Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts The Media Your Rights Online

Newspaper May Have Given Implicit License To Copy 175

Posted by timothy
from the this-way-to-the-lawsuit dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Following up on the story of Righthaven, the 'copyright troll' that is working with the Las Vegas Journal Review to sue lots of websites (including one of Nevada's Senate candidates) for reposting articles from the LVRJ, a judge in one of the cases appears to be quite sympathetic to the argument that the LVRJ offered an 'implied license' to copy by not just putting their content online for free, but including tools on every story that say 'share this' with links to various sharing services (including one tool to 'share' via Slashdot!)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Newspaper May Have Given Implicit License To Copy

Comments Filter:
  • by Haedrian (1676506) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @08:10AM (#33660592)

    If common sense finally wins in one of these cases, it'll be the end of the world as we know it.

    Until they file an appeal.

    • Re:Common Sense? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Pojut (1027544) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @08:48AM (#33660822) Homepage

      The fact that common sense usually doesn't win out in these types of cases should be proof enough for anyone that the justice system provides anything but.

    • by Chas (5144) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @09:39AM (#33661404) Homepage Journal

      But I feel fine!

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mea37 (1201159)

      In what world do you live?

      Are you not aware that the high-profile RIAA/MPAA cases are a tiny fraction of the copyright litigation that occurs? Have you failed to notice that even in those cases, while the industry groups are pushing for outrageous outcomes, the trend has been toward moderation (or, one might say, "common sense") for a long time now?

      It is not shocking news that the court is hearing this argument, and it will not be shocking news if this argument prevails.

      • by nabsltd (1313397)

        Are you not aware that the high-profile RIAA/MPAA cases are a tiny fraction of the copyright litigation that occurs? Have you failed to notice that even in those cases, while the industry groups are pushing for outrageous outcomes, the trend has been toward moderation (or, one might say, "common sense") for a long time now?

        It is not shocking news that the court is hearing this argument, and it will not be shocking news if this argument prevails.

        Based on past copyright suits, I think it will actually be quite shocking if both these things happen.

        The big issue is that copyright law specifically lists enormous awards, so that's what every copyright lawsuit shoots for. With legal fees so high, settlements are common, which means it's likely this argument might never actually make it to a final ruling in favor of the defendant, or the defendant might win on some other non-precedent setting ruling. These things happen all the time in copyright lawsuit

    • by metrometro (1092237) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @10:46AM (#33662316)

      Judges are human, and Righthaven is a bag of dicks. Righthaven sues their own sources for posting stories that the sources gave to the paper for free. It's entirely likely the judge stayed up late looking for ways to get these people off the hook. Law is not code. It is a human institution subject to human anti-dickhead prejudices.

      This usually works in the other direction: Internet freedoms are frequently tested in the court on behalf of creepy child abusers. Maybe we should try to avoid that?

  • Do not feed the copyright troll. This is interesting. I have a feeling that very soon, the court system is going to start getting sick of the abuses of the copyright system, which may spur some changes. Of course, this has been said many times before.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Haedrian (1676506)

      The Court system may be sick of it, but the lobbyists sure as hell aren't.

      Not going to happen.

      • by dfm3 (830843) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @08:24AM (#33660672) Journal

        The Court system may be sick of it, but the lawyers sure as hell aren't.

        Not going to happen.

        Fixed that for you.

        We know who always wins these cases, and it's not always the plaintiff or defendant...

    • Re:Reform is needed. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by mcgrew (92797) * on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @08:42AM (#33660774) Homepage Journal

      There are two kinds of copyright troll: the ones who abuse copyright itself, like filing takedown notices on websites that aren't infringing copyright but the troll wants closed for other reasons (like it said something bad about them), and the industry shills who come to slashdot equating copyright infringemet to theft and terrorism with their "think of the artists" and "it's MY property" twisted logic.

      Sometimes you have to fight the trolls.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by ByOhTek (1181381)

        And the people who come to slashdot and think they have the right to any non-physical copyrightted work, even without paying for it.

        • by turbidostato (878842) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @08:55AM (#33660884)

          "And the people who come to slashdot and think they have the right to any non-physical copyrightted work, even without paying for it."

          Not any. Only what the author already decided to make *public*.

        • by Jawnn (445279)

          And the people who come to slashdot and think they have the right to any non-physical copyrightted work, even without paying for it.

          Ya' know, we hear this often enough, but it's mostly bullshit. Sure, there might be the odd miscreant that honestly believes that he is entitled to others' works without paying what is asked for those works, but they are truly an exception, so tiny in number as to be insignificant. So WTF are you on about?

          • Watch this discussion get rolling. Here on /. they seem to be a pretty decent sized chunk of the population and certainly not insignificant. They feel that as long as they make a copy of the work they no longer owe the person who invested the time and effort into creating it anything ever.

        • >And the people who come to slashdot and think they have the right to any non-physical copyrightted work, even without paying for it. Thats what the Canadian recordable media levy allows me to do and store all the music I want for personal listening pleasure on cd'rs.
      • by gsslay (807818) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @10:32AM (#33662058)

        You appear to be confusing 'troll' with "someone who disagrees with my perfectly correct opinions and therefore must be silenced".

        Trolls are generally not welcome, as they are not interested in discussion, just provoking reaction. They may not even care about the topic discussed one way or another. It's just a way of getting attention for their favorite topic; themselves.

        People who disagree, however, are essential for any good discussion forum. Informed and considered opinion rarely forms from people sitting around congratulating each other on how right they all are and how much they are in agreement. I can't imagine why anyone would want to hang out in any forum like that. Ideas need challenged to prove their worth. Calling those who provide the challenge 'trolls' or 'shills' are just ad hominen attacks that avoid the real issues.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mcgrew (92797) *

          People who disagree, however, are essential for any good discussion forum.

          I agree entirely with your post, but when you see strawmen and other deceitful arguments, you're looking at a troll.

        • by lymond01 (314120)

          Informed and considered opinion rarely forms from people sitting around congratulating each other on how right they all are and how much they are in agreement.

          Hear, hear! I'm right there with you, my good fellow!

      • by geekoid (135745)

        Sometimes you have to fight the trolls... with fire. cause, you know, they regenerate. Acid works as well.

      • the industry shills who come to slashdot equating copyright infringemet to theft and terrorism with their "think of the artists" and "it's MY property" twisted logic.

        It is their property and they have a right to decide how it can be used; the same law that protects them protects the GPL. While you and I may not like the copyright suits and how they are used; property rights play an important role in technological advancement.

    • by jgagnon (1663075) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @08:46AM (#33660802)

      Just wait for lawyers to start patenting their particular model of "lawyering" and then the fun REALLY starts. :p

  • They need help (Score:3, Interesting)

    by h00manist (800926) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @08:12AM (#33660608) Journal
    Their articles need posting to a few hundred websites more... that way they can become partners with the **AA gang in the mass-mail lawsuits business. It's all part of a plan for a DOS attack on the justice system.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702)
      At which point, all court rooms can be issued with a small PA system and a button on their desk. Every case of "RIAA Vs. " or "MPAA Vs. " etc which they encounter, they can press the button. In a big booming voice, the PA system will play "DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. and that'll be that.

      Trapdoor to shark pit underneath the plaintiff's lawyers is optional.
      • by Yer Mom (78107)

        Trapdoor to shark pit underneath the plaintiff's lawyers is optional.

        Isn't that a bit cruel to the sharks?

      • Trapdoor to shark pit underneath the plaintiff's lawyers is optional.

        Sorry, sharks won't eat lawyers. It's a matter of "professional courtesy"...

      • Trapdoor to shark pit underneath the plaintiff's lawyers is optional.

        But it should not be. Get rid of the lawyers that file this frivolous stuff and eventually we'll run out of anything for a buck lawyers. That cannot be anything but desirable.

        Then we'll maybe have some common sense in the American justice system again.

        --
        Cheers, Gene
        "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
        soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
        -Ed Howdershelt (Author)
        Hubbard's Law:

  • by DarkKnightRadick (268025) <the_spoon.geo@yahoo.com> on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @08:12AM (#33660610) Homepage Journal

    It's a double-edged sword. Lets see how the trolls like being sliced with it.

  • Um... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by omglolbah (731566) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @08:12AM (#33660612)

    Wouldnt this mean that any sharing of a link to your content would also give an implied license to copy?

    How exactly is this going to work? Does this mean that all newspaper stories are freely usable by anyone?... That will sure break a lot of things... :p

    • Re:Um... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Yvanhoe (564877) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @08:26AM (#33660680) Journal

      How exactly is this going to work?

      How concisely you sum up years of interrogations about this whole "intellectual property" thing !

      • by h00manist (800926)

        How exactly is this going to work?

        How concisely you sum up years of interrogations about this whole "intellectual property" thing !

        Well, I'd propose modifying the property law. Private property is limited to what you can carry on your person, or keep within one 12ft x 12ft space. Everything else is public property, and you may join various associations to use and manage and care for it. As to private intellectual property, you may author it and keep it locked in there if you wish.

    • Re:Um... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Spad (470073) <slashdot @ s p a d . c o.uk> on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @08:45AM (#33660798) Homepage

      It is, as they always say in the lawsuits against P2P operators, all about how you advertise your services.

      If you say "Here is my article, come read it" then you're not implying anything beyond that, but if you say "Here is my article, come read it and share it with all your friends" then the implication is that you're happy for people to take that article and spread it around.

      Now there may be an issue of attribution, but that's an entirely separate issue from claiming that people are violating your copyrights by doing what you invited them to do.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        How different is this from the free newspapers I see around the city that tries to propagate itself through free distribution? Just because it's passed around as much as possible, it doesn't necessarily mean you (the end-user) can take the articles and publish it in a book form compilation and sell it.

        As a photographer, I pass out postcards and other marketing materials. It doesn't mean the *potential* art buyers can use my image for their designs and advertising projects. I am the copyright holder.

        What abo

      • Re:Um... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by DerekLyons (302214) <`fairwater' `at' `gmail.com'> on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @11:05AM (#33662628) Homepage

        It is, as they always say in the lawsuits against P2P operators, all about how you advertise your services.

        Correct, and from the responses here on Slashdot, I suspect virtually none have actually gone and checked out the 'advertising'. It doesn't say what you think it says.
         

        If you say "Here is my article, come read it" then you're not implying anything beyond that, but if you say "Here is my article, come read it and share it with all your friends" then the implication is that you're happy for people to take that article and spread it around.

        However, the LVRJ is not saying "here's the article, share it with all your friends", they're saying "here's a link, share it with all your friends". There's a huge and important difference there.

    • Does this mean that all newspaper stories are freely usable by anyone?...

      They already were... well, the newspapers might have thought otherwise... they are just waking up to reality.
      • by h00manist (800926)

        Does this mean that all newspaper stories are freely usable by anyone?...

        No. You may only use them for reading and when the regular toilet paper ends. For any other purpose such as lining bird cages and cleaning windows, etc, you must get special permits.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Urza9814 (883915)

      No, it means that if you put a button on your site saying "Click here to copy part of this story to your website!", you can't then sue people for copying parts of the story. It would be like YouTube suing people for using the embed links they post.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by DerekLyons (302214)

        No, it means that if you put a button on your site saying "Click here to copy part of this story to your website!", you can't then sue people for copying parts of the story. It would be like YouTube suing people for using the embed links they post.

        Not quite - there's different kinds of 'copying'. Putting a button on your site does give implicit permission to copy that portion of the story provided by the button - it does not give implicit permission to cut-and-paste the entire story. (Usually such buttons

    • by ratboy666 (104074)

      But.. LVRJ didn't say "Share a link" -- at the bottom of the page is says:

      "Share & Save"

      followed by a host of links.

      If the instruction "Share & Save" is taken to be an instruction as to Copyright disposition for the story, I can easily see any claim to Copyright violation being thrown out.

      And, this instruction is at the bottom of current LVRJ stories -

      ref

      http://www.lvrj.com/news/bill-scott-anticipates-attempt-to-clear-police-in-costco-slaying--trash-his-dead-son-s-name-103510074.html [lvrj.com]

      as an example

  • A limited reading (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sonny Yatsen (603655) * on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @08:24AM (#33660670) Journal

    I just want to note that the Righthaven v. Klerks decision linked to in the article should actually be read on fairly narrow grounds. The whole issue of Righthaven is whether to vacate a default judgment entered against Righthaven. In order to vacate the default judgment, the defendant had to show that they 1) weren't culpable in defaulting, 2) they had a meritorious defense to the original case, and 3) not vacating the default judgment will prejudice the defendant.

    The whole part about the implicit license to copy and fair use was applied only to the question of whether Righthaven had a meritorious defense. However, it does not mean that the defense is a winning defense, merely that it wouldn't be laughed out of court if they asserted it. I don't think this really offers that much precedent beyond the narrow scope of the motion.

    In any case, while I disagree with Righthaven (and I agree with the judge on the matter of fair use), something doesn't exactly sit right with me with the Judge's argument that the newspaper gave an implied consent to copy the newspaper. Part of the reasoning is that the newspaper permitted the user to "'right-click' and copy the article". This seems like a dog of an argument to me. Practically all websites allow users to right click (except for Dr. Ann de Wees Allen) and copy the content from their webpages - that doesn't seem like it means that everything is offered on the web with an implied license to copy. Rather, the fact that the newspaper had links to share a link to the content on facebook or twitter or whatever - and thus should only really be read to have given implied consent to link, not to copy.

    • Sorry, I confused the parties. I meant that the question is whether Klerks had a meritorious defense, not Righthaven (the copyright troll in question).

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo (153816)

      something doesn't exactly sit right with me with the Judge's argument that the newspaper gave an implied consent to copy the newspaper. Part of the reasoning is that the newspaper permitted the user to "'right-click' and copy the article". This seems like a dog of an argument to me. Practically all websites allow users to right click

      Just to be clear, browsers allow users to right-click. That's not the website. That's the difference upon which I would focus when attempting to undermine that argument. Website operators can take additional means to prevent stupid people from saving their content, but the law doesn't require them to do so in order to gain copyright protection.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Haedrian (1676506)

        Just to be clear, browsers allow users to right-click.

        They've been suing the wrong people all this time.

        Mozilla, Google and Microsoft are the culprits!

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by paziek (1329929)

          Not really. This way you could say, that it was the one who made this kitchen knife - used to stab someone - is to blame for it.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Haedrian (1676506)

            Same way you could say people who offer torrent tracking, torrent searches, and torrent programs are to blame for the data which passes through them.

            I was being sarcastic, in light of the fact that this sort of thing has been tried once too many times.

    • An insult to dogs (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Mr. Underbridge (666784) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @09:02AM (#33660972)

      something doesn't exactly sit right with me with the Judge's argument that the newspaper gave an implied consent to copy the newspaper. Part of the reasoning is that the newspaper permitted the user to "'right-click' and copy the article". This seems like a dog of an argument to me.

      As a dog owner, I take umbrage with that statement. It's a terrible argument on a few grounds, including those you mention as well as:

      1) The right click thing is ludicrous, as you state and more. The site doesn't provide right-click functionality, the browser does. The site in question would have had to take extreme measures (like the de Wees Allen gambit) to prevent it, which never ends up working anyway. Besides, there are fair uses for newspaper articles (which would presumably be killed by effective copy protection) - just not necessarily this one.

      2) Didn't we have this whole link vs. content thing before with sites that link to pirated works, CSS keys, things like that? Aren't "we" on the side that sharing a link is completely different than providing content? So they should be able to provide a *link* without that being interpreted as providing the content, right?

      3) I really, really don't like the "it was freely (as in beer) available, so now there's an implicit license. Sounds a lot like the whole 'GPL software is in the public domain

    • It has nothing to do with the "ability" to copy by not disallowing the right click; that's indeed ludicrous, but has no bearing on reality. The reality is the newspaper invited copying with a "copy this article" link and "share via digg" link.

      Having a "copy this article link" then suing because somebody copied it is as ludicrous as Google suing someone who used their "copy url" in one of thier Google Maps or Google streetviews.

      You can't give someone a present then try to get them arrested for stealing.

      • The people that Righthaven are suing are people who copied and pasted an entire Las Vegas Review-Journal article onto their own website. One of the defendants was Sharon Angle, the Republican nominee who copied and rehosted a copy of the LVR-J's article about herself on her campaign website. Righthaven isn't suing people for merely copying an article link, but the whole article itself, that's the difference.

        I think the point has been made, by myself and others, that what the newspaper actually invited was s

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Myopic (18616)

        I was wondering about the "copy this article" claim, so I went to the LVJ website. I went to the first news article which was

        http://www.lvrj.com/news/bill-scott-anticipates-attempt-to-clear-police-in-costco-slaying--trash-his-dead-son-s-name-103510074.html [lvrj.com]

        There you can see, at the bottom of the article, a whole slew of "share on some other website" links, including Digg and Slashdot. The last icon is a heart, which I think is a way of adding the article to some kind of personal LVJ list of favorite articles

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Urza9814 (883915)

      the fact that the newspaper had links to share a link to the content on facebook or twitter or whatever - and thus should only really be read to have given implied consent to link, not to copy.

      Except 90% of the time, when you share a link on Facebook, it copies a fairly large portion of the article into your news feed as well. I'm not sure if there's a way to turn that if, but if there is, I would say the validity of the argument rests of if that was enabled. And if that feature can't be or wasn't disabled, then I would say they most definitely gave a licence to copy at least on or two paragraphs from an article.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Sonny Yatsen (603655) *

        Remember, one factor for the fair use doctrine is the amount that was copied. For example, if only a small portion is copied (as would be when links are shared via facebook), then that tends to support a finding of fair use. On the other hand, if the entire article is copied, then that factor tends to weigh against the defendant when making a case for fair use (as noted in the judge's decision here, actually).

      • the fact that the newspaper had links to share a link to the content on facebook or twitter or whatever - and thus should only really be read to have given implied consent to link, not to copy.

        Except 90% of the time, when you share a link on Facebook, it copies a fairly large portion of the article into your news feed as well.

        Huh? My experience is quite the opposite - 99.99999% of the time you get the article title and maybe four or five sentences maximum worth of content. (And that is in fact what the LV

  • by koterica (981373) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @08:54AM (#33660874) Journal
    As others have explained above, this judgment isn't so much a precedent as it is a judge saying that the argument *might* work. However- it shows remarkable reasonableness on the part of the judge. After all, if I put a fruit bowl on a table with a note that said "Take one and have a nice day!", I could hardly turn around and sue you for banana-theft.
    • by jamesh (87723) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @09:13AM (#33661086)

      After all, if I put a fruit bowl on a table with a note that said "Take one and have a nice day!", I could hardly turn around and sue you for banana-theft.

      If you put a note on the table that said "tell all your friends to come over here and look at this fruit" and one of them stole a banana then you might have a stronger case, which I think better describes what's going on in TFA.

      AFAICT, 'Share this' doesn't copy the entire article, it just copies the blurb and gets people to go visit the news site if they want to know more. IMO that is not an implicit or explicit license to copy anything. I think it's good that the judge isn't just handwaving away the idea that it might be, but I think common sense in this case says that the defendant is in the wrong if they have indeed copied a large chunk of data.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        After all, if I put a fruit bowl on a table with a note that said "Take one and have a nice day!", I could hardly turn around and sue you for banana-theft.

        If you put a note on the table that said "tell all your friends to come over here and look at this fruit" and one of them stole a banana then you might have a stronger case, which I think better describes what's going on in TFA.

        You've both got the analogy wrong. Copyright violation != theft. A more appropriate version of your analogy:
        If you put a note on the table that said "tell all your friends to come over here and look at this fruit", and one of them took a picture of the fruit and showed it to others then you might have a stronger case.

  • If they had a "Share via Slashdot!" tool, then a few paragraphs from their articles may be on Slashdot... which means unless those bastards are stopped, there's a good chance they might sue geeknet for copywrong infringement at some point.
  • enough (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jeek Elemental (976426) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @09:07AM (#33661034)

    I think Ive been patient enough, you are starting to bore me now.
    While I dont like to, I will put my foot down now;

    The following commandments should be chiseled in stone, engraved by laser in a meteorite, embedded in the standard neck-chip or other method suitable for your preferred epoch:

    NO TRADEMARKS
    No string of characters, numbers or symbols may be claimed as property.
    Products may be labeled with, in addition to name, manufacturers address, which it is a sin to falsify.

    NO PATENTS
    If you are first with an idea, you may use that to your advantage or not.

    NO COPYRIGHT
    No restraints may be put on sharing of information and ideas.

    • There is no property rights to trademarks. The purpose of Trademarks is to prevent consumers from being mislead or confused.

      • by h00manist (800926)

        There is no property rights to trademarks. The purpose of Trademarks is to prevent consumers from being mislead or confused.

        That was the original intent. But saying "M*D*nalds food is bad for you." Or "S*cient*l*gy=lies." or registering foxlies.com have become unauthorized trademark violations. Or defamation slander etc. In other words, imposition of copyright law onto freedom of expression.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Myopic (18616)

      Hmmm. I don't know. That sounds like an ideological over-reaction to the current ideological over-reaction. I would prefer a balance, because I understand the arguments at both ends of this spectrum, and sympathize with them both.

      • by h00manist (800926)
        Sometimes achieving a balanced view is possible and best. Sometimes profound change is best, socially accecptable and easy, but politically nearly impossible. In those cases, political pressure and political organizing is the way to go. I think copyrights/patents/trademarks are changing most rapidly through abuse and legal confusion, mostly because it's very similar to civil disobedience, creating a politically untenable situation.
    • Re:enough (Score:4, Insightful)

      by cgenman (325138) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @09:51AM (#33661566) Homepage

      You do realize that copyright law doesn't actually cover the sharing of information and ideas, but merely the particular expressive form that entails. If people were to have taken all of these stories and put them into their own words, the newspaper wouldn't have a copyright claim because the information contained therein is not copyrightable. But they didn't, they plagerized to some degree or another.

      Also, your description of "No Trademarks" quickly wanders back into the "oh, it's a tradmark" territory. You acknowledge the need for consumers to be able to reliably source the origins of the products they buy, and put a non-falsifiable identifier in there which discriminates manufacturers. Except, of course, that the address of a company doesn't really have any meaning in this day and age, as Apple for example has headquarters and manufacturing all over the world. So you have to fall back to some non-falsifiable unique identifier.

      For trademarks, I feel like the system needs to give legal costs+ punative damages against tradmark abusers who sue for opportunistic inactive tradmarks. But that overall the trademark system is OK.
      The patent system is badly, badly underfunded. If patent clerks had enough time to actually investigate patents, we might see a dropoff in false patents being granted. Bringing in a network of secret outside consultants might help.
      Copyright is getting to be a bit of a mess, but that's mainly due to stupid legislation pushed through by artists groups that don't actually represent the artists. Cut back mandatory damages for small-time personal infringement to something similar to physical theft, modify the DMCA to allow for ANY content protection bypassing so long as it is for things which are within the user's rights, and require the RIAA to sign up each damned artist individually and send each of them a statement every month with the money that they owe that particular artist.

    • Re:enough (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Migraineman (632203) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @09:55AM (#33661616)
      Look, if you're going to publish your "manifesto," it's gotta have more verbage. Folks won't take the outline version seriously. And posting it to Slashdot just won't do. You'll need to hijack a schoolbus full of nuns and kittens, hold them at gunpoint at the public library, and put on a hell of a show for the local media, lest they preempt you for the latest episode of "Big Brother: Who's Watching the Watchers?."

      Oh, and body armor. Definitely.

      On a more serious note, chucking the entire copyright and patent systems is swinging to the opposite still-busted extreme from what we have now. Instead of pseudo-permanent ownership of IP elements, you'll end up breeding a pack of predatory IP-stealers who are well funded, and who are capable of getting your product to market faster and cheaper than you can.

      Might I make a suggestion? Push copyright and patent durations back to something more sane - 10-20 years maybe? Make them inalienable - they're stuck to the original creators, and corporations don't qualify as "creators." People create; corporations are simply collections of people who agree to work for a common goal. When the work's creator dies, the IP immediately reverts to the Public, regardless of who it's licensed to. (Note: you can't motivate a corpse into creating additional works.) Finally, bring back the copyright registration requirement. If it's worth the protection, it's worth some effort on your part. The registration should include posting a source master to the Library of Congress, such that the escrowed copy may be presented to the People at the expiry of the copyright term, regardless of your ability to make that happen.
      • by geekoid (135745)

        So I can own my work, but I can never license anyone to use it? Why can't I lisences it to a corporation?

        14 years, I can do whate ver I want with it, then it's everyones. That's fair and reasonable.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Migraineman (632203)
          You own it, until 14 years pass or you die. Within that period, you can license it as you see fit. However, if you license it to MegaCorp for the next 10 years, then slide under a bus the following day, the copyright goes *piff* and the work becomes public property immediately. No permanent licensing, no passing it along to your heirs.

          The "inalienable" part tethers the copyright to the blood-and-guts person who did the creating. Copyright is supposed to be an incentive for folks to create new things,
      • by deander2 (26173) *

        (Note: you can't motivate a corpse into creating additional works.)

        but you can motivate a person who wants to create today and doesn't expect to be a corpse tomorrow.

    • by Haedrian (1676506)

      I'll be sure to vote for you in the next deity-election.

    • by geekoid (135745)

      Your an idiot... or you want entrenched large entities to control every thing.

    • by h00manist (800926)

      NO TRADEMARKS

      NO PATENTS

      NO COPYRIGHT

      No restrictions would be great.

      I agree. But. Be careful of what you wish for - you may get it.
      All files, documents, data, and databases may be freely disseminated. Personal databases too. Passwords too. Phone numbers, purchase histories, places visited, dates. The CIA's, Mossad's, Boeing's, yours, mine, Tiger Woods, the pope and the POTUS. I agree, yes. I vote for extreme transparency, extreme data openness, any day, over extreme secrecy, which we have now.

  • The paper is called the Las Vegas Review-Journal, not Journal Review. http://www.lvrj.com/ [lvrj.com]

    check your copy much? oh, yeah...
  • Sharing an article on Slashdot or Facebook only shares an abstract and a *link* to the article. You're still viewing the article in full from the original source.

    Saying that the "Share" button is a license to copy the entire article is like saying that musicians and record labels give you a license to copy by letting you hear a 30-second preview.

  • The problem with "share this" is that putting such a thing on your site pretty much demonstrates .. totally undefined intent. You're requesting people (no wait .. not people) to spread a link, but have little idea what they'll do with it.

    Furthermore, you're requesting that they spread it in a rather mechanical and robotic fashion. The whole value of the share-this button is the implied automation, that you don't want to rely on humans to take the initiative to go to some other site and talk about your web

There's a whole WORLD in a mud puddle! -- Doug Clifford

Working...