Newspapers' New Revenue Plan — Copyright Suits

SpicyBrownMustard writes "Wired magazine has coverage of the numerous lawsuits recently filed by Righthaven, LLC regarding the content of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. 'Borrowing a page from patent trolls, the CEO of fledgling Las Vegas-based Righthaven has begun buying out the copyrights to newspaper content for the sole purpose of suing blogs and websites that re-post those articles without permission. And he says he's making money.' The owner of the LVRJ has commented on the strategy, and the Las Vegas Sun has extensive coverage of each suit filed. The owner of one site has apparently settled for more than the site has made in six years. Media Matters suspects many of the suits may be politically motivated, and thus violate federal election law."

Comments

The guy isn't exactly innocent either

[SquarePixel]

The owned of acdc-bootlegs.com site mentioned in the summary isn't exactly innocent either.

To begin with, the site is devoted to offer downloads of bootlegs, which according to current copyright laws is illegal. Even if you don't think it's a big deal, you have to go by laws.

What the current lawsuit is about is the use of copyrighted content from news sites (and not in fair use manner), again a copyright infringement.

Then he is also doing click fraud:

One thing you can do is click on the Google ads on the left side of all of the pages on this site. I make a few cents from each click, which will go directly to paying the settlement. So the more you click, the more you help. And it's free to you! You do not need to fill out any forms or submit your personal information; just click on the link, let the page load and go from there.

The way the /. story title and summary is worded makes it sound bad, but this guy is also blatantly breaking several laws and frauding advertisers to generate money. He just got what he asked for. He should be happy AC/DC or Google hasn't sued him.

Re:The guy isn't exactly innocent either

[eldavojohn]

The owned of acdc-bootlegs.com site mentioned in the summary isn't exactly innocent either.

To begin with, the site is devoted to offer downloads of bootlegs, which according to current copyright laws is illegal. Even if you don't think it's a big deal, you have to go by laws.

So when those copyright holders come knocking, he should be prosecuted for that. Why are you trying to smear together two separate cases of alleged copyright infringement? Is it easier to wave your hands and say "it'll never happen to Slashdot?" If you're trying to put me at ease that this won't happen to me because I don't also commit other crimes, it's not working. I submit many articles to Slashdot and I quote many articles in my comments here as I dissect news. Will they sue me for my karma?

The way the /. story title and summary is worded makes it sound bad, but this guy is also blatantly breaking several laws and frauding advertisers to generate money. He just got what he asked for. He should be happy AC/DC or Google hasn't sued him.

Then let him be charged for click fraud (is that even illegal?) and bootlegging movies. If he's being charged for reposting news articles, we should probably talk about that and the sort of growing mentality that may come with it if it turns out to be profitable to sue under. I don't care about his speeding tickets or other things he may be guilty of. Your ad hominem attack may help in a court of law as character assassination but given the number of these suits, it's not putting me at ease.

Re:The guy isn't exactly innocent either

[godefroi]

I agree. Some wannabe-journo "blogger" or someone looking to get a "news" website started plagiarized some newspaper content, and gets busted. I think it's a good thing, even though I'm generally in favor of weaker (meaning drastically shorter) copyrights.

Rule of law, people. Rule of law. If you don't like the law, get it changed though the various means available to you.

Re:The guy isn't exactly innocent either

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

So you're posting on Slashdot...where hordes of experts and wannabe-experts comment on articles posted here from other locations. Would you be more approving of him if he simply cited his sources? As one of my old profs used to say, that was the difference between academic writing and plagiarism.

Re:The guy isn't exactly innocent either

[SquarePixel]

Slashdot just summarizes the stories and provides links to the source articles. That is fair use. The guy was just copying the whole articles.

Re:The guy isn't exactly innocent either

[SquarePixel]

There is this thing called fair use. When you quote a part of an article to make comments about it, that is fair use. You are also allowed to take a part of video clip and make a comment about it, so that your viewers can see what you are talking about. That is also fair use.

Separate cases don't matter, I was just pointing out that the guys site is otherwise illegal too and he doesn't seem to care about any of that. Also, click fraud can be generally charged as fraud.

Re:The guy isn't exactly innocent either

[hairyfeet]

But Fair Use is an affirmative defense (I believe it is the correct term) which means you still have to get to the point that you are standing in front of a judge so you can say "I believe this is Fair Use because" (a judge ultimately decides if it is or isn't) and due to the frankly insane cost of lawyers fees the odds are you'll go bankrupt before they will, which makes this a great weapon against speech.

I think we should be calling lawsuits over imaginary property what they are: Legalized extortion. Because most folks simply cannot afford to defend themselves against the bullies, who go "Hey, it'd be a shame if you lost everything you own due to bankruptcy. Give me $5k and I won't fuck you over". It doesn't matter whether one is guilty or innocent anymore, it is whether you can afford to fight back or not , and most of us simply can't. Just one more way democracy has been destroyed by those with money.

Re:The guy isn't exactly innocent either

[eugene ts wong]

:^D Hey, we should create a template for that. The template would contain quotes from tons of people, so that you only need to copy from 1 person. This save us so much time, and bring down the cost of research. ;^P

Re:Takes one to know one.

[NiceGeek]

Who exactly is Media Matters suing? Last I checked, being affiliated with a political movement didn't mean you couldn't state your opinion.
Of course I'm not sure why I'm bothering responding to an AC.

Dumb

[Bryansix]

Anybody with half a brain realizes that facts are free but content is not. I'm actually happy that these websites that simply repost content so they can steal the ad revenue are being sued. How lazy do you have to be to not just write your own content on the same exact subject and do some semblance of research on the topic?

Re:Dumb

[CheshireCatCO]

Well, for one thing: in a lot of the cases, it sounds like the site owners aren't posting the content, it's user-uploaded. That calls for a take-down notice, not a lawsuit. So they're more likely trolling for lawsuit money and not interested in protecting IP.

Also, it isn't clear to me how much of each story is being reposted. Is it the whole thing without commentary? Snippets within a much larger post? Somewhere in between?

Not entirely evil

[Enderandrew]

I know this seems evil, but in the end, journalism is important. And if newspapers are going to survive moving into the future, they need to start selling content and protecting content.

I think people should be able to quote 2-3 sentences, summarize your story and link to it. But fully copying content isn't cool. And while I assume I'll get some responses who suggest IP is imaginary and that all information should be free, this is reality. It costs money to produce content. You can give away your content for free if you wish, but content creators deserve the right to make money on their content if they so choose.

Re:Not entirely evil

[LWATCDR]

I agree. Cut and paste is bad
Linking should be protected.

Re:Not entirely evil

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Cut and paste is bad

Re:Not entirely evil

[Bryansix]

No you are doing it wrong. You broke your own chain of logic. Where did anybody say that a news story is being copyrighted? The point here is that if you write it then you own it. You are still free to write whatever you want based on any facts available to you. Your whole post is a pointless tangent.

Re:Not entirely evil

[Anonymous Psychopath]

I know this seems evil, but in the end, journalism is important. And if newspapers are going to survive moving into the future, they need to start selling content and protecting content.

I think people should be able to quote 2-3 sentences, summarize your story and link to it. But fully copying content isn't cool. And while I assume I'll get some responses who suggest IP is imaginary and that all information should be free, this is reality. It costs money to produce content. You can give away your content for free if you wish, but content creators deserve the right to make money on their content if they so choose.

Journalism could only survive by doing a better job than the masses. This had to begin with addressing their deservedly tarnished reputation, which was earned by linking editing to ratings and failing to balance ethics with sensationalism. To put it another way, journalism has already died and all that's left is to argue over the carcass.

Re:Not entirely evil

[Junior J. Junior III]

I copy and paste entire articles in my blog. I started doing this when I realized that the news changes the stories. Post-publishing editing is an Orwellian fact of life. I like to preserve what I know I saw at one point, so I have something I can point back to in order to prove I'm not crazy. I consider it a mild form of saving the world.

Re:Not entirely evil

[Enderandrew]

When you buy a beer, you are given a glass bottle or alumninum can. The container is cheap. You're suggesting the cost of the container is the only cost that matters. It isn't.

The RIAA and MPAA have been fairly evil in their tactics, but that doesn't mean they have no legitimacy to some of their complaints.

Record companies front an artist the money to pay for a tour for instance. That money comes from album sales. You're suggesting that an artist is going to be paid once for recording an album. Who is going to pay them and why?

And yet in your world, they don't have the rights to sell individual CDs because copies of content shouldn't count.

What business model exists here? How is the artist getting paid at all?

Prices are set by a free market. In the iTunes age, it seems very few people pay $14 for a CD. They pay 99 cents for individual songs they like.

And 99 cents isn't a ridiculous price for something that I can listen to over and over again, and get repeated entertainment and value from.

As a kid I pirated tons of PC software. And I watched all my favorite computer game shops fold citing piracy. We can debate how much piracy affecting them financially or didn't, but if you don't pay for content then you don't get to bitch when that content disappears. If you like something, you need to financially support it to make sure that kind of content is financially feasible in the market.

Re:Not entirely evil

[Enderandrew]

I'm certainly upset with the lack of quality, ethical journalism.

Yet in the free market, it sure seems like slant and sensationalism sell considerably better. Tabloids are the best selling newspapers in the world for a reason.

Re:Not entirely evil

[Enderandrew]

Let's say a major news story happens, such as 9/11. CNN will publish an initial article on their page. I recall hearing initial reports that the Pentagon was bombed. That was obviously incorrect.

CNN doesn't just republish 50 independent stories over the course of the day to change one small detail as the stories develops.

You can make the argument that they could consider wiki-like revisions of articles so people can see what changed.

Re:Not entirely evil

[Anonymous Psychopath]

I'm certainly upset with the lack of quality, ethical journalism.

Yet in the free market, it sure seems like slant and sensationalism sell considerably better. Tabloids are the best selling newspapers in the world for a reason.

I agree. They are selling what sells best. My argument is that what you're talking about saving has already gone. Selling copyrights to lawyers is just a way to cash one last check.

Re:Not entirely evil

[Enderandrew]

They are being set by the market.

The RIAA said no one would pay for digital music because people can just as easily steal it. I think a WB exec equated it to Coca-Cola coming out of your faucet for free, and suggesting that means no one would ever by a Coke again.

iTunes is now the single largest music retailer in the country. The market has spoken, and enough people choose to purchase their music at that price point to keep the industry salient.

I don't pay a monthly copyright on any of my music. I buy the album/song once, and I'm done. There are business models and other price points to rent music. I don't partake of the personally.

Beer is also gone once I'm done drinking it. It would be near impossible to rent. Where I reuse my music collection. I still regularly listen to albums I bought nearly 20 years ago.

If I bought a Pearl Jam album in 1991 and still enjoying listening to it today, then I got an awful lot of value out of $11. Even better, I'm not done listening to it. I can listen to it as many timeas as I want over the course of my life.

You think that pricetag is unreasonable.

I think you're a punk who doesn't like paying for things and wants to try and rationalize it with bullshit rhetoric.

Mod me down or whatever. It's the truth.

Re:Not entirely evil

[kimvette]

"I agree. Cut and paste is bad."

Why? Because if you cut & paste, then you are:

a) "stealing" their content, depriving them of what they own
b) it would require massive security holes in their system.

Copy & paste, with attribution, is not nearly as bad. Even better is summarizing, and using copy & pasted snippets in accordance with Fair Use guidelines.

This has been my obligatory pedantic post for today. :)

Re:Not entirely evil

[bws111]

The 'information' is free and can not be copyrighted. The information in this case would be the fact that there was an accident, number of cars, etc. However, if you write a creative description of that information, it can be copyrighted.

You could not copyright the following description: There was an auto accident at the corner of A and B streets today. One of the cars was speeding and ran a red light. Minor injuries were reported.

However, the following may be able to be copyrighted: A spectacular auto accident occurred at the corner of A and B streets today. One vehicle was careening down the street and inadvisedly ran the red light. The other vehicle had already entered the intersection, and they collided in a cacophony of breaking glass and crumpling steel. Fortunately for all involved, only minor injuries were reported.

Anyone could strip out all of your 'creative' content and still reprint the facts, adding their own creative content if they wish. But that is not what is occurring. Instead, people are just copying YOUR sentences.

Re:Not entirely evil

[mcgrew]

And while I assume I'll get some responses who suggest IP is imaginary and that all information should be free, this is reality.

Information is free. You're free to read that AP story and rewrite it in your own words, but you're not free to copy the whole damned thing and call it your own.

It costs money to produce content.

Only if you believe that "time is money".

content creators deserve the right to make money on their content if they so choose

No, nobody has a right to make money, but they don't have the right to copy others' work, either. Just because I create content doesn't give me the right to money; I only get money of someone is willing to pay for that content.

Re:Not entirely evil

[SydShamino]

Why don't you save a personal copy of the story as you saw it (fair use)? Then, if the story changes, you can revise your own article to point out the changes, quoting both the relevant portions of the old and new text (also fair use).

The last sentence is misleading

[Attila Dimedici]

What Media Matters really means is that who they choose not to sue may be politically motivated. The claim is that because they allow people they agree with to use their copyrighted material, they should be required to allow people they oppose to use their copyrighted material. What is the point of copyright if I don't get to pick and choose who gets to copy my material on whatever basis I wish?

Re:The last sentence is misleading

[Bigjeff5]

They could always come up with a "Because We Like You" license and issue it to any site they like.

Perfectly legal (as far as I know, IANAL though), and it can't be bought.

Re:The last sentence is misleading

[DannyO152]

The point of copyright is to encourage the tangible expression of ideas for those who need an economic basis to do so. We, through the government, offer that limited monopoly because we think ideas, education, culture, political debate, and their propagation are a very good thing. We don't really care about your material wealth, or, rather, I care about your material wealth to the degree you care about mine. Doing well? That nice.

Now if you sincerely only want some people to receive and share your thoughts, write them a letter.

Re:The last sentence is misleading

[Artifakt]

As copyright law was originally written, you sued only over financial damages. For roughly 200 years, you had no basis to pick and choose except financial harm. The law still doesn't give you that right in the US - if it did, it would include what are called 'moral copyright clauses', as, for example, the ones now used in French law which the US has deliberately avoided including in treaty. Now that parts of copyright law have been criminalised, you are in effect arguing that your right allows you to compel the state to engage in selective prosecution of crimes, as is expressly forbidden in the bill of rights, for damned good reasons.

Re:The last sentence is misleading

[DavidTC]

Because free stuff to specific politicians count as, duh, political contributions.

For an an actual real life example of this, google 'c-street boarding house', and look at something that certainly should be under investigation, although it's not as far as we know. Renting a house you own to politicians at a fraction of the normal rent in that area is a political contribution.

However, I don't understand the logic here. They're not refraining from suing politicians, because politicians aren't normally bloggers. Nor do they appear to be refraining from suing any tax-deducible political organizations, which might possibly be relevant, or at least require disclosure.

It's perfectly legal to find some blogger who agrees with you politically and give them money (Or not sue them to take money away), as far as I'm aware. Media matters appears incorrect here under any interpretation of the law.

Of course, if they're a publically traded company, they could be subject to shareholder lawsuits for that sort of behavior.

And, soon, assuming people can get the bill passed, all corporations will be required to disclose to their owners, and get unanimous consent, for political actions. Sadly, this has not passed yet.

Re:Takes one to know one.

[Anonymusing]

Media Matters is a media watchdog that is certainly politically motivated but frequently includes actual facts in their analysis. So it's a valid reference, and we can hope that readers will be intelligent enough to make up their own minds. I'll be nonpartisan and note that Newsbusters does the same thing, just from the other end of America's political spectrum.

Given the possible political angle, it is interesting to see what the different sides are saying about Righthaven.

Drive it away?

[bhagwad]

From TFA. He starts with a car analogy (so far so good)

But then, you entered my front yard, climbed into the front seat and drove it away. ....Yet, when it comes to copyrighted material 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.

What am I reading here? How can you "drive away" content? After "driving away" with your car, is your car still in place? Unharmed? Ready for you to use? Or sell if you want? Not making a point here. I'm just saying that comparing copyright infringement to driving away a car is beyond silly.

Just like the Getty trolls

[Overzeetop]

Getty, I'm convinced, makes a good living off of crawling the web looking for their images. They put a bunch of them on stock photo CDs years ago, and the licensing on the box covers implies that they are free to use when you buy the cd (royalty free, I believe, its the term). It turns out, though, that by royalty free, they mean you don't have to pay per impression, but you still have to buy a license for each image separately, per year. I got hit for two thumbnails a couple years ago, and had to cough up $2000 for the transgression.

Thing is, for $2k, you can't fight it. And even if you've got a 90% chance of winning (which I didn't, though the oversight was unintentional - or rather, I thought I actually did own a license), it's not worth $20,000-$100,000 legal bill to try and prove you're right.

It extortion, but legal.

Oh, and I'll never, ever license a Getty work, and I actively discourage it with everyone I know.

Re:Not a troll

[Overzeetop]

They sound like trolls. It appears as if they don't actually produce any of the content. They buy an exclusive license to redistribute on speculation that someone will intentionally or inadvertently infringe, then they sue for enough money to make them money, but not enough to make it worth fighting in court.

Is that click fraud?

[XanC]

He's encouraging people to click on the links. Isn't that what the advertisers want?

Re:Is that click fraud?

[SquarePixel]

He's encouraging people to only click on the links so he gets money. Since it's Google ads, advertisers pay for clicks that are completely useless and only costs them high amount of money. It's also against Google's Terms of Services and hence fraud.

Re:Is that click fraud?

[SquarePixel]

From Google AdSense policies

Encouraging Clicks

Publishers may not ask others to click their ads or use deceptive implementation methods to obtain clicks. This includes, but is not limited to, offering compensation to users for viewing ads or performing searches, promising to raise money for third parties for such behavior or placing images next to individual ads.

Yes, it can be counted as fraud, especially when there's money involved. It's only a matter of at what point (how much money is involved) it makes sense for Google and other ad networks to go after the people frauding them. If someone happens to report him to Google, he will get his account disabled and the income lost. If it was a lot of money, he might even get sued by Google.

Also, since he is now using ads he is also commercially benefiting from copyrighted material (bootlegs) he has no right to. That gives even more serious jail time than the casual piracy happening over p2p networks.

It begins!

[Drakkenmensch]

Companies now OWN world events!

Re:Takes one to know one.

[ptbarnett]

Media Matters [mediamatters.org] is a media watchdog that is certainly politically motivated but frequently includes actual facts in their analysis. So it's a valid reference, and we can hope that readers will be intelligent enough to make up their own minds.

Media Matters is wrong. All you need to refute them is the recent list of sites that are being sued:

Conservative website among 3 sued over R-J copyrights

The article identifies Free Republic as one of the recently targeted websites.

To be fair, Media Matter's article pre-dates the suit against Free Republic.