason is there to believe that people are flocking to these unofficial websites, as opposed to them simply not reading the articles at all? Maybe everyone is too busy on their favorite social networking website. Maybe some random blogger's opinion seems more relevant to people than a journalist's.

So I'll ask you again: prove it.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

YES it does make it less a crime since theft is a criminal offense but copyright infringement is a civil offense.

From the Copyright Law FAQ, by Terry Carroll:

3.3) Is copyright infringement a crime, or a civil matter?

It's always at least a civil matter (a tort). 17 U.S.C. 501(b) details the mechanisms by which an owner of a copyright may file a civil suit, and 28 U.S.C. 1338 expressly refers to civil actions arising under the copyright act.

However, under certain circumstances, it may also be a federal crime. A copyright infringement is subject to criminal prosecution if infringement is willful and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain. 17 U.S.C. 506(a). If the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, during any 180-day period, of 10 or more copies having a retail value of more than $2,500, the offense is a felony; otherwise, the offense is a misdemeanor. 18 U.S.C. 2319.

As a side note, although 18 U.S.C. 2319 purports to prescribe the penalties for criminal infringement, all crimes covered by Title 18 have their penalties determined by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, another part of Title 18.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

You skipped over my quote in the same comment:

The fact that copyright infringement does not equate to what is traditionally thought of as theft does not make copyright infringement any less wrong or any less of a crime. Save your strawman arguments for another time. This has nothing to do with your addiction to share MP3s.

So what was your point?

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[arose]

What would that definition be? There is nothing contradictory about a "information wants to be free, artists want to eat, let's balance the two position", which a reasonably short period of limited copyright represents.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! You just insulted anyone who disagrees with you, and shot down every argument against your argument without ever actually stating what your argument is.

Say hi to everyone at the next Tea Party for me!

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[cornicefire]

A shorter copyright term is only important when we're talking about battles over things like Mickey Mouse. The news is rarely valuable after one month .

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[mcgrew]

Republishing stories in full without crediting the original author is plagiarism

Yes, and I hate plagiarism too; about ten years ago I wrote something that may have been the most plagiarized piece on the internet, but that's not what I was referring to.

And I'm for copyright, although against the extreme times copyrights are granted for these days, and think that non-plagiarising, non-commercial use should be noninfringing.

But copyright infringement is NOT theft. Nor is it rape, nor is it a red canary. Calling it "theft" is either a lie, or ignorant.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[cornicefire]

The information-must-be-free folks have already put a number of newspapers out of business and reduced the headcount at many others. So who's really reducing the available information.

Paywalls don't restrict access to paying customers, just those who don't want to pull their weight.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[Smauler]

The fact that copyright infringement does not equate to what is traditionally thought of as theft does not make copyright infringement any less wrong or any less of a crime.

Ummm... I think you'll find it does. One necessarily deprives the owner of something, the other does not. One is a criminal offense, the other is not.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[LordAndrewSama]

The fact that they have a revenue stream from the adverts is the evidence you need that people would otherwise have read the original work.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[mpeskett]

His point was that copyright infringement is a different crime from theft. Or if that wasn't his point then it's one I'd like to make.

The two things are both illegal, may well both result in financial damage to the victim, bear a certain sort of superficial resemblance, but they aren't the same crime. They don't carry the same punishment (bizarrely the less direct one tends to be punished more harshly, though less often) they aren't seen the same way in public opinion, they are not the same thing.

So it's quite perfectly possible to have a reasoned debate about whether copying should be legalised (making it non-infringing) without that argument also supporting theft being legalised. I for one would support a drastic reduction in the length of copyright terms, to preserve the right to make a buck on your work without depriving the public domain of what would otherwise have been public property (works on which the copyright has expired) for decades/centuries after the creative work was done.

Wait... did I say reasoned debate? I meant hate-filled shouting match. I must be new here.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[Smauler]

That's like claiming that sex is a criminal offense, because some very specific instances of sex are criminal offenses. Copyright infringement is not a criminal offense, profiteering from copyright infringement is, just as sex is not a criminal offense, but rape is.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[Kilrah_il]

But you see, this isn't the point. A news article is copyrighted work. You may not reproduce it in whole on your site without permission. It doesn't matter whether they lost money because of your act or not. It doesn't matter if the copyright laws are an outdated business model or not (BTW, since we are talking about news sites, I guess the whole extended copyright terms issue will not be brought up this time).
The article is the writer's/site's own work and they decide what to do with it. I decide that this comment may be freely distributed by anyone because my ideals/business model/socioeconomical environment dictates such a decision. The author of that article decided otherwise. His choice.
Now after that point is settled (I hope), we can discuss the owner's course of action upon finding out his article is being illegally reproduced: He can hire a lawyer and sue, he can outsource the lawsuit to a firm that specializes in those kind of suits, whatever. But the basic point is that whether money was lost or not, a law was broken.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[yyxx]

What about you stop insulting people and start engaging in a real debate?

Then you might go back and read up on the intent behind copyright and the original copyright terms: 14 years with one renewal for living authors, explicit copyright notice and registration required. Those terms were thought up by some of the greatest minds in US history. Under those terms, tons of stuff ought to be freely available to the masses. The copyright term extensions that have happened since then have not been justified by clear economic data proving that they achieve their intended purpose; they may even be unconstitutional.

Now, if you want to argue about what ought and ought not to be digitizable and copyable, then please start with the historical and constitutional roots of copyright; otherwise, you're just blowing hot air.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Yes but in the context of the parent article. The copyright infringement is willful and for private financial gain (ad revenue). Therefore it is a crime in this case.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that copyright infringement does not equate to what is traditionally thought of as theft does not make copyright infringement any less wrong or any less of a crime.

Ummm... I think you'll find it does. One necessarily deprives the owner of something, the other does not. One is a criminal offense, the other is not.

I think I'll find it doesn't. Profiting off someone else's work while denying them income from it by not linking them IS a criminal offense (see Bill the Engineer above) and IS morally wrong AND, as a final nail in the coffin, DOES deprive the owner of something (ad revenue).

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[andymadigan]

Would you go to the original site more or less if BoingBoing didn't exist? I'm subscribed to the BBC RSS feed, I'm sure I go there more because of the feed even though I skip most of the articles after reading the summary.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

Readership is down because news outlets are not journalists doing real research. Their staff report on blogs and twitter, they take a cheap-n-crap option and then wonder why they lose business. Instead of investing in real journalism, they cut corners crawling more blogs and celebrity gossip. Good riddance to the lot of them.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[hclewk]

No, it is not. Say I follow a blogger and they repost something from the Dallas Morning News' website. I'll probably read it on the blogger's site and may click on an advertisement on that blogger's site.

I don't regularly visit the Dallas Morning News' website, so if that blogger had never reposted that article, I would have had no idea of its existence, and I would not have visited the Dallas Morning News' website and they would not have gotten any ad revenue.

So:
Blogger re-posts?
Blogger: $0.10
Dallas Morning News: $0.00

Blogger does not re-post?
Blogger: $0.00
Dallas Morning News: $0.00

Is that stealing? No. Is it morally wrong? Yes.

Now, this logic only applies to news sites. News is fleeting, and you are much more likely read it on an RSS feed on a blog you follow or by visiting the news site directly than you are to just search for it. Now, if the reposted content is a product/service/business review or a tutorial or something else that isn't fleeting, this argument goes out the window.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[selven]

Whatever happened to moderation?

Everything is best done in moderation... especially moderation.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you can say both.

You can say that you see the that copyright is needed and you can say that information wants to be free.
Both are complementary in a way.
Copyright is the only way to control distribution of information, but in the end information wants to be free, and if copyright is extended to avoid information being free, information will find a way or another to be free.

Both can coexist if we limit both in a fair way.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[tsm_sf]

How about the "information wants to be free" trolls

You mean the ones taking this quote out of context to further their own agenda?

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[ArbitraryDescriptor]

In this example Blogger didn't 'share' Dallas Morning News (DMN)'s product with the world. They sold it (to advertisers), and I'm pretty sure profiting from copyright infringement is a criminal offense. It's true that one cannot determine the revenue lost by DMN by counting the revenue made by Blogger, but this does not mean they don't owe DMN a portion of any proceeds made off of the (unauthorized) distribution of their work.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[hclewk]

That is perfectly true and I don't dispute that. What the blogger did in my example was wrong and illegal, but it is certainly not a black and white case of theft as some of the ancestors in this thread would have you believe.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[Psymin]

Robert's Rules of Order are under copyright. Those rules are used by many groups within our government. Hopefully the version from the 50s will be out of copyright eventually.

This is a *much* bigger deal than Micky Mouse IMO.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[LordAndrewSama]

Granted, if you follow a blogger and don't follow a newspaper, then the newspaper's website would gain nothing if the blogger hadn't existed. but is that 100% of the way people find news articles? Let's say I live in dallas, and I google "bloke who got shot on main street" and click the reposted article in the blog and not on the newspapers website, then what? Personally, I think this approach to finding news is more likely from the technologically impaired. So if a blogger ends up higher in a search results page than a newspaper website? In this situation? yes, the copyright infringement is damaging the revenue stream of the newspapers website.

I agree with what you are saying to an extent, but you say it isn't a black and white world, and you're very much correct in that. I think there should be some protection for content creators in respect of the effort put into creating content. I do not think the USA or the UK or Canada or anyone really has an acceptable solution, and I don't think the content creators can carry on as if the world hasn't changed. Not black and white indeed. the content consumers have changed, the content creators need to change, and so do the laws, but I believe content creators do deserve protection.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[hclewk]

Well said.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[rxan]

But software patents and patents in general are insane for a different reason. Patents often cover a multitude of ideas rather than a single implementation. There are many versions of Avatar: Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas, Fern Gully; they are all the same idea with different copywritten implementations. This is what makes copyrights OK and patents insane.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[Requiem18th]

[[citation needed]]

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[arose]

"The news" are also not copyright protected, particular write-ups, images and videos may be (and no one would agree to give up their copyright after a month, archives are in some ways more valuable), but the facts as such aren't.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[Smauler]

GGGP is wrong. Copyright infringement is not a criminal offense. The GGGP did not state that the copyright infringement is willful and for private gain, I think they are just confused about whether it is a criminal offense. It isn't, apart from in those specific circumstances, which GGGP did not seem to be talking about.

Personally I believe copyright infringement for personal gain should be a criminal offense - it's just using someone else's copyright to make a quick buck. However, I'd guess that at least 99% of copyright infringements are not in this category, so calling copyright infringement a criminal offense when that large a majority of infringements aren't is wrong.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is theft because you are taking someone's work product and depriving them of the ability to make money off of it.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[tomhudson]

Or the blogger could have posted a small quote (1 paragraph) and a link to the rest of the article. The blogger, if they're running their own site, could also include a complete copy of the article in a searchable database. but NOT show the cached copy - only use it for searches so that when a person gets a "hit", they are still directed to the original source.

Yes, this is more work, but if you use geeklog, you can do that by disabling the "Links" menu in the configuration. Your links database is still searchable, but only the title plus a small quote is shown in the results, and when the user clicks on it, they are sent to the originating site.

This is fair to everyone. The originating site gets all the full page views, as well as additional traffic.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[Smauler]

Profiting off of someone else's work is a tiny percentage of copyright infringements that happen, and I agree it should be illegal. I'm not arguing about that. I was talking about copyright infringement in general, which is not a criminal offense. Bill_the_Engineer is also confusing plagiarism with copyright, which is a completely different issue... if I publish the complete works of Shakespeare, and claim I wrote them, that is plagiarism. They're not copyrighted. There aren't specific plagiarism laws AFAIK, but if done for commercial gain plagiarism can and does drop into fraud laws. Plagiarism of non-copyrighted works without profit is not illegal, AFAIK

As far as I understand, the situation is like this :

Standard copyright infringement - eg ripping a friend's CD. Not illegal, and consists of 99% of copyright infringement.
Copyright infringement for profit - selling copies of attributed works in copyright. Dodgy DVD sellers at flea markets, definitely illegal and liable to be sued.
Plagiarising uncopyrighted material without profit - Legal, as far as I can tell, definitely morally wrong IMO.
Plagiarising coprighted material without profit - Falls under copyright laws, not a criminal offense, can be sued.
Plagiarising uncopyrighted material with profit - criminal, falls under fraud laws...
Plagiarising copyrighted material with profit - criminal under both fraud and copyright laws

It's not _that_ tough to understand, I don't think.

Profiting off someone else's work while denying them income from it by not linking them IS a criminal offense
No it isn't, not in itself. If you quickly rewrite someone else's factual story (in which most of the work done was obtaining those facts), and blog it and get ad revenue, you are not breaking any laws. It may be morally dubious, and it may deprive the original author of revenue, but it's not illegal, and you can't be sued for it.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[slashqwerty]

But it can have the same effect on a newspaper or a blog. They make money when people look at ads or buy subscriptions. If you reproduce a large part of the article or somehow intercept the readers, it has the same effect as stealing some money directly from their bank account. So you can quibble over the word "theft", but the comptroller who needs to issue the paychecks and the people who have to write their mortgage checks feel the same thing.

Let's say I run a car dealership in Humphrey Arkansas. I run ads telling people to come to Humphrey for quality cars at fair prices. My dealership has a sign with the same motto. Everyone in the surrounding area knows Humphrey is the place to go for a car. One day another dealership opens up across the street. They put up a bigger sign that reads "Quality Cars at LOW Prices". People go to my competitor instead of me. This directly translates into fewer dollars in my bank account. So you can quibble over the word "theft", but the comptroller who needs to issue the paychecks and the people who have to write their mortgage checks feel the same thing.

Copyright is a government-granted monopoly. Copyright infringement is competition. It is illegal competition; if copyright law were balanced it would even be unethical competition, but it is not theft.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[MacWiz]

After reading many of the comments here, this entire line of argument seems to overlook one basic fact.

Newspapers do not sell news. Newspapers sell ads.

They don't make money when people look at ads, just when they print them. Readership is a number (the revenue is a very small portion of the income) which is used to justify the rates for advertising. The advertisers don't care if you sell it or give it away, as long as you get it into as many hands as possible.

If a story appears in a publication, the newspaper has already been paid (or is owed) as much as they will be receiving for that issue. The amount of editorial content is determined on a basis of a percentage of the overall space vs. how much advertising has been purchased (usually 60% ads and 40% editorial, although a 70/30 split is not uncommon. You maximize advertising by ignoring real news and concentrating on puff pieces that promote the advertisers. Fill the rest with wire service stories.

Even better, get advertisers to give you fully printed inserts (grocery stores are best for this). That way, you don't even need news to balance it.

If you intercept their readers, it's called "competition." Real competition comes when you go to the source and steal their advertisers. That's where the money is.

If you have a newspaper in Alabama and your biggest advertisers are car dealers, having an unauthorized reprint in a Colorado rag (or website) will have exactly zero effect on how many people patronize your advertisers. If your local competition is doing it, that's another story.

...the people who have to write their mortgage checks feel the same thing.

I worked as a newspaper editor before the Internet. None of us made enough money to qualify for a mortgage. Even the publisher rented.

Plagiarism is not acceptable, of course. But it is not "theft," according to the Supreme Court (Dowling v. United States - 1985). Copyright infringement does not "appropriate a physical object," nor does it cost the creator ownership of the copyright. Also, "works that are not sufficiently original, or which constitute facts, a method or process cannot enjoy copy protection."

In addition to exempting much of what could truly be called news, that section alone ought to put every 12-bar blues tune straight into public domain, unless you invented the key of H today.

The writer doesn't own a copyright. The newspaper does. The writer has a 9-5 job that pays by the hour, whether he/she is lifting a story from another publication and rewriting it to fill space, or putting together a Pulitzer Prize winning article, which will pay off regardless of the number of times it has been reprinted without permission. Might even be what puts it on the radar in the first place.

The newspaper biz says it's all about the writers; the music biz says it's all about the artists. In both cases, this is 97% false. With the exception of a few "stars," the idea has always been to pay the writers and artists as little as possible for as much creativity as can be squeezed out of them. Same thing in the movie business, otherwise various groups (writers, directors, actors, stagehands) wouldn't go on strike every time the union contracts came to an end.

All of the indignant self-righteousness is appalling. Those on the moral bandwagon, standing up so tall for copyright, have little to no true concern for the authors and creators; you are fighting to support the corporations which abuse them.

But that's okay. We saw what suing your customers did for the record biz. Now indie film producers are adding themselves to the list of things that the rest of us will never buy or patronize. A subset of us won't bother to take it for free, either.

If you don't want people to read your articles, hear your songs or see your movie, abiding by that give me great pleasure. Saves me a lot of damn money, too.

Tons of free, legal music and movies at the Internet Archive (http://arch

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Actually, I brought up plagiarism because the culprit takes credit from someone else's work. Hence, he steals the credit from someone else and tries to better himself for it.

After establishing that plagiarism is a wrong I took it to the next step of unauthorized duplication, hence my quote:

Even if they give proper credit to the original author, they are republishing the work without the author's consent which equals copyright infringement.

I agree I could have done a better job writing that comment.

heh

[Pojut]

Frederick hopes 'if Righthaven shows continued success, that it will find other clients looking for a solution to the theft of copyrighted material' and ends his 'editorial' (or is it an ad?) inviting other newspapers to become Righthaven customers.

So, is this possibly a Glenn Beck/Goldline type of situation?

Copyright trolls or enforcers

[abigsmurf]

The summary seems to be abusing the negativity around patent trolls and the actions of the companies in question.

This isn't companies sitting on pools of copyrighted content they've no intent to distribute. This is companies hiring a third party to protect their material.

Lots of small companies can't afford their own legal teams to protect themselves so it makes sense to outsource this type of thing.

Re:Copyright trolls or enforcers

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Here's the (PDF warning) complaint in case anyone's interested.

Here's my favorite quote:

Thus, a Defendant's distribution of even one unlawful copy of a motion picture can result in the nearly instantaneous worldwide distribution of that single copy to a limitless number of people.

Re:Copyright trolls or enforcers

[AlexiaDeath]

You try to make it sound like its a fair game. Its not. Guilty or not, a lot of small people people cant afford to fight these attacks and why would they when everybody that has tried has gotten statutory damages awarded to the bullies in amounts that equate direct bankruptcy and do not even resemble fair compensation in way way. Smart legal people see a low cost moneymaking machine in these cases. Sue crap-ton of people on dubious proof, get a contact to go with that IP, that does NOT represent an individual in any way, shape or form and then extort settlements from as many as possible. Legal extortion. Retarded.

Re:Copyright trolls or enforcers

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you really defend the mass filesharing suit though? Its all well and good if the person accused is actually guilty but we all know that the technology for detecting filesharers is nowhere near 100% accurate. So while the ammount demanded to make the case go away is reasonable enough for a guilty person, fact of the matter is, its probably cheeper for an innocent person to pay the fine rather than hire a lawyer to defend them. Definetly as they also run the risk of being found guilty and paying a massive fine. To be honest if I were to get a letter tomorrow accusing me of downloading far cry (which I did not) I'm not sure if I'd fight it because fact of the matter is that I am legally responsible for my network, if a hacker downloaded it (although my network is obviously secured anyone who tells you their security is perfect is either an idiot or a lier) or a guest then its on me an I can't be 100% certain that that isn't the case. Even if I do fight it, fact of the matter is the very best I can hope for is that I'll be awarded lawyers fees, otherwise I will end up paying more to my lawyer than I would have to settle. How is this anything but exortion, the law firm can file thousands a law suits at the drop of the hat, sit back and wait to reap the profits.

Re:Copyright trolls or enforcers

[cornicefire]

You're right that the business game isn't easy for small entities, but it's not fair for them to take all of the advantages of small size without living with the disadvantages. These small bloggers constantly crow about being faster or better focused, but what the reason they're faster is that they don't do any of the work. The bloggers just summarize someone else's work. The bloggers seem to want to be considered to be just as powerful, just as insightful, just as innovative as the big corporations-- but they don't want to live with all of the legal rules that the big guys do.

If you're going to claim that you're just as cool as an official, old-school journalist, then you've got to live with the same rules as the old-school journalists.

Re:Copyright trolls or enforcers

[VisceralLogic]

Here's my favorite quote:

Thus, a Defendant's distribution of even one unlawful copy of a motion picture can result in the nearly instantaneous worldwide distribution of that single copy to a limitless number of people.

Not having read the complaint, I don't know what the context of that quote is, but it seems reasonable. Once the cat's out of the bag, someone can grab it, put it on BT, and anyone can get it.

Re:Copyright trolls or enforcers

[rxan]

Look what happened to X-Men Wolverine.

But it still hurts the newspaper

[cornicefire]

I know it's a complement and it's not as horrible as giving someone a complement by making out with their girlfriend, but it's still something that hurts the paper. If they don't get ad revenue, they die. If someone really wants to give someone a complement, they'll give a short teaser link with a suggestion to the reader to follow the link and read the piece. A long quote may not seem mean, but it still hurts.

Re:But it still hurts the newspaper

[Rusty KB]

I don't know. If you complement someone by making out with their girlfriend, aren't you initiating a threesome? I'm not sure what that has to do with paper, bit I compliment you on your creativity!

Re:But it still hurts the newspaper

[betterunixthanunix]

If they are really worried about it, perhaps they should stop publishing their content on the Internet. Of course, that would kill them. So would a paywall.

They built their business in an age where creating copies of a newspaper required expensive equipment. That age is gone. To be perfectly honest, the age of "news as a business" is on its way out -- it is time for us to start looking at new ways to pay journalists for their services. Either that, or newspapers need to come up with a really good business model, one that is not based on attacking people who spread the news further.

Re:But it still hurts the newspaper

[biryokumaru]

... it is time for us to start looking at new ways to pay journalists for their services.

It's called blogs. Look it up.

Re:But it still hurts the newspaper

[betterunixthanunix]

There are two issues I have with that:

1. I have not seen many blogs that really fall into the category of "high quality journalism."
2. Blogs are based on the same business model, and will suffer from the same problems.

I am thinking more in terms of a system where journalism is viewed as a public service, so the public pays for it, and the public has the right to copy and disseminate the news as much as they want. Instead of the law being used to limit the spread of that information, the law would be rewritten to prevent abuses of the system, and to ensure that the public has access to reliable and accurate news.

Re:But it still hurts the newspaper

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called blogs. Look it up.

Blogs: The epitome of journalism with integrity....

Re:But it still hurts the newspaper

[cornicefire]

Most blogs I know just grab the work of others and pretend that they did some real work. Look at this brilliant blog post:

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/03/commercially-availab.html

The blogger wrote one sentence. Wow. I can't wait for bloggers to continue when they finally overthrow the evil mainstream media.

Re:But it still hurts the newspaper

[future assassin]

Well until I read Slashdot few minutes ago I never knew Las Vegas Review-Journal existed or probably would even have know it existed but I know of NORMAL. Since I didn't know they existed how would they have lost any money from me not reading their site, and they probably would have got me as a reader if I saw the article on NORML and followed the source link which I always do and a lot of times become a regular as long as they have creative and quality articles..

"Protection"

[betterunixthanunix]

It is interesting that you use the word "protect" to describe the activities of these companies. What exactly are they protecting? It is not the works themselves -- the works are protected by being distributed as widely as possible, so that they do not become lost or forgotten.

What is being "protected" here is an out of date business model, created in an era where making a high quality copy required specialized and expensive equipment. Now things are different, and less than a week's pay at minimum wage is sufficient to make perfect copies of music or movies, and the practice is widespread. Instead of updating business models to reflect the reality of the 21st century, what are these companies doing? Attacking people and attacking technology, hoping to turn back the clock.

Why should we feel sympathy for companies that engage in that sort of behavior? These companies are not protecting anything, they are just trying to scare people away from modern technology through malicious litigation, and trying to turn a profit in that process. I feel no sympathy for them, and I certainly won't defend their abuse of the American judicial system by suggesting that they are "protecting" anything.

Re:"Protection"

[Anonymous Coward]

When will one of you offer a system that compensates the creator of the content?

You focus on the making of copies because it is easy for you to argue, but you always start from the point where the content already exists.

Re:"Protection"

[MadKeithV]

The creator could attempt to ensure / acquire compensation before creating the content.
In other words "donate $500 and I'll write a new song".

Re:"Protection"

[Bill_the_Engineer]

What is being "protected" here is an out of date business model, created in an era where making a high quality copy required specialized and expensive equipment.

You've seem to left out the part that includes money being spent to pay the reporter's salary and his travel expenses. Not to mention the salaries of the support staff that doesn't include distribution.

It appears that the business model that you support involves taking someone else's work, republish it, garner web hits for free, and cash the check from Google. This doesn't sound like a sustainable business model. Of course, you are preserving the work itself by helping it being distributed to a wider audience. This is a flimsy moral argument that ignores the original author's intent or the need to sustain the actual sources of these articles.

Why does it appear that the "new business model" is parasitic? How does this model continue when the host dies?

Re:"Protection"

[Dorkmaster Flek]

This is essentially what I was thinking of as a solution to this problem. Obviously, we cannot turn back the technological clock, and people will never ever ever stop sharing digital content. It's just human nature. In addition, duplication of content once it's created is so trivial and cheap it's basically a non-issue. However, the initial production of that content is what takes time and resources. So it seems to me that this is the actual problem we need to solve, not how to "protect" that content once it's created and loose in the wild.

Re:"Protection"

[Anonymous Coward]

When will one of you offer a system that compensates the creator of the content?

You focus on the making of copies because it is easy for you to argue, but you always start from the point where the content already exists.

live music and merch.... like in the old days.

Re:"Protection"

[rattaroaz]

This was the model for creative art for hundreds of years. There were patrons, who sponsored commission on a work. Afterwards, the patron owned the work, but the rest of the world got to appreciate it. In other words, the patron could use it for whatever purpose they wanted, but the rest of the world could only use it for viewing (modern equivalent of non-commercial purposes imo). The flaw in using this model in the modern era, is that neither group can make sick money. Honest living, yes. Sick money, no.

Re:"Protection"

[betterunixthanunix]

Maybe newspapers could refuse to publish stories unless a certain number of people subscribe? Or, perhaps it is time to change the system at a more fundamental level, and not have news be treated as a business, but as a public service?

Yeah, that second one sounds nice. A system where the public pays for the news. Where the law protects the public's interest in having access to reliable news, rather than putting the public in danger if they dare to disseminate the news further. Or, if the thought of the government paying for news makes you uncomfortable, perhaps it is time for the general public to set up a source of financing that is independent from the government, to pay for news. You know, the people looking out for their own interests.

It is interesting how you dismiss a moral argument as "flimsy," and then present a greed based argument as the solution. Last I checked, the most successful news-driven-by-profit-motive operation was Fox News; do you want to see all news sources degenerate to that level?

Re:"Protection"

[cornicefire]

I can see people saying "never ever stop sharing" after a fun looting episode during the 70s or after Katrina. But people stop when the stores go out of business. And they'll stop "sharing" when the newspapers go out of business too. Then whatever news there is will be kept behind closed walls.

Re:"Protection"

[betterunixthanunix]

"Yeah, getting paid for your work is so out of date!"

Where did I say people should not get paid? I have no problem with people getting paid for their work. My problem is that these companies are attacking the general public. As far as I am concerned, it is time to find a new way to pay journalists and artists. "You're also forgetting that copyright law is vitally important to the GPL and creative commons too."

Please point out where I said we should repeal copyright law. All I said was that it is time for the focus to shift away from greed and toward improving the public's ability to access creative works.

Re:"Protection"

[MadKeithV]

That's the same argument as the peak oil thing though. As content becomes scarcer, it becomes more valuable again too, and new opportunities (with probably entirely different business models) will open up.

Re:"Protection"

[betterunixthanunix]

"they'll stop "sharing" when the newspapers go out of business too."

Why? People will just find a new source for their news. Now that we have a massive, globally deployed network that enables fast communication, news spreads quickly. Of course, good, solid journalism is another story, but the age of greed based journalism is at its end. It is time for a new system to be devised, where journalists are paid for their work without having to rely on the scarcity of information.

Re:"Protection"

[brit74]

Where did I say people should not get paid? I have no problem with people getting paid for their work.

You implied it by undermining the system whereby creators can get paid.

As far as I am concerned, it is time to find a new way to pay journalists and artists.

If you're undermining the copyright system whereby creators get paid, and not suggesting any alternatives, then, yes, you are undermining people's ability to get paid. One of my irritations is when people undermine copyright but don't suggest alternatives or suggest bad alternatives, and act like they're being reasonable.

Please point out where I said we should repeal copyright law.

It's implied in your comment.

All I said was that it is time for the focus to shift away from greed and toward improving the public's ability to access creative works.

Where did you say that?

Re:"Protection"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the content creator the one who has to find a way to get a compensation for his work and to make his business work.
Their current business model is falling apart because it's full of shit and nobody wants to pay outrageous prices for small value. It's an overpriced business and every potential client sees it.

It's obvious to anyone that the copyright holders, who are not content creators, have gained too much money with their overpriced business and are using it to buy laws to extend the monopoly they have on content to be able to charge outrageous prices for content that was created once and want to be paid for it all eternity.

Their business model is doomed because people, their customers, have to work every day to get money to live. And are pissed by the idea of paying the price they are asked for something that was made many years ago. Everyone would like to work only a day and live with the income generated by this one day of work, but it's not possible.

So, fsck the content creators. Find a job that pays for working every day and realize that the money you are trying to steal from people is hard to get with real work.

Re:"Protection"

[jdgeorge]

It seems as if people who claim to support GPL and other effective community-building copyright licenses that depend on the protections provided by copyright law also show blatant contempt for idea of copyright. I'm not talking about the irrational duration of copyright, but the idea that the creator of content should get to set the rules for use of his own content.

Maybe I'm wrong, and the people who don't respect copyright also don't give a crap about the GPL, but if I were to characterize the Slashdot community as a whole on this issue, I'd say it's two-faced.

I don't like the fact that movies are expensive. I don't like paying for news. But if I really want those things that cost money, I'll pay for them. If the content owner makes them available "for free" with advertising, that's even better. But the kneejerk reaction against lawyers who seek to prevent or obtain compensation from people who republish copyrighted material without permission (and especially those who SELL or get advertising revenue from the illegally published material) is appalling.

Re:"Protection"

[brit74]

Yeah, those were the days! Back when governments were monarchies, women had no rights, and men could own slaves. Sometimes the patron model just sounds an awful lot like "make somebody else pay for my entertainment".

Re:"Protection"

[betterunixthanunix]

Actually, the whole point of the GPL is that the authors of creative works should not retain absolute control over the distribution of the work. The fact that the GPL uses copyright law as a means to that end is entirely incidental; it would have been just as effective to rewrite the law itself to grant the public the same rights that the GPL grants.

The whole "GPL is built on copyrights, so free software supporters should not opposed other uses of the copyright system" is misleading and attempts to portray the GPL as another case of "creators get to decide the rules." The point of the GPL is to improve the public's access to software, and the philosophy is based on improving the public's access to information and creative works in general. Sure, dismantling the copyright system entirely, without creating a new set of laws protecting the public's access to creative works, would be a problem for free software supporters. Replacing the current copyright system with a new system that encourages sharing and increases the ability of people to find information, that is perfectly fine for a free software supporter.

Re:"Protection"

[lymond01]

A system where the public pays for the news.

Like NPR?

I hear what you're saying about people protecting their wallets, not their content. And because people need to eat, these newspapers, movie moguls, songwriters still need the money, not just your interest. In terms of online news, much of it is paid for through advertising. So if people aren't going to that particular site because they're reading it elsewhere, that newspaper isn't making money. If there was a technological way of having the attribution follow the article no matter where it is, that would be something. But in the world of cut and paste text, or rip and replay movies, I don't see that as possible. You're back to fundamental funding.

Music is similar -- to really make a living as a musician you need marketing, and that's really what the RIAA is charging for. Sure they shell out 10K or whatever to record a simple album, but it's the 100K to millions of dollars they spend on advertising to get you to buy that album that concerns them. In a world where people don't have to pay for food, a musician could play because he wants to be heard, or feel the applause, etc. Now, they are recorded and sit back and collect their pennies (with the occasional tour if you're huge). But rich and famous musicians are rare. Most musicians [citation needed] I imagine are those you see in bars and other venues who make $2-300 a night having fun or trying to be heard by some studio exec.

Patronage is fine. But money is important.

Re:"Protection"

[betterunixthanunix]

Those were also the days of the rise of science and the scientific method, the invention of printing press, and the beginnings of the industrial revolution. I suppose all those things should be done away with, simply because they happened at the same time as the negative things you mentioned?

Re:"Protection"

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Maybe newspapers could refuse to publish stories unless a certain number of people subscribe?

Sounds unrealistic, and a catch 22. How can you attract subscribers without stories? How can you publish stories without subscribers?

Now if only there was a way you could publish a story and have people come to your site and actually read it. But we need to make sure no one else poaches our story and reap the rewards of our hard work. If only there was a way of doing just that... oh right it's called copyright.

Or, perhaps it is time to change the system at a more fundamental level, and not have news be treated as a business, but as a public service?

Well I'm actually in favor of that. And there are non-profit news organizations being formed that accept donations to collect news stories so that they can be republished by other outlets. But this doesn't take away the for-profit news organization right to protect their works.

Vote with your wallet. Bloggers should support the non-profit news sources and stop plagiarizing the corporate sites. This would also have the added benefit of getting the word out about the non-profit.

This leaves the corporate sites with providing value added in-depth news articles, and the only way to support that model is to actually enforce the current copyright laws.

It is interesting how you dismiss a moral argument as "flimsy," and then present a greed based argument as the solution. Last I checked, the most successful news-driven-by-profit-motive operation was Fox News; do you want to see all news sources degenerate to that level?

That's a strawman argument. No one talking about the quality of the news, just the enforcement of copyright. In fact, your example lends credence to what I've been saying all along. The more valuable a source (by reputation) the more likely it will plagiarized. Fox News is successful because they offer biased news to the "unwashed" masses, yet don't worry too much from plagiarizers because no real research went in their articles anyway.

Re:"Protection"

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I can tell you this.. The printing press did a hell of a lot more to end those things than copyright restrictions ever have. In fact, it was the monarchs who instituted copyright... to protect the slave owners, and themselves from widespread criticism.. The printing press presented a grave danger to their authority.

Re:"Protection"

[arose]

Yeah, getting paid for your work is so out of date!

Leaving the larger issue aside... Copies are not work.

Those actors, photographers, musicians, writers and so on should all be grateful that I deem their lowly works worthy of my time!

Acting is work, the DVDs containing a record of it are not. Photographing is work, prints are not. Composing, performing and singing is work, the CDs containing a record of them are not. Writing, editing and typesetting is work, the books themselves are not.

This does not address how any of the above should be compensated, but it gives a better perspective on the debate.

You're also forgetting that copyright law is vitally important to the GPL and creative commons too.

This is false. They are mostly a protection against overbearing copyright. Basically all of the CC licenses (besides the non-commercial one) can be satisfied by a copyright independent requirement to identify the original author(s). The GPL is bit more tricky, but in the end the only advantage to keeping the source secret would be the ability to say "I can modify this to suit your needs, for a modest charge, no one else can...". It would simply be a bad business decision to lock yourself into that. Besides that, binaries can still be dissembled to figure out their secrets and/or directly modified.

Re:"Protection"

[jdgeorge]

Actually, the whole point of the GPL is that the authors of creative works should not retain absolute control over the distribution of the work. The fact that the GPL uses copyright law as a means to that end is entirely incidental; it would have been just as effective to rewrite the law itself to grant the public the same rights that the GPL grants.
 

Baloney. Fundamentally, the copyright system works as intended as a protection for the creators of publishable material. I only see problems in two areas: Duration and enforcement.

This argument about "improving the public's access to information and creative works" suggests that that ONLY appropriate model for managing publication rights is the GPL model. Even the FSF doesn't promote this view, as evidenced by the various FSF-created licenses (various GPL versions, LGPL versions, GFDL). What the "replacing tthe current copyright system with a new system that encourages sharing..." arguement appears suggest is that it is not the creator of the content, but the government that should determine how published material is distributed.

Consider that MOST of the copyrighted content being created is not source code. If the creator of the work doesn't have the right to control distribution of his product, the incentive to create is seriously damaged.

The patent system is problematic, but a completely separate issue. The abuse of the copyright system to extort payment wrongfully is a problem. However, the basic copyright system, which gives publication control to content creators, is NOT a problem.

Re:"Protection"

[Daniel Dvorkin]

the system whereby creators can get paid

A system whereby creators can get paid ... just not very well. This doesn't mean it's the only possible system.

Most of the payment currently goes to people who have nothing to do with the creation. This is one of the reasons why it's hard to take the IP lobby's "rights of the artists" cant seriously -- anyone who pays any attention knows that "the artists" are the last people to get paid under the MAFIAA system. I don't know about journalism, but it wouldn't surprise me if it works the same way there; certainly reporting isn't known as a high-pay profession.

Re:"Protection"

[clydemaxwell]

you have no 'right' to profit from having an idea. no such right is granted to you anywhere, by anyone, nor does any philosophy imply it is a natural right. except perhaps the philosophy of 'i want money, so you better quit "stealing" from me'.
the 'need' to sustain the sources is not a moral imperative to make their works sacred or uncopyable, it is a need only in that we would consider it nicer to have creative people in our society. but i think it's well-proven that creative people will create, profit or no. if you want to make money off creating, please find a way to do so, and don't punish me for not helping.

Re:"Protection"

[Anonymous Coward]

Pointing to an age-old way of doing things in regards to a specific subject matter doesn't endorse the governing or social ideology of any given time period. Willful flame bait or ignorance from a simple mind?

Re:"Protection"

[Anarki2004]

We're talking about newspapers here, not the recording industry. How much money do you think the NYT makes selling shirts and coffee mugs? Granted, it is probably more money than I see in a large span of time, but that's beside the point. How is a newspaper going to make is money on merchandise?

Re:"Protection"

[Anonymous Coward]

oh grow up. Dorks like you frothing about 'out of date business models' make me sick.
How about you go fucking start a company that produces content before you start lecturing people who arent still in moms basement about how to generate income and keep people employed?

What a typical slashdot freetard dork.

Re:"Protection"

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't until the 20th century that artists were able to make sick money. Records and hi-res printing methods allowed everyone to buy a copy of their favorite musician or painter's work. In the previous era, the owner made all the money because he had the only copy. But in that era, entertainers were dirt poor, and for most of human history have been regarded as part of the lowest levels of society. I'm referring to musicians, actors, and yes, even painters (of course there have been some celebrity painters from centuries ago, but most of them were never rich). Mass media and mass replication have allowed artists to get rich, and because they are rich, to become celebrities. The corporations who sell their work, of course, are getting even richer. Not only were these corporations the only source of music, art, movies, etc, but they also had the power to choose who became a celebrity and who didn't. Now we have Youtube "micro-celebrities" and the ability to freely (as in beer) copy all forms of art. The corporations are still filthy rich but are losing their power.
Just keep in mind that until the modern era, artists were dirt poor and often kicked for others' amusement, and making money off of someone else's art was practically unheard of. These fuckers have it good, they need to stfu and stop bitching.

Re:"Protection"

[rxan]

Journalists are getting paid by relying on scarcity of information? Where did you come up with that? The point of the article is that journalists are creating content and having it blatantly infringed upon. Whether or not information is scarce is a non-issue.

Re:"Protection"

[easterberry]

you have no 'right' to profit from having an idea.

But if I write an essay espousing that idea I have a right to the contents of that essay and protection from someone else taking that essay, selling it behind my back and profiting from my work without my permission. I have a very specific right to that in fact the "copy" right.

Re:"Protection"

[mbkennel]

"There were patrons, who sponsored commission on a work. Afterwards, the patron owned the work, but the rest of the world got to appreciate it. In other words, the patron could use it for whatever purpose they wanted, but the rest of the world could only use it for viewing (modern equivalent of non-commercial purposes imo)"

The most famous work (Las Meninas) by Spain's best painter (Velasquez) happened to stay in the monarch's bedroom for a few hundred years before it moved to the museum. The rest of the world definitely did not get to appreciate it.

Re:"Protection"

[polle404]

It brings to mind another 'organization' who dabbled in the 'protection business'...
I believe they had this funny European accent, and a fondness for Mediterranean food?
of course, they were somewhat less subtle about why you'd need their protection, but the racket's the same?

Re:"Protection"

[Wildclaw]

I don't get why you think Slashdot is pro GPL. There are a lot of people here who don't really like the GPL license, and often for the same reason that they don't like commercial copyright.

I do see where people who like GPL are coming from, but personally I disagree completely with them. I don' t agree with their vision of what counts as "Free".

Can you say RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

The copyright trolls have been with us for a while now.

Plaintiff is no member of the MPAA

[Mojo66]

Obviously only Hollywood companies are allowed to sue american citizens for file sharing.

Moderation?

[mister_playboy]

Whatever happened to moderation?

Moderate posts tend to go unmoderated on /. Where's the fun in that? :)

How can a blogger belive he can just copy an artic

[TheSunborn]

I really think the newspaper is right in this case and I can't belive why the blogger belive he is allowed to just put a copy of (large parts of) an article online on his own page. What he should do is to put a snippet(Normally the first paragraph or so) and then link to the newspaper. (Like google news does).

But when that is said, I still think that suing without even sending a warning is a bit aggresive.

Oh and the reason this kind of lawsuits are so seldom seen is that if the newspaper just send an takedown email, the article will normally be taken down, simply because the guy who put it up there normally know he has no right do so, so he will just take it down when asked.

From the blog post...

[ThisIsAnonymous]

Look at this way. Say I owned a beautiful 1967 Corvette and kept it parked in my front yard. And you, being a Corvette enthusiast, saw my Vette from the street. You stopped and stood on the sidewalk admiring it. You liked it so much you called friends and gave them my address in case they also wanted to drive over for a gander. There'd be nothing wrong with that. I like my '67 Vette and I keep in the front yard because I like people to see it. But then, you entered my front yard, climbed into the front seat and drove it away. I'm absolutely, 100% not OK with that. In fact, I'm calling the police and reporting that you stole my car. Every jury in the land would convict you. Yet, when it comes to copyrighted material -- news that my company spends money to gather and constitutes the essence of what we are as a business -- some people think they can not only look at it, but also steal it. And they do. They essentially step into the front yard and drive that content away.

The part in bold is my emphasis. Is he saying that facts, meaning news, can be copyrighted? That if his paper is the first to publish an article about the outcome of a sporting event, that that should be copyrighted? I agree that an article about the game shouldn't be copied verbatim to another site but copyrighting the facts is ridiculous.
Also worth a laugh is the entire analogy of the Corvette and the "news." They are very different. With the Corvette, he would no longer physically have the Corvette. With the news, he has a copy and now the thief has a copy. What has actually been stolen is the possibility that someone might only see that article on his site. It's now available in two places. This is a lot different than the Corvette. I'm not saying it makes copying articles verbatim OK, I just think the analogy is incorrect.

Re:From the blog post...

[postbigbang]

Plagiarism is plagiarism. Newsworthyness means nothing if it's lifted wholesale and unaltered. That copyrighted works are a 'body' like a 'Vette is real.

Steal the news, steal a 'Vette, both are stealing.

You can take a picture of the 'Vette. Fine.

You can look at it. Fine.

Drive it away, and it's stealing, as its *owner* is denied its benefit, a benefit that he may have paid nothing for, or a lot of money. It matters not what the ownership was worth, rather, that he (presuming his gender; I could be wrong) the fact that he's the actual owner.

To extrapolate, the news was done by someone, and written by them. Someone picked it up and republished it in its entirety, denying the person that owns it (no matter how it came into being) benefits their original work is due them.

Re:From the blog post...

[Bill_the_Engineer]

The part in bold is my emphasis. Is he saying that facts, meaning news, can be copyrighted? That if his paper is the first to publish an article about the outcome of a sporting event, that that should be copyrighted? I agree that an article about the game shouldn't be copied verbatim to another site but copyrighting the facts is ridiculous.

I just wanted to amplify your sentiment, since it got lost in the weird corvette story.

The issue isn't the copyrighting of facts. The issue is the verbatim copying of the source article.

Nothing wrong with saying "I read in John's article that the local team won their away game", but to copy John's article is wrong. Also there is nothing wrong with quoting part of John's article (eg. John reports that "The local team arrived on the field ready for battle, and played splendidly throughout the match" to read more click this link").

Re:From the blog post...

[postbigbang]

Admittedly, the car analogy sucked.

And the owner is denied benefit if someone else republishes it. I've published ten books. Photocopy mine, and should I find out about it, your injury to me will be salved in court.

Re:From the blog post...

[Anonymous Coward]

At this rate we wouldn't be able to talk about any newsworthy event we have seen, because 'all our news belong to them'

Re:From the blog post...

[Anonymous Coward]

To make your point more clear (and show what he is talking about) lets say I have a magical device that can 'clone' that Corvette right down to the little ding on the front bumper.

I show up and clone your car perfectly and drive my perfect copy away. You still have your car but have lost 'something'. As the value of that car is based on scarcity. Physical goods are high priced when there are few of them. But if everyone can make it the value people hold for them is low.

In the case of the newspaper. Yes they still have their copy but now you have lowered the value of their copy by making one.

NOW the point you are trying to make is if the cost to create a perfect copy is extremely low the value of the good is probably not much at all in the first place.

Value is usually derived from scarcity. If a good becomes extremely common the value is near 0 and it becomes more about the cost to move things around than the cost to manufacture.

Now if the cost to manufacture is more than what someone could make off it they will no longer make the good. Then all you end up with is a few generous people making things and everyone else leaching off them.

Times are changing with the way we can copy things. The value of goods is going to fall thru the floor. Which is why you see such a fight to retain the scarcity of goods. Even that will not last forever. Eventually the copy gets out...

Re:From the blog post...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't copyright it, since copyright does not recognize news as able to be copyrighted, and sweat of the brow is not a defense for being able to copyright it. Same issue happened in WW1 with new feeds from Europe being pirated. But the court felt bad and gave them a right to initially distribute, I think like 8 hours before others could repeat the same article. While the sweat of the brow makes a great moral arguement, it's not a valid legal argument, so phone companies can't copyright their phonebooks, newspapers don't own the facts of their stories, etc.

Re:From the blog post...

[mcgrew]

They keep trotting out the stolen car analogy, when anybody with half a brain can see that if you steal my car, I no longer have my car. If you make a copy of my car, why should I complain? Nothing was stolen.

Copyright infringement is not theft. Nor is it rape. It's copyright infringement.

Re:From the blog post...

[Anonymous Coward]

Plagiarism is [citation needed]

What is and isnt ok

[morphotomy]

Its ok to try to protect something you poured your blood sweat and tears into, even if copying it only costs a few pennies. Whats not OK is trying to claim that each infringement costs them thousands of dollars. If youre going to sue for a few MP3s, then do it in small claims court, and do it often. Don't blame one person for the crimes of 10,000.

Re:What is and isnt ok

[betterunixthanunix]

Explain how limiting the distribution of information "protects" that information.

Re:What is and isnt ok

[morphotomy]

It doesnt protect the information, it sustains the creator. The fact is that it takes time and energy to produce intellectual property, and if the rightful owner decides to charge a license fee, thats fully within his rights. Trying to claim that illegally downloading it has caused 1000 dollars worth of damage when its sold for only $10 is ludicrous.

Re:What is and isnt ok

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree but the MPAA and RIAA never wanted to make money off their lawsuits, they wanted to shock people into going legal, and the best way to do that is large lawsuits which will grab headlines and force soccer moms to pay enough attention to make sure that their kids aren't downloading illegally. And to be honest for the non-technically minded it probabbly worked pretty well, but the rest of us know that the chances of getting caught are slim to non. What I'd much rather see is the industry adding value to the legal services that people can't get via the illegal ones to entice people back, its the whole carrot versus stick thing and hopefully they are trying the carrot now (with services like spotify, hulu and steam (although I know steam isn't new its still an example of value added rather than taken away with excessive DRM)).

But these new lawsuits are all about making money, through extortion and should be illegal.

Re:What is and isnt ok

[morphotomy]

A solution to this would be extending public defenders to civil cases. How else can someone defend against a lawsuit (or worse, multiple lawsuits) from an economic Goliath?

Re:What is and isnt ok

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Its ok to try to protect something you poured your blood sweat and tears into, even if copying it only costs a few pennies. Whats not OK is trying to claim that each infringement costs them thousands of dollars. If youre going to sue for a few MP3s, then do it in small claims court, and do it often. Don't blame one person for the crimes of 10,000.

Its too easy to defend yourself in small claim's court so they don't want to sue there. They want a lawsuit where its cheaper to just fork out the money and pay them off than it is to fight.

Re:What is and isnt ok

[spikenerd]

Its ok to try to protect something you poured your blood sweat and tears into...

Even this sounds benign, but is dangerous reasoning. It's really a revenue stream that Copyright holders are trying to protect, not the information itself. Further, the mechanism they use to protect this revenue stream is to tell me what I'm allowed to do with copies. While Copyright may give them that legal right for a limited time, let's not pretend that it is somehow inherently right for content creators to be able to say what I can and cannot do indefinitely just because they poured effort into making something. The content creator didn't ask for me to agree to refrain from copying it in exchange for his labor--he just relied on the government making that agreement for me. But to the extent that the government has drifted away from the constitutional purpose of Copyright, I may still be legally bound, but I am certainly not ethically bound to honor your blood sweat and tears. I work hard to give freely to the world, and I don't think you owe me for that.

Re:What is and isnt ok

[morphotomy]

Thats a bit different. When you buy a license to a work, then you' should be able do what you want with that bit of property. Not satisfied with the fragility of DVDs? Then its perfectly OK to make a copy to your drive. Whats not ok is sending a copy to everyone and their mothers. There are some unjust laws in place to stop us from making legitimate copies, which is terrible. Am I supposed to shell out the price of another copy of windows just because my pc didnt come with an install disc? The DMCA is completely backward in my opinion, as it moves enforcement from legal channels to the IP providers, and as absolute power corrupts absolutely, it is now illegal for me to break the copy protection on a DVD and load it onto my ipod. There is no reason for such law, the system we had before accounted for everything that needed to be covered. Someone is distributing your IP against its licensing terms? SUE! Making it illegal to produce copies of works for use by the license holder is an ass backward revokation of rights, that extorts users into having to purchase extra licenses when the media holding the IP breaks down. Enforcement of law by anyone but law enforcement is gov't sanctioned vigilanteism.

easy solutions

[chronoss2010]

one guy at the cbc page lost it claiming that its a RIGHT GRANTED TO THEM NOT US funny cause who exactly gave him any rights? IT was WE THE PEOPLE THAT GAVE YOU THE RIGHT AND IF ENOUGH OF US GET SICK AND TIRED OF IT We can completely remove copyright and then what will lil artists say when you argue and fight the majority you will lose

Re:easy solutions

[Anonymous Coward]

I DON'T THINK you used enough CAPITAL LETTERS. Could you USE SOME MORE and REPOST? KKTHXBAI

that's the wrong issue

[circletimessquare]

the issue is not the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the enforcers, the issue is the legitimacy or illegitimacy of what is being enforced

the very concept of copyright itself is coming under question as to its validity due to technological progress (the internet)

there is an entire body of legal status quo that was developed in an age of vcr tapes and vinyl records and xerox machines. much of it is fundamentally at odds with how the internet functions

such that renegade nongovernmental organizations exploiting this disconnect between legal status quo and technological status quo is genuinely dangerous

we are talking about the financial victimization of individuals of limited legal means who have committed no moral crime, but are simply riding the wave of technological progress... while being pulled down by an undertow of legal anachronism

much of ip law needs to be junked, due to the rise of the internet and the new status quo for how media is distributed. understandings of what is "right" and "wrong" based on dead technological eras are not valid. of course, they are still legally valid, and that's the whole problem with these free enterprise legal goon squads

Re:that's the wrong issue

[dwandy]

we are talking about the ... victimization of individuals of limited ... means who have committed no moral crime

mankind has burned witches before and sadly we'll burn 'em again. All most of us can hope for is that we're not identified as one until this blows over.

Re:How can a blogger belive he can just copy an ar

[AlexiaDeath]

Takedown warning is fine. Even a suit against a single persistent copy-blogger is fine. Suing a crap-ton unnamed individuals is not.

Warner v. Warner

[mdmkolbe]

Aren't Time Warner Cable and Warner Brothers owned by the same company? Couldn't this motion come back to bite them if WB ever wants to sue TWC customers?

(On the other hand, maybe their plan is to make it hard for their competitors to sue, but helpfully provide customer details whenever WB asks.)

Time will show you

[Anonymous Coward]

Embrace Copyrights as you will serfdom..... Get rich soon or else !

How many deaths?

[stephenn1001]

Interesting study would be to see how many deaths are caused by these mass court orders. I know at least one person that could "tip over the edge" if they are hit with a $5,000 lawsuit.

Re:How can a blogger belive he can just copy an ar

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems odd that one is allowed to prevent a specific wording, no matter how large, from being spread by others.
Yes, prehaps it "protects" their model of income, perhaps it is necessary for them to continue with what they do. But do we really want it to be allowed to lock in information in that way? Does their income outweight the benefit to society?
If the information they provide is important enough to protect then it is probably too important not to spread.
If it is so damn important to protect a newspaper and the information they provide then perhaps it is better to fund it by public means and provide the information they provide to everybody.

Copyright 101

[Anonymous Coward]

Must be an original creative work. The facts presented cannot be copyrighted, nor the arrangement of such facts. The work must be of such sufficient length as to be original in both form and content. Nothing prevents someone from linking to a site and paraphrasing the content in a summary. Nothing prevents a site from barring direct access to the site (paywalls, etc.) Copyright holders (not 'owners') can control all manner of how the content is copied except for fair use criteria, which almost no one understands. Unless the copyrighted material is registered, the damages that one can claim in court for infringement are limited. Liability for infringement is based on intent, such as reselling or not. Claims for damages cannot be based on ad hoc business models. For example, you cannot claim that copyright infringement hurt your t-shirt sales because someone linked to your blog, or your dog washing business or your restaurant, etc. You need to prove a direct link between infringement and loss of sales. You can claim against lost sales instead of the stricter lost income, which means that even if you are losing money selling your copyrighted material you can claim damages.

The people going to court hear a motivated by money, not legal arguments, so it's simply a question to them of time and money.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Patent Troll vs Copyright Troll

[brit74]

One major difference between patent trolls and copyright "trolls" is the fact that people and companies can accidentally violate a patent or violate a patent on the way to implementing some technology - they can be victims of patent minefields. Copyright, on the other hand, can't be violated without someone intentionally violating copyright. Yes, we can still agree that the size of the copyright-violation punishment is too large, but I think equating patent trolls and copyright trolls is fallacious. Are we going to call companies who slap shoplifters with overly large penalties "shoplifting trolls", or call groups who hit car thieves with big punishments "car theft trolls"?

Re:Patent Troll vs Copyright Troll

[maugle]

Are we going to call companies who slap shoplifters with overly large penalties "shoplifting trolls", or call groups who hit car thieves with big punishments "car theft trolls"?

Only once they start suing everyone near the store during the time of the shoplifting, and everyone within two blocks of where the car was stolen.

Re:Patent Troll vs Copyright Troll

[Chowderbags]

And when shoplifting a $20 item results in a fine of $150,000 or more.

Strange Bedfellows - Re:Copyright trolls or enforc

[dpilot]

Does anyone else find it odd to see the EFF and MPAA on the same side for a court case?

The EFF's motivations I understand. I guess I need to RTFA, but my gut-level guess at the MPAA's motivation is, "Only big guys like us (MafiAA) who can afford a stable of lawyers and a few purchased legislators deserve copyright protection."

How attorneys can print money

[Picass0]

1) A lawyer copies a story from your newspaper and posts it anonymously on a blog or user aggregated news site. Then that same attorney runs to you and says "They stole your story! You should sue!!!"

2) Repeat

3) Profit.

Re:How attorneys can print money

[Anonymous Coward]

yea, and the government is watching your every move... YOUR every move. They also tapped into your sewer line to monitor your stools.

Re:How attorneys can print money

[Anonymous Coward]

you forgot these steps:
1b) as per DMCA, since this is a third party posting, you or the attorney has to send a request to the blog or news site before filing suit.
1c) blog removes your post.
1d) No profit.

I fail to see how anyone can consider...

[Anonymous Coward]

...stealing someone else's work "making information free".
Lets say you're a new, small time stand up comic, you come up with a really clever bit. Then Dane Cook, a much more famous stand up, hears your joke at some small club and copies it verbatim into his act. Now any time you try to tell that bit everyone boos you and claims you're "ripping off Dane Cook". Everyone who knew you thought of it first would agree that Dane "stole your joke". Since your business to to provide the service of writing and telling jokes, he has denied you the ability to get paid for services you performed and unfairly coopted your work. He is getting paid for something you created and you are not.
This is clearly morally wrong. Dane did not stop you from having the joke, but he has removed your ability to make a living off of it.

The fact that it's small blogs stealing articles from larger papers does not change the fact that the person who created the content has the right to profit from their service (researching, reporting, writing, editing, etc.) and someone who comes along with a ctrl-c ctrl-v does not and should be punished for doing so.

Re:I fail to see how anyone can consider...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe this small joke was the only thing worth of value of the entire comic show.
Dane Cook doesn't steal anything if he uses a joke on his show. All jokes are variations of previous ones, no one creates in vacuum.
If Dane Cook made a CD with this joke and wanted to live from it's sales alone and by suing other people to limit the use of the joke, I would hate him.
But if he gets paid for a show and has to work to get paid, I don't see why he can't. It's a job.

Also, if I'm a stand up comic and I'm so clever to come up with this joke, so that even professionals hear me, I'm on the way of getting paid for my job. I can think something new because my job is to think new jokes and get paid for making fun shows.

If I expect to get paid forever for a single joke and my entire career depends on a single joke, then I'm full of shit and I deserve that someone more clever uses it.

Re:I fail to see how anyone can consider...

[easterberry]

If Dane Cook copies, word for word, a joke Dimitri Martin wrote. He stole Dimitri's joke. Because the nature of jokes involves subverting expectations, every time a joke is told, the less funny it becomes because more and more people now expect the previously twist ending. That's why nobody tells jokes about airline food anymore. It's been done to death.

Comedians don't get get paid because they tell jokes. Any idiot can take a list of jokes and tell them. If that was all you had to do I would be out there doing Mitch Hedbergs set every night and raking it in. What comedians get paid for is WRITING and telling them. Their bread and butter is the creative process, the writing, and the coming up with the jokes. Same with reporting. It's not the facts that you're paying for. Nobody is saying facts shouldn't be free here. But the people who go out and spend money to uncover those facts, photograph them, write them into an article and edit them for easy reading deserve to be reimbursed for the time and effort they spend doing those things.

And by the way, observational humour is not based on other jokes. It's based on observation. I see something, I think of something clever to say about it and then I work that clever thing into a full joke with proper setup, timing, wording and punchline. Stand up comedians don't go up and tell various permutations on why the chicken crossed the road.

Re:I fail to see how anyone can consider...

[Anonymous Coward]

Writing and telling, writing and telling, writing and telling, and so on.

If I'm a comedian and another comedian steals me a single joke that finishes my career, I was not a good comedian or at least not one that could live from being comedian. Because this job requires that you write and tell many times and create new jokes and come up with new and clever shows.

So, the first post analogy of a comedian stealing a single joke is a joke by itself.

If you base your career on a single work of art, a single creation, you are not good at this business, you are gambling and expect to win the lottery.

What a tool

[WillyWanker]

Sherm and the rest of his Journal pals are pure right wing jackasses. I lived in Vegas for 2 years and promptly cancelled my paper subscription because I couldn't put up with it anymore.

It's one thing when their views are limited to the Opinions section, but when it's pervasive throughout the entire paper it's too much. And then he wonders why no one is buying his rag.

Re:What a tool

[orgelspieler]

While they may be a bunch of jerks, they certainly have had their copyrights infringed. PLAN apparently didn't always just summarize their "clippings" like they do now. They used to take the entire article and serve it directly (well, they hotlink the photos). They could have just used frames, I guess, or just link to the original article from the get go.

Re:What a tool

[orgelspieler]

Although, they do seem to be targeting liberal organizations disproportionately.

Re:What a tool

[WillyWanker]

If he was really interested in "protecting" his copyright he would just issue cease and desist letters. These guys aren't in competition with him, so it's not like they are causing any kind of financial harm. Hell, they aren't even in the news business.

No, this is all about extorting money from these schlumps in order to generate revenue to save his dying newspaper empire.

Why bother trying to reinvent yourself for the 21st century when you can make up for lost profits thru extortion?

Re:What a tool

[easterberry]

cease and desist letters are no good. This is the internet. news is only worth reading for what? 5 hours? 6? before it's obsolete. By the time the cease and desist gets to the blogger and they finally comply to it the potential ad revenue is already lost. If they want people to not steal, sorry, "pirate" (I hate it when people "pirate" jokes from other sites) their intellectual property is to make it painfully unprofitable and dangerous for them to do so.

Re:What a tool

[WillyWanker]

See, but that's just it. These aren't news sites. They aren't taking traffic away from the Review-Journal. If anything they can drive traffic TO them thru links.

Copyright laws were not designed to be used as an alternative profit stream. Nor to be used as extortion leverage against those who cannot realistically defend themselves in court.

And these weren't "timely" news stories either, so that argument fails too.

Re:What a tool

[easterberry]

The issue is that they AREN'T linking the articles though. They're just copying and pasting them and then putting them on their blog in full, and even if they do link, if the whole article is on their site why would anyone click through to read the exact same thing on the original page?

Who exactly are we talking about?

[jmactacular]

When we say bloggers, do we mean sites like Slashdot?

Re:How can a blogger belive he can just copy an ar

[Anonymous Coward]

I really think the newspaper is right in this case and I can't belive why the blogger belive he is allowed to just put a copy of (large parts of) an article online on his own page. What he should do is to put a snippet(Normally the first paragraph or so) and then link to the newspaper.

Most news isn't much longer than a single paragraph.

I think these lawyers are in for a surprise

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I think these lawyers handling these small bogus cases on a contingent basis might possibly be in for a surprise. Maybe they thought the RIAA was 'making it up on volume', but I doubt it. I have a strong hunch that the RIAA spent more on prosecuting the cases than it received in settlements and other recoveries.

I'm guessing that these lawyers will be laying out a lot of money, and a whole lot of time, and their fees won't even come close to what they expend.

Which of course, serves them right for being involved in extortionate, champertous, unnecessary litigation.

Re:I think these lawyers are in for a surprise

[knifeyspooney]

Ray, these lawyers are mimicking the mode of operation of the RIAA gang. Thanks in part to your reporting, we know of some possible attack vectors against it. We know they are using illegal joinder. We know they can't profit unless most of defendants settle. And we know they depend on each defendant's isolation, so they won't know what the weaknesses are and they won't fight. Knowing what we do now, how can the community come together to help? How can we inform the defendants of their options, and how can we fight the plaintiffs directly?

Re:I think these lawyers are in for a surprise

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Ray, these lawyers are mimicking the mode of operation of the RIAA gang. Thanks in part to your reporting, we know of some possible attack vectors against it. We know they are using illegal joinder. We know they can't profit unless most of defendants settle. And we know they depend on each defendant's isolation, so they won't know what the weaknesses are and they won't fight. Knowing what we do now, how can the community come together to help? How can we inform the defendants of their options, and how can we fight the plaintiffs directly?

Good questions. Very, very good questions. To which I do not know the answer.

I am very troubled by this issue. What "community"? I don't see a "community".

The Irony!

[ZipK]

I particularly enjoy when Slashdot quotes articles about lawsuits aimed at websites that quote articles.

Copyright theft: We're not taking it anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright theft: We're not taking it anymore
Posted by Sherman Frederick
Friday, May. 28, 2010 at 02:40 PM

What's the essence of a newspaper?

I love that question. As the President and CEO of Stephens Media it gives me a chance to list the attributes of the newspaper business I love.

1. A good newspaper maintains a good local sales force which calls on every business in a given market, forming a relationship that bonds the newspaper to the business community. Few organizations, if any, have that kind of sales muscle. A well-managed newspaper sales force is truly a beautiful thing to behold.

2. Business partnerships with independent distributors that goes to every street every morning in the community. It's a remarkable feat when you consider that within a three-to-six hour window, news goes from computer and camera, to press, to newsprint, to bundles and to doorsteps. Three hundred and sixty five days a year.

3. The production crew that every night works their magical craft to produce a newspaper on deadline and then prepackages it with inserts. No misses. Even when there are mechanical problems, late news, or power outages. No misses. Ever.

And, of course, there are any number of people in various departments -- such as myself -- who help facilitate all of this.

But, if there's one thing that is "the essence" of a newspaper it is content -- the news, information, pictures and opinion that makes any given newspaper worth a reader's time and money.

It is the protection of that journalism that I want to talk about today.

Look at this way. Say I owned a beautiful 1967 Corvette and kept it parked in my front yard.

And you, being a Corvette enthusiast, saw my Vette from the street. You stopped and stood on the sidewalk admiring it. You liked it so much you called friends and gave them my address in case they also wanted to drive over for a gander.

There'd be nothing wrong with that. I like my '67 Vette and I keep in the front yard because I like people to see it.

But then, you entered my front yard, climbed into the front seat and drove it away.

I'm absolutely, 100% not OK with that. In fact, I'm calling the police and reporting that you stole my car.

Every jury in the land would convict you.

Yet, when it comes to copyrighted material -- news that my company spends money to gather and constitutes the essence of what we are as a business -- some people think they can not only look at it, but also steal it. And they do. They essentially step into the front yard and drive that content away.

Well, we at Stephens Media have decided to do something about it. And, I hope other publishers will join me.

We grubstaked and contracted with a company called Righthaven. It's a local technology company whose only job is to protect copyrighted content. It is our primary hope that Righthaven will stop people from stealing our stuff. It is our secondary hope, if Righthaven shows continued success, that it will find other clients looking for a solution to the theft of copyrighted material.

We're at the beginning stages of this. About 22 lawsuits have been filed against a variety of websites, ranging from those that report marijuana news to sports betting sites.

As a sidebar, one such site, PLAN, tried to defend itself by saying we picked on them because they are a politically liberal website. One media inquiry asked whether the "right" in "Righthaven" is an indication of a secret motive to pick on only copyright robbers who maintain politically left websites.

We can't fix crazy. Or paranoia. But we can fix pilfering.

If you operate a website (liberal or otherwise) and don't know what "fair use" is in the context of American copyright and Constitutional law, then I suggest you talk to your copyright lawyer and find out. Otherwise, at the risk of overusing this analogy, I'm callin' the police and gettin' my Vette back.

Postscript: If you'd like find out more about working with Righthaven to protect your copyrighted material or you would like to inquire about using any of my company's content, you may do so by contacting our general counsel, Mark Hinueber, at mhinueber@stephensmedia.com.

As long as you cite your source

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter, it falls under fair use. As long as someone provides a link linking directly back to the original article no one can say shit.

The court would agree with me.

Though i'm not so sure about the Supreme Court, with their treasonous decisions as of late.

Reporters are copythefts :/

[Anonymous Coward]

News should be a verbatim copy of reality.
If they are copying, following their reasoning, then they are stealing.

Easily fixed...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing going on here that cant be stopped with a gun.