Skip to comments.Judge Rules that Reposting an Entire Article Without Permission Is ‘Fair Use’
Posted on 06/22/2011 12:58:30 AM PDT by paltz
A federal judge ruled in favor of a defendant who reposted an entire article in a copyright case on Monday, Wired reports. The lawsuit was brought by Righthaven, a Las Vegas-based copyright litigation factory, according to Wired, that has sued more than 200 websites, bloggers, and commenters for copyright infringement. This particular lawsuit targeted Wayne Hoehn, who posted an entire editorial from the Las Vegas Review-Journal and its headline, Public Employee Pensions: We Cant Afford Them on a website medjacksports.com. Hoehn was not an employee of the site.
(Excerpt) Read more at mediabistro.com ...
“Righthaven Loss: Judge Rules Reposting Entire Article Is Fair Use”
“Bloggers Mull Legal Action Against Righthaven”
I'm so sad.
It’s really silly.
When I look at a posted article, I often go back to the original, and sometimes take a look around the site, reading other articles.
If anything, IMHO reading reposted articles INCREASES the eyeballs on the site. I certainly don’t read, say, Der Spiegal, unless a freeper posts an article from it.
The distinction between fair use and not, should have been this simple.
F.R. Is a donor funded website, and has no advertising.
If the website (FR) does not benefit from the hit count (paid by advertisers), then FR is not stealing the hits or the money from another website.
In fact, it does quite the opposite. There are TONS of websites I would never have visited, had someone not mentioned or linked it or sourced it.
As far as being ‘required’ to excerpt, I don’t really want the WHOLE article, especially if long, at the top of the thread. Being able to open the ‘source’ in another window to read and refer to while I’m posting is quite helpful.
I don’t mind hitting the source page and letting them get a ‘hit’ from me so an advertiser pays them. The advertisements are what provide much of the revenue on the net.
The MSM’s that sued or restrict their articles from being even sourced are not made because F.R. is ‘stealing’ revenue from them. They know it’s not true. What they are mad about is what we SAY about their articles.
For example, it withholds articles from sources it pays to print, like AP wire stories. Not even a headline from the print newspaper with a link. AP has its own internet posting requirements.
The lawsuit was brought by RighthavenRighthaven will be rightly blamed for helping to gut the copyright laws, which means, a massive class-action lawsuit by all copyright holders who want in -- directed against Righthaven and all its litigators, plus whatever entities hired it in the first place. Should be good.
POS parasite lawyers go down again. Yesterday the parasites who sued Walmart lost big on a sex discrimination class action law suit. And are out 7 million for their efforts and will hopefully pay millions more in Walmart’s attorney’s fees
“...What they are mad about is what we SAY about their articles.”
Agree your post, but possibly what they are mad about is, or could be the same reason they are liberals in most cases. They don’t get it. They don’t get much of anything.
Agreed. The MSM old-media types have no concept of what a content portal is. They still somehow believe people will come to their bland, one-size-fits-all website which besides the articles and some video only offers advertising. There is no common or shared interest other than a political bent. Internet patrons gravitate to appealing content, not a name.
Flyonthewall Not Squashed
Now, that’s a ‘awhsh!t’ moment!!
The fact that the Onion, for instance, went all out to prevent articles from being linked or excerpted on Free Republic never made sense to me. I normally don’t go to the Onion; when I am “surfing” the internet, there are only a couple of sites I frequent, and unless something is referenced, I’m not going to go to it. Mostly, I forget that the Onion even exists. But if someone excerpts an article or links a video from the Onion, I may end up spending quite a bit of time on that site.
“Judge Rules that Reposting an Entire Article Without Permission Is Fair Use”
This won’t stand. The creator of written content owns that property, regardless of what some collectivist Marxist judge says.
And be forewarned, all you content thieves and scrapers. Google will soon roll out Part 3 in its Panda algorithym update that will target duplicate content. All you thieves scraping content will find yourselves delisted from Google. Or the page 1 SERP of your website could fall to page 3,999.
That means you lose visitors, and your income from Adsense will dry up.
(F) When you read the article it says only a few of the paragraphs were the author’s original opinion.
(O) I would like to see a requirement that all media separate fact from opinion by paragraph with an “F” or “O” label for each as appropriate. With the reduced cognitive skills of the populous this would make it easier for the majority to tell the difference between someone peeing on their leg and rain.
One important reason to post the entire article is the ephemeral nature of the web. We've seen a lot of 'inconvienient' articles published by legacy media just disappear down the memory hole. Without our archives, it would just be gone.
I used to read the Onion when you could post a piece on FR. I haven’t been there since.
I often read a lot of articles on the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, and lots of local TV station sites (read the article on FR, and then go to the site for the video,etc) simply because the article is posted on FR. Otherwise I certainly wouldn’t go there. I mean, why would I check out a Montana local station, like I did yesterday?
I especially won’t read the NY Times and LA Times on their own, but often a freeper will post something, so I ‘ll go take a peek there.
Now these sites all have software telling them where people are coming from, so they must know how FR is a portal to them. They know all this. They either have bad management or an attitude, or both.
Same here. I never go to CNN or ABC.com unless posted here because sometimes I want to see comments. The CBC is left leaning, however after Harper's (Conservative PM) victory in Ottawa I went to the NY times via here and saw many conservative viewpoints in the comments section, something I wouldn't have seen had it not been posted here in entirety.
What will Panda part 3 do to limit duplicate content? If I excerpt a sentence in my reply, does my post get blocked? If I write a technical article and quote (with attribution) the source, will that get my whole article flagged as duplicate?
“f I excerpt a sentence in my reply, does my post get blocked? If I write a technical article and quote (with attribution) the source, will that get my whole article flagged as duplicate?”
I would guess not. I’m referencing the theme of this story - a stupid judge ruling that lifting an entire article is “fair use.” That gives a green light to content and article scrapers. These A-holes will copy entire web pages, optimize them for adsense and steal money using your work. In my mind, that’s equivalent to copying a current best seller, printing it and selling them on the street without giving the author his cut.
Keep in mind, though, that I don’t speak for Google. Who knows what these Google dipwads will do. The Panda 1 release destroyed thousands and thousands of small businesses relying on adsense for income and destroyed thousands more who were affiliate sellers.
We’re seeing fascism in action. Google pulled a fast one and funneled at least one billion dollars in adsense to the dying media, like the NYT, at the expense of thousands of small businesses that were beating the dinosaur media at their own game. Google’s fingerprints are all over this shadey deal. At the least, Google violated anti-trust laws and needs to be broken into a dozen pieces, while Google board members and the CEO serve a long time in prison. But Google is in bed with the fascist obuma, so nothing will happen.
It will eventually come down to states and their citizens taking direct action against these thieving elitist pigs occupying Washington.
Oops! I’m on my soapbox. Better stop now.
As much as I’d like to see copyright law revised to reflect reality and as much as I despise Righthaven, this isn’t the right decision. The notion of “fair use” is pretty good actually, it’s when pinheads like Righthaven try to claim that any use of their material constitutes infringement that things go off the cliff. The intellectual property of content creators needs to be protected, and a revised Fair Use policy could do that. It’s a balance.
I expect this ruling will be appealed and overturned.