Slashdot Mirror
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."
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?
Living With a Nerd
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What is being "protected" here is an out of date business model, created in an era where making a high quality copy required specialized and expensive equipment.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.
Palm trees and 8
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.
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?
Whatever happened to moderation?
Moderate posts tend to go unmoderated on /. Where's the fun in that? :)
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
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.
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.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
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.
Information doesn't want to be free, but when it isn't, neither are you.
Free Martian Whores!
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.
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.
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.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful