Cease and Desist... copyright complaint from Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

VIA email from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette | 04/05/2004 | Corey Waugaman, PG Permissions Department

[Jim Robinson]

Subject: Cease and Desist...

Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 14:10:47 -0400

From: Corey Waugaman

To: Susan Kish , "'webmaster@freerepublic.com'"

To Whom It May Concern:

It has been brought to our attention that you have republished Pittsburgh Post-Gazette material without permission. This is a direct violation of the Copyright Law of 1976. Please cease and desist immediately.

It is the policy of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette not permit the posting of our material on any web site but our own.

Material to be removed:

Allegiance to party complicates local race for incumbent Diven

All eggs are not created equal

CMU slur brings apology

AND ANY OTHER POST-GAZETTE MATERIAL

Please remove all of our material from your web site within 24 hours. Periodic checks will be made to verify your compliance. If the material has not been removed within the allotted time, legal action will be taken.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Corey Waugaman

PG Permissions Department

[Paleo Conservative]

I wonder if the Post Gazette has extended this warning to other sites? Here in PA, as many freepers have already discovered, they are quite liberal, Bush-haters, big Dem supporters. No surprise they are offended, copyright issues aside.

Considering Teresa Heinz' first husband was from the Pittsburgh area and lots of the Heinz family charities benefit that area, I bet the John Kerry-Heinz 2004 campaign was behind this.

[antiRepublicrat]

BTW, you could have some fun with them. The DMCA lays out specific requirements for a notice to an online site such as FR, and it looks like this mail doesn't fulfill the law. Check the DMCA, down at "ELEMENTS OF NOTIFICATION." Of course ask you lawyer first if you want to play.

[DoughtyOne]

What really bugs these folks, is that US citizens might read, discuss and shoot down the leftist drivel they see fit to print.

If every news organization forbid us to repost their material, it would be impossible to have an adequately informed populace.

IMO, that's where we're headed.

If you can publish news, then take it back, only a few will have access. None will have access to all, because you couldn't afford to purchase access to it all.

Most of the instigators of the darkest moments in history would love what's happening to information in this nation.

[FourtySeven]

...ah jeeze.......bump. Soon all of FR is just going to be a collection of excerpts, forcing us to visit sites that require registration! A minor complaint, I suppose, as any interesting articles I simply bookmark from the source anyway, BUT STILL, it's nice to have a copy on hand of an article if the orginal source is moved, or no longer available for other reasons. dag nabbit...

[DoughtyOne]

Whether worded correctly or not, the intent is clear. They have asked for removal in liu of initiating legal action. Seems like a good idea to comply unless we want to take them on legally.

[AppyPappy]

Remember that you can summarize the article for free. So you can farm out the content while eliminating the bias.

[PennsylvaniaMom]

The PG is really a poor offering...they ought to be thrilled to get readership of any sort, from any source. I wonder what will happen if (in the Pittsburgh city financial mess) it comes to pass that the PG building actually winds up on the Pittsburgh property tax rolls?

The Tribune Review is a better paper.

[DoughtyOne]

Where the real problem exists, is that after a week or two (in most instances), this published data is withdrawn so that you have to pay to access it. In effect, the host organization holds information hostage.

We supposedly live in a free society with adequate disimination of information, but the reality is that the important information is being bottled up, the easier for the socialists to once again lower the curtain on another informed society.

[Paleo Conservative]

If you can publish news, then take it back, only a few will have access. None will have access to all, because you couldn't afford to purchase access to it all.

Quite a few news websites will change the text of a published story after it is run. Without the original text posted on Free Republic, hardly anyone would notice.

[DoughtyOne]

To a certain extent I agree, but any five people reading an article will come up with five different observations, not necessarily but possibly with different conclusions.

My synopsis may do an article quite a bit of justice by my point of view. In someone elses opinion, I could be way off base.

Access to original content is extremely important for accuracy's sake. For proper anyalysis and the broadest understanding possible to all, original content is a must IMO.

[theFIRMbss]

>It has been brought to our attention that you have republished Pittsburgh Post-Gazette material without permission. This is a direct violation of the Copyright Law of 1976. Please cease and desist immediately

I think I did it again I made you believe we're more than just friends Oh baby It might seem like a crush But it doesn't mean that I'm serious 'Cause to lose all my senses That is just so typically me Oh baby, baby CHORUS: Oops!...I did it again I played with your heart, got lost in the game Oh baby, baby Oops!...You think I'm in love That I'm sent from above I'm not that innocent You see my problem is this I'm dreaming away Wishing that heroes, they truly exist I cry, watching the days Can't you see I'm a fool in so many ways But to lose all my senses That is just so typically me Baby, oh Repeat CHORUS Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah "All aboard" "Britney, before you go, there's something I want you to have" "Oh, it's beautiful, but wait a minute, isn't this...?" "Yeah, yes it is" "But I thought the old lady dropped it into the ocean in the end" "Well baby, I went down and got it for you" "Oh, you shouldn't have" Oops!...I did it again to your heart Got lost in this game, oh baby Oops!...You think that I'm sent from above I'm not that innocent

[DoughtyOne]

That's very true. In some instance a correction is made for the very reason that we were able to read it and notify the originating party.

[cynicom]

Now one has to wonder why the Putzburg Pist has some minimum wage Kerry fan sitting in the basement reading FR????

Could it be they want to keep up with world events????

El cheapos.......

[4x4x4]

The Press is dead...

long live the Press.

[uglybiker]

Perhaps you could poke around certain infamous liberal sites and see if you find any unexcerpted Post-Gazette articles....

And post links to those threads and use up the Libs bandwidth!

[Willie Green]

Please post excerpts and links only from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Ditto, thanks for the heads-up.
Jim, you might as well add The Toledo Blade and any other media outlets owned and controlled by the Block Family. I think the corporate parent is called something like "Block Communications" or "Blade Communications". Same outfit owns the Post-Gazette. Needless to say, they're a bunch of libs.

[antiRepublicrat]

They have asked for removal in liu of initiating legal action. Seems like a good idea to comply unless we want to take them on legally.

I know he'd eventually have to take it down, but the DMCA specifically takes into account sites like this with third-party postings. It exempts such sites from any copyright liability unless they ignore a properly executed notification. The law then lays out exactly what constitutes a proper notification, and this isn't one. Here's how this one stacks up with the law:

• No physical or electronic signature
• They did give a representative sample of the infringing works.
• Same.
• Subject to interpretation, but the law seems to desire an address and phone number on the notification, email being a nice thing if available
• Did state the material isn't authorized.
• Did not state that the information on the notification is accurate and that the sender, under penalty of perjury, is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder.

There is then a provision where the provider (FR) can promptly contact the copyright holder to assist them in submitting a proper notice if the notice includes as much information as this one has. Basically, all Jim has to do is reply and say "Hey, you forgot this, this and this." and he's fulfilled his obligation under the law. He does not have to remove material until he's received a properly executed notice.

Would just be fun to make them do more work, maybe giving Jim more than 24 hours to clear their articles from the entire FR article database.

[Darksheare]

Sometimes I wonder if they whine about their words being posted only because they figured out how stupid they sound and are afraid of the exposure.
But, will comply.
No use getting a lawsuit fired at us about it.

[FourtySeven]

In effect, the host organization holds information hostage.

You're right. That's what I was saying pretty much in my post.

I don't think it's anything to get too worried about, if you are. After all, before the Internet, what did we have as source of archived information? Microfilm and microfishe (sp?) at the library. We still have that today. Just no one likes to do that, becuase it's a lot easier to just sit at one's computer in 5 day old sweatpants and shirts, surfing the net for what you want.

Don't get me wrong, there are political (and probably to a lesser degree financial) motivations behind this, imo. But I don't think we have to worry about information being kept from us. If we really want something, we'll just have to get our lazy a$$es up off the computer chair, and get to the library, and archive it the "old fashioned way". hehe

The real problem comes when they start keeping archived articles away from anyone, at any time. That's something to watch out for.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks. I understand your logic and do find it somewhat appealing on this matter.