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!)."

Comments

Common Sense?

[Haedrian]

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.

Um...

[omglolbah]

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

Re:Um...

[Yvanhoe]

How exactly is this going to work?

How concisely you sum up years of interrogations about this whole "intellectual property" thing !

A limited reading

[Sonny Yatsen]

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.

Re:A limited reading

[Sonny Yatsen]

It's an interesting issue to bring up. Because of technology advancing so quickly, these issues are still yet unresolved. You gotta remember, a lot of judges aren't tech-savvy and there's a gap between the technological knowledge of a court and the issues that pop up nowadays. (For instance, a few years ago, no websites would have links to share on social networking sites like facebook or twitter.) Case in point, judicial districts still use antiquated technology to function. The New York Judicial Courts, for instance, still mandate the use of WordPerfect as its preferred format.

As far as the difference between sharing the article and sharing a link to the article, I think the most appropriate slashdot appropriate analogy would be the difference between a memory location and a pointer to a memory location.

Re:Reform is needed.

[dfm3]

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...

Sudden Outbreak of Common Sense

[koterica]

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.

Re:Reform is needed.

[turbidostato]

"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*.

Re:Reform is needed.

[gsslay]

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.