Slashdot Mirror
Newspaper May Have Given Implicit License To Copy
An anonymous reader writes "Following up on the story of Righthaven, the 'copyright troll' that is working with the Las Vegas Journal Review to sue lots of websites (including one of Nevada's Senate candidates) for reposting articles from the LVRJ, a judge in one of the cases appears to be quite sympathetic to the argument that the LVRJ offered an 'implied license' to copy by not just putting their content online for free, but including tools on every story that say 'share this' with links to various sharing services (including one tool to 'share' via Slashdot!)."
If common sense finally wins in one of these cases, it'll be the end of the world as we know it.
Until they file an appeal.
Do not feed the copyright troll. This is interesting. I have a feeling that very soon, the court system is going to start getting sick of the abuses of the copyright system, which may spur some changes. Of course, this has been said many times before.
Their articles need posting to a few hundred websites more... that way they can become partners with the **AA gang in the mass-mail lawsuits business. It's all part of a plan for a DOS attack on the justice system.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
It's a double-edged sword. Lets see how the trolls like being sliced with it.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Wouldnt this mean that any sharing of a link to your content would also give an implied license to copy?
How exactly is this going to work? Does this mean that all newspaper stories are freely usable by anyone?... That will sure break a lot of things... :p
I just want to note that the Righthaven v. Klerks decision linked to in the article should actually be read on fairly narrow grounds. The whole issue of Righthaven is whether to vacate a default judgment entered against Righthaven. In order to vacate the default judgment, the defendant had to show that they 1) weren't culpable in defaulting, 2) they had a meritorious defense to the original case, and 3) not vacating the default judgment will prejudice the defendant.
The whole part about the implicit license to copy and fair use was applied only to the question of whether Righthaven had a meritorious defense. However, it does not mean that the defense is a winning defense, merely that it wouldn't be laughed out of court if they asserted it. I don't think this really offers that much precedent beyond the narrow scope of the motion.
In any case, while I disagree with Righthaven (and I agree with the judge on the matter of fair use), something doesn't exactly sit right with me with the Judge's argument that the newspaper gave an implied consent to copy the newspaper. Part of the reasoning is that the newspaper permitted the user to "'right-click' and copy the article". This seems like a dog of an argument to me. Practically all websites allow users to right click (except for Dr. Ann de Wees Allen) and copy the content from their webpages - that doesn't seem like it means that everything is offered on the web with an implied license to copy. Rather, the fact that the newspaper had links to share a link to the content on facebook or twitter or whatever - and thus should only really be read to have given implied consent to link, not to copy.
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
As others have explained above, this judgment isn't so much a precedent as it is a judge saying that the argument *might* work. However- it shows remarkable reasonableness on the part of the judge. After all, if I put a fruit bowl on a table with a note that said "Take one and have a nice day!", I could hardly turn around and sue you for banana-theft.
something doesn't exactly sit right with me with the Judge's argument that the newspaper gave an implied consent to copy the newspaper. Part of the reasoning is that the newspaper permitted the user to "'right-click' and copy the article". This seems like a dog of an argument to me.
As a dog owner, I take umbrage with that statement. It's a terrible argument on a few grounds, including those you mention as well as:
1) The right click thing is ludicrous, as you state and more. The site doesn't provide right-click functionality, the browser does. The site in question would have had to take extreme measures (like the de Wees Allen gambit) to prevent it, which never ends up working anyway. Besides, there are fair uses for newspaper articles (which would presumably be killed by effective copy protection) - just not necessarily this one.
2) Didn't we have this whole link vs. content thing before with sites that link to pirated works, CSS keys, things like that? Aren't "we" on the side that sharing a link is completely different than providing content? So they should be able to provide a *link* without that being interpreted as providing the content, right?
3) I really, really don't like the "it was freely (as in beer) available, so now there's an implicit license. Sounds a lot like the whole 'GPL software is in the public domain
I think Ive been patient enough, you are starting to bore me now.
While I dont like to, I will put my foot down now;
The following commandments should be chiseled in stone, engraved by laser in a meteorite, embedded in the standard neck-chip or other method suitable for your preferred epoch:
NO TRADEMARKS
No string of characters, numbers or symbols may be claimed as property.
Products may be labeled with, in addition to name, manufacturers address, which it is a sin to falsify.
NO PATENTS
If you are first with an idea, you may use that to your advantage or not.
NO COPYRIGHT
No restraints may be put on sharing of information and ideas.
I was wondering about the "copy this article" claim, so I went to the LVJ website. I went to the first news article which was
http://www.lvrj.com/news/bill-scott-anticipates-attempt-to-clear-police-in-costco-slaying--trash-his-dead-son-s-name-103510074.html
There you can see, at the bottom of the article, a whole slew of "share on some other website" links, including Digg and Slashdot. The last icon is a heart, which I think is a way of adding the article to some kind of personal LVJ list of favorite articles.
I don't see a link making it trivial to copy the text of the article, though of course it's no harder than selecting it and copying it. So, if that's right, I think that would be a hindrance to this defense, because the "implied license" would be to share a link to the article on aggregation sites which exist for the purpose of sharing links, not full articles. Moreover, the implied license would probably only apply to the listed sites.
Also, there are two separate conspicuous copyright notices on the page. Of course, I can't say whether those notices were present in the past at the time of the alleged infringement.
Disclaimers:
But I feel fine!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Judges are human, and Righthaven is a bag of dicks. Righthaven sues their own sources for posting stories that the sources gave to the paper for free. It's entirely likely the judge stayed up late looking for ways to get these people off the hook. Law is not code. It is a human institution subject to human anti-dickhead prejudices.
This usually works in the other direction: Internet freedoms are frequently tested in the court on behalf of creepy child abusers. Maybe we should try to avoid that?