Copyright infringement complaint from The Onion

Email from The Onion | 09/19/03 | Sean Mills

[Jim Robinson]

Subject: Copyright infringement

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:27:04 -0400

From: Sean Mills smills@theonion.com

To: webmaster@freerepublic.com

Dear Free Republic,

It has come to our attention that you have published a number of pieces of Onion content at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/keyword/onion

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/k-onion/browse

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/583819/posts

This material was published in THE ONION and the images you are presenting are being served by our servers. The material that you are publishing was published without permission of ONION, INC. Further, the material is copyrighted. You have infringed on our copyright and we, therefore, demand that you immediately cease and desist from any further use of the copyrighted material and remove the material from your website. In addition, you may not use the material in any other manner whatsoever.

Please understand that we anticipate your full and immediate cooperation in this matter. Also, please understand that we do not hesitate to enforce our rights in these situations.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Sean Mills

[af_vet_rr]

I don't know about Onion reposts, but I have a feeling it wouldn't take more than two minutes' worth of Google searches to find dozens of other sites reposting their stuff.

Those dozens of other sites probably are nowhere near the size of FR and probably don't even cause a small bump in their bandwidth expenses, etc., not to mention the excellent copyright explanation in #147 (forgot who, sorry).

[Publius6961]

Things won't quite be the same without the onion.
We can't even post links?

[Diverdogz]

Good work! I'd expect the Onion to be issuing 511 cease and desist letters to protect their copyright. If they fail to take action against everyone else, they lose the copyright we can post articles in their entirety.

Jim R. can make the call whether he wants to fight the battle or not.

[Publius6961]

That article about the PETA stormtroopers killing people to save a rabbit was one of the funniest articles ever.

*sigh*

I managed to miss that one.
One of my most fun activities was to see how quickly I would realize it was not a real article.

[Diverdogz]

Good point. Spot on. The thing is, the Onion is available for FREE! All they are asking is that you read if from THEIR site - That isn't asking a lot. Very reasonable.

[mhking]

Please so not post anything from The Onion.

Understood.

[Timesink]

Those dozens of other sites probably are nowhere near the size of FR and probably don't even cause a small bump in their bandwidth expenses,

Except in cases where people are posting direct links to graphics on their servers, it's not affecting The Onion's bandwidth at all. Text is cut and pasted into an FR text entry box, and then hosted from FR's servers.

not to mention the excellent copyright explanation in #147 (forgot who, sorry).

From post #147: Copyright law requires that the holder protect the property on a universal basis...

They are only protecting on a SELECTIVE basis. That's what bugs me about this so much.

[Diverdogz]

Never heard of Truthout till I saw your post. So it ventured over there. They put the following disclaimer on each article:

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

So, could we use the same disclaimer?

[RonDog]

In that case, I'd simply ask two minutes of your time to show us where this is happening.
You can spare two minutes...right?

One way to do this is to find a popluar Onion story that might be widely re-printed, like THIS one:

A Shattered Nation Longs To Care About Stupid Bulls**t Again - at the Onion

Then, from a Google search for "shattered nation longs to care", there are 274 hits - although not all of them posted the FULL TEXT of that parody.

[Tribune7]

If it weren't for FR, I would have never heard of the Onion. Their loss.

[ConservativeMan55]

Thanks for the ping.

[Diverdogz]

Thats 274 cease and desist letters I'd expect to be issued. If not, they have failed to protect their copyright. I think we are starting to get a productive discourse on our situation.

[af_vet_rr]

Good point. Spot on. The thing is, the Onion is available for FREE! All they are asking is that you read if from THEIR site - That isn't asking a lot. Very reasonable.

Thanks. That is exactly what they are asking, takes care of both their bandwidth bills and any copyright issues.

[Radix]

Well said Sam.

[Tigercap]

They were clever about 8 years ago.

They are not only not as funny, they're taking themselves too seriously.

[Nita Nupress]

<< I have mine set so that the LA Times and Washington Post pages are served up to me 100% ad free. (Well, 95-98%; no blocking program is perfect.) They pay for the bandwidth, and get NOTHING in return. >>

What's the name of your software, if you don't mind me asking?

[visualops]

FR would only be "hosting" the C&P text. If the images are remote linked from the Onion, every page load (here of their graphics) draws their server bandwidth, without the hit to the Onion website (and associated ads etc).
Most sites aren't going to mind a little excerpted C&P. The link back creates traffic. But remote linking of images or other content is a major no-no in any webmaster's book. That is simply getting something on someone else's dime.
Jim's reaction (to cut them off completely) is appropriate, as in addition to complying- they lose the link backs and exposure. IMHO, The Onion should have written a nice letter asking for excerpts only, an agreeable solution for all.

[rwfromkansas]

Why the hell are you here?

[rwfromkansas]

And why the hell are you here if you take the onion's side?

Take a hike.