Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: mylife
Ok, I'm going to get flamed for this but I think we need to also consider the other side.

It's a fact that this jacka$$ is doing this for no other reason that revenue. Claims that it's some sort of campaign to protect anyones copyrights are obviously just cover. The entire method stinks and seems to me should be somehow illegal and fall under a crime of conversion somehow... he's looking for reprints, THEN buying the copyright in order to cash in.

Now that I've said that, it only seems fair that when reposting someones material, it should be a short excerpt and a link to the original publisher. It's the only way they can collect the advertising revenue and continue to post the stuff online that we enjoy reading for free.

I don't think this approach is the right way to deal with the situation. Polite communication between site operators can clear up 99% of these things with no hassles.

I'm like most.. I'd like to see this shark dragging from a bumper somewhere, but we should also be taking into consideration the source of the material... and I'm speaking generally here, not in favor of these two conspirators here who are doing nothing more than strong-arming non-profits and bloggers for a quick buck.

39 posted on 08/15/2010 12:57:14 PM PDT by FunkyZero ("It's not about duck hunting !")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: FunkyZero

If this guy was reasonable he would send a cease and desist order.


40 posted on 08/15/2010 1:02:33 PM PDT by mylife (Opinions $1 Halfbaked 50c)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

To: FunkyZero

Yes, and the congress set up a routine procedure for doing this. It’s called DMCA and it works great. We’ve received nearly three hundred DMCA take down requests in the last ten years and we’ve promptly and completely complied with each and every such request. If a blogger innocently posts more material than a publisher wishes published, all he has to do is request it be excerpted further or pulled, and we do so. It keeps the federal courts from being clogged up with nickel and dime nuisance suits.


43 posted on 08/15/2010 1:07:21 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (JUST VOTE THEM OUT! teapartyexpress.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

To: FunkyZero

Its called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). It provides a framework for copyright protections in the digital age. Righthaven is completely ignoring the intent of this act by refusing to notify offenders. Of course, if they did this, 99% of site owners would remove the materials and implement procedures to preclude reoccurence. This would put an end to the shakedowns and dry up the revenue stream.


44 posted on 08/15/2010 1:09:36 PM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

To: FunkyZero
when reposting someones material, it should be a short excerpt and a link to the original publisher.

They're suing the people that did that.

Polite communication between site operators can clear up 99% of these things with no hassles.

It's certainly obvious that you just don't get it.

45 posted on 08/15/2010 1:12:54 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

To: FunkyZero

I agree on the practice of doing a short excerpt and a link or do your own commentary, cite the sources, use these “ “ and in the case of videos, thank the person and the source for the video.

But what is going on I am VERY CONCERNED it could produce a chilling effect. Plus I suspect this company is in bigtime financial problems.


83 posted on 08/15/2010 6:01:50 PM PDT by Biggirl (AZ Is DOING THE JOB The Feds Should Be Doing, ENFORCING The Southern Border! =^..^=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson