Reuters Uses Search Against Copyright Abuse

www.internetnews.com ^ | March 24, 2004 | Sean Michael Kerner

[J. Byron]

In the wake of the RIAA campaign, and increasingly aggressive tactics to defend Intellectual property by other companies, Reuters news service announced that it will use Fast Search & Transfer's (FAST) software to enforce it's IP rights. No more fair use -- even with factual content? [my intro, read Sean's article at internews.com]

[J. Byron]

I don't know whether or not this forum is aware of this.

[Constitution Day]

Ping to JR.

[B Knotts]

Fair use can't really be stopped. But, it will be likely that excerpting will be required. That shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone.

[sarasota]

Can't we paraphrase? Change a few words?

[Spiff]

Fair use can't really be stopped. But, it will be likely that excerpting will be required. That shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone.

And if I and a few friends get together at a local coffee shop and I whip out an article a clipped from Reuters, should I only be able to show them or read to them an excerpt?

Can I only pin an excerpt of a Reuters article to the bulletin board in my cubicle at work?

Can I only email an excerpt of an online Reuters article to my family and friends?

Can they use their new technology to tap my phone line to make sure that I'm not reading a Reuters article to a friend or relative? What is the difference between that and what they're proposing to do?

Obviously, one should not be allowed to post a complete article on a website to resell it or to compete with the original media outlet. However, fair use is fair use and the more that big media conglomerates infringe upon that the worse off everyone will be. And, soon, the few powerful media entities will control all sources of news on the once free Internet.

[Constitution Day]

Ping re: excerpting.

[B Knotts]

The size of the portion of a work used is clearly a determining factor in deciding fair use.

Now, you might not think that it ought to be that way, but it is.

[expat_panama]

Their copyright control tactics seem to have changed with their corporate mission shift-- from news gathering to political action.  

Whereas before they wanted to get the word out to scoop the competition, now they need to control their dispatches so they can edit what they 'said' so they will be able to 'have said' something else as the need arises.

[Constitution Day]

Reuters 26.3.04 HRC speech malreported refs unpersons rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling.

[longtermmemmory]

Sounds more like intimidation rather than actual justification. Could it be that the ABCCBSNBC and the NEWSPAPERS are feeling the heat of irrelivance? Seriously why waste time with a newspaper which only has the same AP Reuters stories which are EXACTLY the same as every other location and will probably be read at night verbatim by all three broadcast networks.

Instead of seeing this as survival into the next incarnation of the 4th estate, they are trying to force the survival of the print newspapers. Dumb dumb dumb

[KarlInOhio]

No more fair use -- even with factual content?

Reuters? Factual content? Bwahahahahaha!

[boris]

"heat of irrelivance"

Or the freezing wrath of the spelling police...

[alancarp]

I like the new tagline -- and I'll be sure to excerpt it at some future point.

[expat_panama]

Reuters 26.3.04 HRC speech malreported refs unpersons rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling.

That's easy for you to say.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Can't we paraphrase? Change a few words?

---

Basically, no. You can report the same facts in your own words, but a "derivative work" (like a movie based on a book) infringes the copyright in the original on which it is based.

[Wheee The People]

Basically, no.

Oh geeez I think I'm gonna argue with an attorney...There is a "fair use" right to post the article so that people can comment on it. There are other test also such as is it for commercial use etc. Although FR lost part of this argument in the WAPost/LASlime case.

[dandelion]

I'll make a note: I'll simply use a link to the info from Reuters from now on, with the caveat: don't give 'em a hit - just take my word for it, they're lying.

[hellinahandcart]

Whereas before they wanted to get the word out to scoop the competition, now they need to control their dispatches so they can edit what they 'said' so they will be able to 'have said' something else as the need arises.

You got it. I once watched a Reuters story change three times in one hour. The final version bore no resemblance at all to the first. We had it all on one thread, though.

I'm sure they would like to prevent us from doing that, but we will just have to find a way around it. Such as posting sequential excerpts of 200 words until the entire thing is posted.

We'll have to post by committee, I suppose.

[Constitution Day]

Why, thanks!
It occurred to me at about the 5,327th viewing of that NCAA student athlete commercial during the tournament.

[MrB]

This forum and others are used to discuss, debunk, and pick apart articles from reuters, ap, etc.

They don't like that - they just want us to lick up what they feed us.