Looks like a worthy thread to bump.
But then the Law has always been An Ass.
SO9
I think a real test in the courts would fail. Web sites are CREATED to give people access to their material. If anything, you are ASSISTING them and increasing their hits.
And as for the articles themselves, just do what FR does and excerpt them according to 'fair use' rules.
Basically you can't sue someone (and win) for using what you put out for public use.
unless you get a liberal judge...
Sounds like the ratbastards at Pravda's Tulsa Bureau (The Whirled) are feeling threatened so it's time to call out the Kommissars and get the peasants to behave themselves.
F*** that.
Anyone reading this who is a subscriber to that fishwrapper should take a copy of their threat letter and send it in with a note to cancel their subscription as AN ENEMY OF FREE SPEECH.
Stinking Commies!!!!
BTTT
I don't think they have a leg to stand on in the "linking to their site" charge. OK bump.
The Tulsa World is another example of lefty boomers taking over and destroying an institions (universities and media are the favorite targets).
The World was a conservative paper in a conservative town until the 1990's. It has currently evolved into a hopelessly biased liberal rag. Yet the vast majority of its subscribers and readers are red blooded conservatives. Go figure.
I hope the Bates blog hounds the World relentlessly. Power to the people.
reproducing content is one thing. copyright law is pretty clear on it, irrespective of "fair usage" of excerpts
linking is quite another matter. on this issue, the Whirled has no leg to stand on. I used to be involved freelance with a large multinational firm as part of their RM and B&RC division, doing web-copping. I know from experience and for a fact that the Whirled will lose on the links. Period.
While everyone gets up in arms about the paper's demand to cease linking -- which is obviously goofy -- it's worth noting that the paper is also accusing the blogger of reproducing its material ("in whole or in part").
If you haven't yourself seen the material in question, then you're simply rushing to judgment in assuming the blogger is right and the paper is wrong. I know I haven't seen the material in question, so I have no basis on which to form an opinion.
I do know, though, that if the blogger was indeed reproducing entire Tulsa World articles, or reproducing them to an extent unprotected by a fair-use claim, then he is guilty of copyright infringement.
I realize there are many Free Republic users who believe there's nothing wrong with republishing copyrighted content in its entirety. That's quite clear. But if a content owner wishes to protect his copyright, it's certainly his legal and moral right to do so. The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, obviously, are among those who have sought to defend their copyrights here. Others, obviously, have not. Intellectual property infringement is (typically) a civil and not criminal matter. Pursuing a claim is entirely the prerogative of a copyright holder.
Tulsa World may very well be engaged in its own legally and morally defensible protection of its copyrights. Until we know the extent of the blogger's reproduction -- or if there was reproduction at all -- then it seems wise to withhold judgment.
Thanks for all of your work Michael D. Bates.
Sent a message to the daily oklahoman with the url. Always nice to know when the competition is making and
A-$$ of themselves. :-)