Posted on 04/08/2004 9:19:34 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
As most of you are aware, we've recently received several copyright complaints. In the last few weeks, we've received complaints from the SJ Mercury News, Independent (UK), SF Chronicle and The Boston Globe. Just a couple days ago the Post-Gazette send a cease and desist notice and yesterday I heard from the Tribune-Review.
Tonight, I got a call from Amy and there were two more registered letters at our PO Box. The McClatchy News (Sacramento Bee) and USAToday are now added to the list of publications that have complained about copyright violations.
Well, folks, the handwriting is on the wall. The complaints are now coming in faster than I can respond to them. John is currently in the process of writing programs to search out and automatically excerpt all existing threads from these sources.
I think we're gonna have to go to excerpt and link for all news sources very soon unless we have written permission on file.
Not really. Even in a debate, if I'm trying to show that the L.A. Times is biased and cite examples to prove my point, unless I can prove that I'm not unfairly taking things out of context it would be rather difficult if not impossible for me to show the L.A. Times' bias.
We can just set up a common FreeRepublic registration identity.
Name: Whatever. Password: 12345.
Everyone on FR can then use the same name and password for all sites.
When I do register on some site that requires demograpic information, I register as a 14 year old girl.
Well the solution is to continue posting as normal, but have the viewing software extract an abstract (first para) even thou the entire article is available. Then allow a command in the link like "complete=true" over ride the abstracting logic and retreive the entire article. I'm a pretty sure I could make my forum work that way. So I am certin FR can too. That way the entire artcle is available if the need arises.
I have three questions that I believe would come into play to determine whether you could legally ignore all of these cease and desists (at least it's a good starter kit for your fleet of attorneys! ;)
1) Is this being posted to allow comment on the material? (see Fair Use)
2) Is there some transformation to the material in question? And since people are constantly adding comments the answer might be yes.
3) Is the specific use of the copyrighted material for commercial gain? key word being specific.
And I know we're all in favor of using rulings from other countries to determine how our courts rule... (not) but Canada recently equated peer-2-peer music sharing (which would appear to be even more questionable) as legal as making a photocopy of a page from a book or periodical at a library.
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Also of interest is the imbedded link Fair Use: Overview and Meaning for Higher Education
-PJ
Reuters, AP, AFP, UPI, BBC, etc all post pretty much the same story with variations on the spin. If we concentrate on those differences, we'll still get the same story. Honestly, how many times have you read an article and realized you've read the same variation several times from different sources. We'll manage. It's not the end of Free Republic. Don't let those who want to take us down get to you. We will prevail. Over time, those that post on the internet will realize they can not prevent every person who reposts an article from doing so. There are millions of web sites out there. Let's say the Washington Post decides to go after everyone. They'll need hundred, if not thousands of people to search all the web sites. Right now, these media sources are picking the fruit they can reach easily. But, can they make a profit hiring people specifically to search every blog, every web page globally? They are not going to prevail. We will win. Right now, we are the apple on the low branch, but wait, they can not prevent it from occurring. We'll bide our time, we'll manage, and remember, we are a smart bunch, so we'll be able to adapt. In the meantime, others will be archiving, storing, and preserving. Be vigilant....
What's more, some publications are prohibiting even excerpting of articles.
1986: Maxtone-Graham v. BurtchaellMaxtone-Graham wrote a book containing women's stories of unwanted pregnancy and abortion in 1973. She denied Burtchaell's request to use excerpts from her published interviews. He published them anyway. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that quoting 4.3% of an author's work was not excessive and that Burtchaell's use of the narratives was a fair use.
BTW, that linked timeline is very information. It is apparent our system of copyright has been at the mercy of European law since 1831. I for one believe the First Congress got it right in 1790. How is "a limited time" equal to more than a lifetime? Locking up information for nearly a century does little to "promote the progress of Science and Useful Arts."
Well, I'm sure that George Soros is glad that he's getting something for all the millions that he's funneling under the table to the DNC.
I don't think it's going to buy him what he really wants though -- a President who will legalize his drug use.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
DU largely excerpts articles but there are occasions where full articles are reprinted; I doubt that special permission was requested/granted as there is no mention of it in those threads.
Also Bill Gates' Corbis harassed FR for linking to the photos of John Kerry seated near Jane Fonda (I am referring to the genuine color photo). They also bitched about the hoaxed photo composite parody made from 2 separate Corbis images.
The double standard is that leftist site Snopes.com hosted and continues to host all 4 images (the three Corbis images and the unapproved hoax image) on their own server. I even notified Corbis about this. I assume that Corbis contacted Snopes because the Snopes site was modified to acknowledge Corbis' copyright on the 3 images (although Corbis holds no such copyright on the hoaxed image and would be suspected to be unwilling to license such an image especially in light of the fact that they cannot license a composite that they did not create and therefore do not own). I also seriously doubt that Snopes is paying $150 an image like the Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry did to host the image on their site.
The media is coming down hard on conservatives and leaving a highly suspect double standard in treatment in their wake.
The "revived" public Media Schadenfreude and and Media Shenanigans lists:
Freepmail An Amused Spectator to get on/off this list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.