Slashdot Mirror
Righthaven To Explain Why Reposting Isn't Fair Use
Ponca City, We love you writes "TechDirt reports that a judge has asked Righthaven to explain why a non-profit organization reposting an entire article isn't fair use. The case involves the Center for Intercultural Organizing of Portland, Oregon, which was sued by Righthaven in August after an entire 33-paragraph Review-Journal story about Las Vegas immigrants was posted on the center's website, crediting the Review-Journal. The nonprofit says it was founded by Portland-area immigrants and refugees to combat widespread anti-Muslim sentiment after 9/11 and it works to strengthen immigrant and refugee communities through education, civic engagement, organizing and mobilization and does not charge subscription fees or derive any income from its website. The interesting thing is that the defendant in this case didn't even raise the fair use issue. It was the judge who brought it up, suggesting that the Nevada judges are being inundated with hundreds of Righthaven cases, and that Righthaven has already lost once in a case that was found to be fair use so judges may want to set a precedent to clear their dockets."
Let's look:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
The center isn't for-profit, so they're likely ok here.
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;
Also hard to claim fair use when it's the entire 33 paragraphs.
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Most newspapers are for-profit, so there goes that claim. Hard to sell newspapers when others are giving away your work for free (Yes I"m ignoring the fact the lvrj posted it on their website).
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Righthaven LLC [is] the Las Vegas “technology company” that has been filing copyright infringement lawsuits in ... Nevada against numerous unsuspecting website owners (almost always without notice) for copyright infringement of news articles originally published in the Las Vegas Review Journal.
Via http://www.righthavenlawsuits.com/.
They posted the full story on their own site, that's not remotely close to fair-use. They should have done an editorial selecting various points and link back to the original. This is a blatant copyright violation, just as much as providing direct download of copyrighted music and video.
Previous poster is correct. It is not fair use, and Righthaven will win. The judge will award them all of the non-profit's profits for the next year.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
While usually you'd be right, there are instances where reposting an entire article is considered fair use. For example, if the use of the article is non-commercial and does not hurt the commercial value of the original, that's basically fair use.
Understand that fair use is not a law;it's an affirmative defense in a copyright violation case. Therefore, there are few specifics as to what does and does not constitute fair use; whether a specific case is fair use depends entirely on the facts and circumstances of the case.
My blog
That's what the *AA type lobbyists want you to believe, but if you look at the copyright law, it includes Fair Use and says that Fair Use is a limitation on the scope of the copyright monopoly. I.e., a Fair Use is by definition not infringing.
Now you may find yourself on the receiving end of a copyright suit before a court clarifies what Fair Use means, but it is part of the law, same as the artificial monopoly that it limits.
Really? I'd say that advertising exposure is of considerable importance to "fair use". One of the four main tests is whether it reduces the commercial value of the writing, and if I can read the whole article without any chance of seeing the ads that reduces the commercial value. Otherwise, copying anything off over-the-air television would be potentially fair use, since the only commercial value of (say) a football game is to expose the viewers to commercials.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
if the use of the article is non-commercial and does not hurt the commercial value of the original, that's basically fair use.
No, it's not. At all. See http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html. Whether or not the original document is being used for commercial purposes is only 1/4 of the things evaluated when deciding fair use.
And I would say the advertising revenue is of no concern whatsoever in this case, since the party losing the ad revenue is the newspaper, but... (wait for it...) they aren't the ones suing.
Righthaven takes copyright of an article, and licenses it back to the newspaper. At that point, the economic value of the article to Righthaven is exhausted. There is no further "ad revenue" coming in to them.
Now, they could possibly resell the article to other newspapers, but they aren't, because that isn't their business model. Their entire business model is making money by suing "infringers". In this case, the economic value to Righthaven is INCREASED by someone else posting it in its entirety.
This is nothing but the newspaper equivalent of the MPAA/RIAA lawsuits, where you smack someone for infringement, extort them for a settlement because they can't afford to defend themselves in court, then move on to the next person. One of their lawsuits has already been dismissed and found to be baseless, how many settlements have been made on similar cases, that might have been thrown out had the defendants had the money to fight in court?
Ordinarily, I would agree with you. However, Righthaven is a company that exists for the sole purpose of filing copyright lawsuits against anyone who uses any part of an article published by the Las Vegas Review Journal. Righthaven does not publish anything. As far as I can tell, they don't even sell the rights to publish anything. What you miss is that since the organization being sued is a non-profit, Righthaven must show how their publishing of the article reduces Righthaven's ability to make money from the article. Since Righthaven doesn't make money from the article (except from copyright infringement lawsuits), this will be a hard sell in court.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Interesting. So does Righthaven simply purchase a swathe of articles and hope that someone infringes, or do they wait for someone to infringe and then buy the article?
Either way, this does change things. If the former then their net profit from a typical article is negligible and the net loss is also extremely small considering the value they place on an article (this business model will not be viable if they pay a reasonable amount per article). If the latter then it seems bizarre to buy a property known to be damaged and then sue the person who damaged it, and this is essentially what they are doing.
"You can't quote to refute a work."
Where did you get that idea? Comment and Criticism is at the heart of Fair Use Doctrine.
As for the most effective means of refutation, line by line or paragraph-by-paragraph refutation of a work of any length might be effective in the abstract, but I doubt most people would read it. In practice it is more effective to create a general framework of critique, and use selective quotes to drive your point home. This is likely why there hasn't been a hue and cry about the stifling inability in our culture to engage in argument.
I also don't understand why you put law in quotes. It is law, whether you understand it or not.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Saying that "fair use is not a law" is a strange statement, since it is codified in the Copyright Act of 1976. It spells out a four-part test, which includes "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole", which this example flunks pretty badly.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Their entire business model is making money by suing "infringers". In this case, the economic value to Righthaven is INCREASED by someone else posting it in its entirety.
Under that model the value of the work is defined by their profit from a lawsuit. So if they win and get a settlement, the value is increased; thus, on appeal, they will lose. But now they expended all these legal fees, and have taken a loss. Their license on the article now has a negative value; thus, on a second appeal, they will win.
The question we need to ask is how many appeals will land this in the Supreme Court? If it's an odd number, Righthaven will spiral into bankruptcy. If it is an even number, Righthaven's business model will make them an unstoppable profit machine.