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.
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.
The Court system may be sick of it, but the lawyers sure as hell aren't.
Not going to happen.
Fixed that for you.
We know who always wins these cases, and it's not always the plaintiff or defendant...
There are two kinds of copyright troll: the ones who abuse copyright itself, like filing takedown notices on websites that aren't infringing copyright but the troll wants closed for other reasons (like it said something bad about them), and the industry shills who come to slashdot equating copyright infringemet to theft and terrorism with their "think of the artists" and "it's MY property" twisted logic.
Sometimes you have to fight the trolls.
Free Martian Whores!
Just wait for lawyers to start patenting their particular model of "lawyering" and then the fun REALLY starts. :p
Remember to maintain your supply of
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.
"And the people who come to slashdot and think they have the right to any non-physical copyrightted work, even without paying for it."
Not any. Only what the author already decided to make *public*.
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
But I feel fine!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
They can afford SleepNumber beds.
You do realize that copyright law doesn't actually cover the sharing of information and ideas, but merely the particular expressive form that entails. If people were to have taken all of these stories and put them into their own words, the newspaper wouldn't have a copyright claim because the information contained therein is not copyrightable. But they didn't, they plagerized to some degree or another.
Also, your description of "No Trademarks" quickly wanders back into the "oh, it's a tradmark" territory. You acknowledge the need for consumers to be able to reliably source the origins of the products they buy, and put a non-falsifiable identifier in there which discriminates manufacturers. Except, of course, that the address of a company doesn't really have any meaning in this day and age, as Apple for example has headquarters and manufacturing all over the world. So you have to fall back to some non-falsifiable unique identifier.
For trademarks, I feel like the system needs to give legal costs+ punative damages against tradmark abusers who sue for opportunistic inactive tradmarks. But that overall the trademark system is OK.
The patent system is badly, badly underfunded. If patent clerks had enough time to actually investigate patents, we might see a dropoff in false patents being granted. Bringing in a network of secret outside consultants might help.
Copyright is getting to be a bit of a mess, but that's mainly due to stupid legislation pushed through by artists groups that don't actually represent the artists. Cut back mandatory damages for small-time personal infringement to something similar to physical theft, modify the DMCA to allow for ANY content protection bypassing so long as it is for things which are within the user's rights, and require the RIAA to sign up each damned artist individually and send each of them a statement every month with the money that they owe that particular artist.
The ______ Agenda
Look, if you're going to publish your "manifesto," it's gotta have more verbage. Folks won't take the outline version seriously. And posting it to Slashdot just won't do. You'll need to hijack a schoolbus full of nuns and kittens, hold them at gunpoint at the public library, and put on a hell of a show for the local media, lest they preempt you for the latest episode of "Big Brother: Who's Watching the Watchers?."
Oh, and body armor. Definitely.
On a more serious note, chucking the entire copyright and patent systems is swinging to the opposite still-busted extreme from what we have now. Instead of pseudo-permanent ownership of IP elements, you'll end up breeding a pack of predatory IP-stealers who are well funded, and who are capable of getting your product to market faster and cheaper than you can.
Might I make a suggestion? Push copyright and patent durations back to something more sane - 10-20 years maybe? Make them inalienable - they're stuck to the original creators, and corporations don't qualify as "creators." People create; corporations are simply collections of people who agree to work for a common goal. When the work's creator dies, the IP immediately reverts to the Public, regardless of who it's licensed to. (Note: you can't motivate a corpse into creating additional works.) Finally, bring back the copyright registration requirement. If it's worth the protection, it's worth some effort on your part. The registration should include posting a source master to the Library of Congress, such that the escrowed copy may be presented to the People at the expiry of the copyright term, regardless of your ability to make that happen.
You appear to be confusing 'troll' with "someone who disagrees with my perfectly correct opinions and therefore must be silenced".
Trolls are generally not welcome, as they are not interested in discussion, just provoking reaction. They may not even care about the topic discussed one way or another. It's just a way of getting attention for their favorite topic; themselves.
People who disagree, however, are essential for any good discussion forum. Informed and considered opinion rarely forms from people sitting around congratulating each other on how right they all are and how much they are in agreement. I can't imagine why anyone would want to hang out in any forum like that. Ideas need challenged to prove their worth. Calling those who provide the challenge 'trolls' or 'shills' are just ad hominen attacks that avoid the real issues.
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?