Copyright Trolling (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Kirata -> Copyright Trolling (7/22/2010 11:36:27 PM)

Wired, July 22, 2010

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....

Gibson’s vision is to monetize news content on the backend, by scouring the internet for infringing copies of his client’s articles, then suing and relying on the harsh penalties in the Copyright Act — up to $150,000 for a single infringement — to compel quick settlements. Since Righthaven’s formation in March, the company has filed at least 80 federal lawsuits against website operators and individual bloggers....

I'm not sure where you cross the fair-use line, but I take this as an indication that it would be wise for us to be circumspect regarding how much of an article we elect to copy and re-post during the course of our discussions here.

K.



vincentML -> RE: Copyright Trolling (7/23/2010 6:42:55 AM)

To validate your point, the fair use line seems to be a smudge. This from copyright.gov....

The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission.

Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

On the other hand, there are some legitimate uses of copyrighted material that might pertain to what we do here. This also from copyright.gov...

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

The problem is the chilling effect of the Righthaven law suits. I would not wish to go to the expense of defending a fair use position even if it were righteous.

So, you give fair warning. The safe road then seems to be to cite the work but not reproduce any part of it. Wonder what others here think.



juliaoceania -> RE: Copyright Trolling (7/23/2010 8:21:30 AM)

quote:

'm not sure where you cross the fair-use line, but I take this as an indication that it would be wise for us to be circumspect regarding how much of an article we elect to copy and re-post during the course of our discussions here.


I am careful not to publish an entire article in my posts, but only a couple of paragraphs



tazzygirl -> RE: Copyright Trolling (7/23/2010 8:30:31 AM)

julia, even that can be construed as copyright infringement. As vincent pointed out, there is no hard or fast rule about how much is too much.



Louve00 -> RE: Copyright Trolling (7/23/2010 8:48:06 AM)

So then, does this mean the days of screaming "back it up with a link" are over?  Are links to those words acceptable.  Or are they the same as quoting them.  If you ask me, these are weird days we're living in.  Everything has gotten so overly politically correct nowadays.

Not that a link matters much to me.  I can always google for myself.  But now, that leads to another question.  If we are posting links from the media, who is reporting to the public, is taking the information from those news/media links considered to be the same?  When did the news become copyrighted?

**Editted to fix a silly typo [8|]



tazzygirl -> RE: Copyright Trolling (7/23/2010 8:49:12 AM)

Seems the days of links and read the entire article yoruself are just becoming the vogue.



juliaoceania -> RE: Copyright Trolling (7/23/2010 9:06:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

julia, even that can be construed as copyright infringement. As vincent pointed out, there is no hard or fast rule about how much is too much.


I will say again, being conscious of this problem I will only take a couple of paragraphs of content.... It depends on the length of the article in question, also. If it is pages long, I will take a couple of paragraphs. If it is a short article I take a couple of sentences...

I agree this is a troublesome issue, one for which bloggers and websites need to define for themselves, perhaps a formula for the percentage of the article that maybe copied....

I am no fan of copyright laws



vincentML -> RE: Copyright Trolling (7/23/2010 9:19:24 AM)

quote:

So then, does this mean the days of screaming "back it up with a link" are over? Are links to those words acceptable. Or are they the same as quoting them.


My guess would be that a link is not an infringement but merely a means to access the work. I would also guess it is okay to give a paraphrase summary of the point you wish to comment upon.

I would also guess I am not a lawyer but only play one on CM. [8|]



AQuietSimpleMan -> RE: Copyright Trolling (7/23/2010 9:25:58 AM)

This is how free thought and generating opinion are killed.

Fear the people into not passing on literature or news for fear of litigation.

When people fear the passing of opinion and the written word you censor free thought.

With that we are living in a real life Ferenheit 451.

QSM

(Edited for failure to use the word "not" which changed the whole point of what I was saying)



juliaoceania -> RE: Copyright Trolling (7/23/2010 9:41:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AQuietSimpleMan

This is how free thought and generating opinion are killed.

Fear the people into not passing on literature or news for fear of litigation.

When people fear the passing of opinion and the written word you censor free thought.

With that we are living in a real life Ferenheit 451.

QSM

(Edited for failure to use the word "not" which changed the whole point of what I was saying)



This will be litigated all the way to the supreme court, so it isn't done for yet



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Copyright Trolling (7/23/2010 9:41:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

So then, does this mean the days of screaming "back it up with a link" are over? Are links to those words acceptable. Or are they the same as quoting them.


My guess would be that a link is not an infringement but merely a means to access the work. I would also guess it is okay to give a paraphrase summary of the point you wish to comment upon.




Generally correct, but you have to be careful even on links. If you link to a site that is infringing on someone elses copyright then you could conceivably charged as well.



DCWoody -> RE: Copyright Trolling (7/23/2010 9:42:51 PM)

Ya shouldn't copy&paste newspaper/blog articles anyway, they're full of shit, consistently slanted towards their own biases.
Write your own shit on the subject, with your own personal biases.



pahunkboy -> RE: Copyright Trolling (7/24/2010 8:22:28 AM)

Tell me about it.

The youtube vid of my yard is a violation.  I thought I got the music from a paid software clip.  Soemhow the music is "owned" by someone else... even tho there is no words in it.



thornhappy -> RE: Copyright Trolling (7/24/2010 11:00:56 AM)

Instrumental work's always been subject to IP rights.



pahunkboy -> RE: Copyright Trolling (7/24/2010 11:13:06 AM)

You miss the point.  If I bought the clip software why must I pay twice?



Jeffff -> RE: Copyright Trolling (7/24/2010 11:15:18 AM)

Who sold you the clip?

For instance, Michael Jackson bought the publishing rights to the Beatles catalog.

You can send Paul MaCartney money, but MJ's publishing co. will still want theirs.



pahunkboy -> RE: Copyright Trolling (7/24/2010 11:27:00 AM)

Jefff it was part of movie making software.  

in it are sound effects- music and visuals



Jeffff -> RE: Copyright Trolling (7/24/2010 11:41:13 AM)

Think of a radio station. They pay every time the song is played commercially.

Perhaps you-tube falls under that.



pahunkboy -> RE: Copyright Trolling (7/24/2010 11:47:24 AM)

It really is getting to the point of me know wanting to post any vids.


They are getting carried away with the whole industry if copyright.



Jeffff -> RE: Copyright Trolling (7/24/2010 11:52:52 AM)

Not really, an artist deserves to be paid. You picked that music because you liked it.

You felt it was important to the presentation. Why should the guy who wrote it give it up for free?



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875