Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Legal
Fair use, or not fair?
By Lee Schlesinger
on
March 30, 2004 (9:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
Last week we posted a story written by my colleague David Graham titled Proven: Windows is more secure than Linux. It was one of the better-read pieces on the site this week. Four days after the article was posted, David did a Google search and found more than half a dozen sites had linked to the piece -- flattering. But at least three sites posted all or a substantial portion of the piece on their own sites -- and that's a problem.
In one sense, we do what we do because we like free and open source software. But in another, we do it because it makes money for the company we work for. This is a business, not a hobby, and the company devotes substantial resources to it, in the form of hardware, hosting fees, and the not inconsiderable salaries of my colleagues and me.
The way we pay those bills is by selling ads on the site. Each advertiser pays us a certain amount of money (I have no idea how much -- the ad side and the editorial side are completely separate, to the point where no editor works in the same office with an ad salesman) to display his ad to a certain number of people. He knows the people will visit our site because of the content that's there.
We full-time staffers get paid. Our freelancers get paid. Those are corporate expenses, and we have to balance them with corporate income.
When someone copies our content and makes it available elsewhere, it can mean fewer people see the original on our site. That means fewer page views for the ads, which in turn means less income for the company. If that happens regularly, income goes down, which means expenses have to be cut, which means we stop paying for content and start laying off editors.
Mind you, this doesn't apply to every single item we post. We sometimes post articles under various open source licenses. When we do, anyone is free to repost them in accordance with the license terms.
Content piracy is a common and constant problem in the publishing industry. A similar situation that happened elsewhere last week made a stir on Slashdot. Linux Today copied a portion of an article from CMP Media's InformationWeek. CMP responded by blocking incoming links from Linux Today. CMP's Mike Azzara explained in a letter:
As a media company that generates a large volume of content on the Web, we are constantly under attack by others who excerpt large portions of our articles and then offer links which are then moot, given the content already provided. These companies monetize page views through ads or other means, leveraging on the backs of my employees. They are stealing from us, plain and simple, threatening our livelihoods and endangering my kids' college education.
I know Mike -- he's a good guy and smart. I'm not sure I would have worded things quite as strongly as he did, but then again, I don't have triplets on the verge of adolescence. But he's right that copyright violation is a form of theft, even though the goods being stolen aren't tangible.
Information wants to be free? Information doesn't want anything -- it's not alive. Some people want information to be free. Others, who put hard work into creating information, want to be compensated for their work. What's fair?
There's a legal answer to that question. It's called the doctrine of fair use. It states that it's fair to use a portion of someone else's copyrighted work, and lays out guidelines for the proper amount. Writer's Digest explains fair use better than I could -- I urge anyone who hosts a Web site that aggregates content from other sources to read its article. In a nutshell, there are four factors you need to consider in determining fair use. Two are "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the work as a whole" and "the effect on the market." In practical terms, that means reposters should excerpt only a small amount of someone else's work, and make it clear where the original source was with a link back to it, so it can retain its market benefits.
We don't mind other sites linking to us -- in fact we welcome it. Referrals from others who think well of what we do are both good for the business and flattering to the author. We just don't want that pointer to be an insignificant, worthless afterthought.
To deal with our situation this week I sent a polite letter to three of the sites that posted David's article, and all of them amended their postings. But that's not a realistic solution for every instance of copyright violation. Monitoring the Web for misappropriated works would be a full-time job, and not a productive one.
A better approach might be education. If everyone understood the economics of the situation, and that allowing creators to benefit from their creations raises everyone's standard of living, potential content pirates might think twice.
Then again, maybe not. Consider what happens with software development. Writing and programming are very analogous occupations. (I speak from experience -- I was a programmer for eight years before I became a full-time writer.) Just as independent programmers must choose a license for their original work, so must writers. Some of us choose to release our work without strings. Others retain ownership rights. But there's a huge cracker community that illegally distributes the works of others, and they clearly know that what they're doing is illegal and economically harmful to the companies and programmers who did the original work. And yet they persist.
Because original work is valuable, both its authors and those who can get easy access to it want to use it. Thus it ever has been, thus it ever will be. I think the best we can hope for is that most of the people will do the right thing most of the time.
Comments
on Fair use, or not fair?Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
People are probably not going to deliberately robbing you wallet. The problem is simply laziness: selecting the valuable items from an article requires reviewing it's contents carefully, then exercising a judgement about what to take to get the most value from your wallet. Its much easier to snatch the whole thing.
Aggghhh,
I'll try reading it 3 times next time:
s/an article/your wallet/
Anyway, I think the idea is still intact...
I'll try reading it 3 times next time:
s/an article/your wallet/
Anyway, I think the idea is still intact...
That's what a lot of people seem to think. Quoting someone else writing (with proper attribution, of course) is fine, as is linking. But scalping wholesale chunks of someone else's content without permission is a whole different ball game.
Unfortunately, this happens all the time. Even print publications have been known to rip off Web sites -- a case in point, a U.K. tabloid used the list of "The Worst Sex Scenes Ever" from RetroCrush.com word for word, and without the site author's permission. And said tabloid used the "fair game" argument.
Unfortunately, this happens all the time. Even print publications have been known to rip off Web sites -- a case in point, a U.K. tabloid used the list of "The Worst Sex Scenes Ever" from RetroCrush.com word for word, and without the site author's permission. And said tabloid used the "fair game" argument.
Odd about this one - NewsForge and LinuxToday posted almost, if not identical pieces of the CMP story you reference, yet LinuxToday was singled out for blockage and NewsForge wasn't.
"But he's right that this is a form of theft, even though the goods being stolen aren't tangible."
Wrong!
It is not theft. It is copyright infrigement.
The RIAA and MPAA are trying to convice the world it is theft but a judge ordered them to stop calling it theft.
Wrong!
It is not theft. It is copyright infrigement.
The RIAA and MPAA are trying to convice the world it is theft but a judge ordered them to stop calling it theft.
You can put whatever verbal spin you want on it, if it makes you feel better, but it's still stealing! I understand that nowadays, if you want something you just take it, and justify your actions later as something you have a right to do. Apparently, no one has a right to own any digital property, and restrict it as they please. No one has a right to make a living and feed their family.
You take something (anything) that doesn't belong to you, they call that stealing, and it's wrong. The owner of a copyright determines what is done with that property. If you ignore those restrictions, you have stolen that property.
The kind of attitude I've seen on the web concerning copyrights is disgusting. It reminds me of a small child taking someone's toy away because they want it, while criticizing the victim for not sharing.
This attitude is the primary cause of DRM. Nobody wants to play by the rules, because the rules don't apply to them. It's a morally bankrupt position that hurts all of us in the end.
You take something (anything) that doesn't belong to you, they call that stealing, and it's wrong. The owner of a copyright determines what is done with that property. If you ignore those restrictions, you have stolen that property.
The kind of attitude I've seen on the web concerning copyrights is disgusting. It reminds me of a small child taking someone's toy away because they want it, while criticizing the victim for not sharing.
This attitude is the primary cause of DRM. Nobody wants to play by the rules, because the rules don't apply to them. It's a morally bankrupt position that hurts all of us in the end.
Actually, under the law it is called Copyright Infrigement.
The RIAA and MPAA are the ones spinning it into theft. The RIAA was told to stop calling it theft in a court of law.
I am very much in favor of copyright protection (pre-DMCA et al). I support the text of the article. I just happened to desire clarity when talking about the crime committed.
So come down off your high horse. It's too easy to knock you off.
The RIAA and MPAA are the ones spinning it into theft. The RIAA was told to stop calling it theft in a court of law.
I am very much in favor of copyright protection (pre-DMCA et al). I support the text of the article. I just happened to desire clarity when talking about the crime committed.
So come down off your high horse. It's too easy to knock you off.
[quote]
So come down off your high horse. It's too easy to knock you off.
[/quote]
I agree with you entirely. The poster is mixing the legal definition with a moral one. You are 100% correct. File copying is by legal definition NOT stealing (morally thats another story). So the poster you are debating with should simply 'chill'. Besides: the poster should take a few minutes to read the penalties for copyright infringement -> it often FAR EXCEEDS the penalties for stealing...
So come down off your high horse. It's too easy to knock you off.
[/quote]
I agree with you entirely. The poster is mixing the legal definition with a moral one. You are 100% correct. File copying is by legal definition NOT stealing (morally thats another story). So the poster you are debating with should simply 'chill'. Besides: the poster should take a few minutes to read the penalties for copyright infringement -> it often FAR EXCEEDS the penalties for stealing...
This is not a werbal spin. When you told stealing, that is a verbal AND a legal spin.
I'm tired of you guys finding exemples of steling what a TOY to a poor kid. THE HUGE differnece is: that kid doesn't have a toy anymore. If I copy your house, do I steal IT? I don't think so... but I DID a copyright infrigement if the architect copyrighted your house. I didn't steal not even from your architect. I would never pay them for your house. If I wanted to be clear and legal I'll find some very cheap or free or whatever architect to build my HOME.
Copyright is stealing. They steal my right to frealy use and distribute a free speach and build a new culture on the shoulders of giants. Just like Disney did at the time when copyrights were limited in time and scope. Doesn't this sound good?
I have a right to free speach. To use it I need to cite or use your work like "You take something (anything) that doesn't belong to you, they call that stealing, and it's wrong." I just steal your sentence. What you gona do? But I need it to freely tell that you have no right. Free speach doesn't belong to me but I have all the right to use it. Wather doesn't belong to me but I'll probably never die of thurst just because it belongs to you. What abou air. SCO and you would probably like to pay for air we breath.
On the other side I feel comfortable with authors need to be paied for his writings. I don't agree with taking other work without proper authorisation. I just think that this is NOT stealing.
BTW music sharing is VERY MUCH LEGAL IN CANADA!
In the world without walls who needs windows?
I'm tired of you guys finding exemples of steling what a TOY to a poor kid. THE HUGE differnece is: that kid doesn't have a toy anymore. If I copy your house, do I steal IT? I don't think so... but I DID a copyright infrigement if the architect copyrighted your house. I didn't steal not even from your architect. I would never pay them for your house. If I wanted to be clear and legal I'll find some very cheap or free or whatever architect to build my HOME.
Copyright is stealing. They steal my right to frealy use and distribute a free speach and build a new culture on the shoulders of giants. Just like Disney did at the time when copyrights were limited in time and scope. Doesn't this sound good?
I have a right to free speach. To use it I need to cite or use your work like "You take something (anything) that doesn't belong to you, they call that stealing, and it's wrong." I just steal your sentence. What you gona do? But I need it to freely tell that you have no right. Free speach doesn't belong to me but I have all the right to use it. Wather doesn't belong to me but I'll probably never die of thurst just because it belongs to you. What abou air. SCO and you would probably like to pay for air we breath.
On the other side I feel comfortable with authors need to be paied for his writings. I don't agree with taking other work without proper authorisation. I just think that this is NOT stealing.
BTW music sharing is VERY MUCH LEGAL IN CANADA!
In the world without walls who needs windows?
Maybe I was mistaken by what I read about the Judges order, but what I got out of it was the judge wanted the RIAA to stop calling P2P theft (which in and of itself is not, it's how it's used). I believe it had little to do with whether or not users were using a service for illegal practices (i.e. "stealing" media content).
Kavey
Kavey
Right on spot mate.
That what has been "stolen" is "income". Not goods.
Data, when copied, cannot be stolen. It can only be copied unrightfully (according to the law). The definition of thief and stolen imply that there's a loss of the owner but when data is copied there's no direct loss of that what has been copied. The author still has the original data.
And well, "income" being "stolen" is a tough one. You know, with the internet, people have found a way to _copy_ data for as cheap as $0 excluding bandwidth. Eben Moglen describes this in various speeches for example his speech at Harvard. I suggest those who disagree go watch it.
The only way to stop this mass infringement of copyright (an artificial layer against the way of humanity) is by starting FUD to those who do or by using methods such as DRM (also an artificial layer against the way of humanity). I suggest we oppose both.
The fact information wants to be Free can be noticed in various aspects of our history. For example, mouth to mouth stories (ie. faerytales) have always existed prior to copyright. Childs' play to understand, imo.
That what has been "stolen" is "income". Not goods.
Data, when copied, cannot be stolen. It can only be copied unrightfully (according to the law). The definition of thief and stolen imply that there's a loss of the owner but when data is copied there's no direct loss of that what has been copied. The author still has the original data.
And well, "income" being "stolen" is a tough one. You know, with the internet, people have found a way to _copy_ data for as cheap as $0 excluding bandwidth. Eben Moglen describes this in various speeches for example his speech at Harvard. I suggest those who disagree go watch it.
The only way to stop this mass infringement of copyright (an artificial layer against the way of humanity) is by starting FUD to those who do or by using methods such as DRM (also an artificial layer against the way of humanity). I suggest we oppose both.
The fact information wants to be Free can be noticed in various aspects of our history. For example, mouth to mouth stories (ie. faerytales) have always existed prior to copyright. Childs' play to understand, imo.
The web and HTML (not the internet) was created as a collaborative medium, allowing disparate authors and readers to constantly evolve documents over time. The fact that the internet allows companies to deal directly with consumers via the web, be they article readers or online shoppers, is a misappropriation of that technology given that companies wish to protect their investments. HTML pages and the browsers that render them by definition have always allowed source to be modified and copied easily. If companies want to protect their investments a more appropriate medium is required e.g. browser like applications that don't inherently allow source to be viewed, modified or copied. Unfortunately, we are way past this point now and so it is something that has to be accepted.
Aren't you being just a little hypocritcal? When LinuxToday excerpts part of an article it is copying and somehow wrong. When you do it, it is, what, fair? Any reason why you're on a high horse?
Ha! I say, double-Ha!
All of our authors are carefully screened, and we are especially careful about not allowing those who are disparate from joining the club.
I often see tidbits of NewsForge (and others') articles posted, with the URL and attribution. Is that enough?
If you need the visitors to actually visit the NF site, what do you think of things like advert blockers - I can visit your site and never see an advert.
While I sympathise with the position, I think it's a losing proposition.
Paul
If you need the visitors to actually visit the NF site, what do you think of things like advert blockers - I can visit your site and never see an advert.
While I sympathise with the position, I think it's a losing proposition.
Paul
In a moment where most Internet content goes towards free syndication, Creative Commons is the most used form of content sharing on the Internet and peer to peer is showing the music industry how pointless it is to remain stuck on outdated forms of copyrighting, I find this kind attitude sort of pointlessly whiny.
You are writing for your fans, not for millions of people in the world who might want to read your articles but aren't going to pay for them.
Regarding the ads which pay your content, you should see how this page comes out after Firefox automatically removes all the ads.
You are writing for your fans, not for millions of people in the world who might want to read your articles but aren't going to pay for them.
Regarding the ads which pay your content, you should see how this page comes out after Firefox automatically removes all the ads.
I use Firefox, but I don't have it filter out anything but popups. Since myy brain is quite capable of filtering out the inline ads I'm not interested in (like the Windows server ad to my right as I type: I had to look to see what it says), while taking note of any that might be interesting, it makes more sense for me to leave them unblocked.
If people really insist on filtering out even non-intrusive ads, soon there'll be nothing on the internet but corporate PR sites and sites published by people who are concerned about the black helicopters.
If people really insist on filtering out even non-intrusive ads, soon there'll be nothing on the internet but corporate PR sites and sites published by people who are concerned about the black helicopters.
I have Galeon filter out the ads because they just seem to take so long to load, plus the flashing nonsense is too distracting. If advertisers want me to see their stuff, they need to do two things:
1. Make it load quickly enough that it doesn't delay the rest of the article,
2. Don't make it some animated thing that flashes red and white like this assinine Adobe ad I'm staring at right now.
1. Make it load quickly enough that it doesn't delay the rest of the article,
2. Don't make it some animated thing that flashes red and white like this assinine Adobe ad I'm staring at right now.
I agree whole heartedly with these statements. Additionally, if NewsForge would offer up a way for us as registered users to pay for their service without the ads I would sign up in a flash. If it already exists why don't I see anything about it in a nice obvious location (graphical ads don't count as the first time I encounter one it goes into the mozilla / galeon filter and is never seen again, I don't even look at what it is, just that it's an ad)
I think that while you certainly understand the economic argument, you do not see why many of the authors are using your work.
The main reason, I believe, is that they understand that web pages are transitory. In a day, a week or a few years, the page they loved will be gone, and so linking is insufflcient.
I have saved many sites to my own machine for just this reason.
Attribution is the key here. If the original source is Newsforge, then you want the readers to be aware of that and build brand name, but without constant attention, people will copy your content. To recap: Imitation (or copying) is the most sincere form of flattery.
Much of the value in a news site such as this one is in the "We've got it first" angle. You may want to consider your position with this in mind, and change the way you license your content thusly. You may decide that the value to Newsforge in terms of direct ad revenue for a single article lasts, say two weeks.
After that time, you may want to allow for redistribution with attribution for non-commercial use.
Commercial use would be different, since such an entity is, theoretically, taking revenue from you, but Newsforge should be open to that to. If another site wants to use your articles in whole or in part, they can arange a scheme by which Newsforge is paid for that.
There's no conflict of interest here as far as I see on any side.
The main reason, I believe, is that they understand that web pages are transitory. In a day, a week or a few years, the page they loved will be gone, and so linking is insufflcient.
I have saved many sites to my own machine for just this reason.
Attribution is the key here. If the original source is Newsforge, then you want the readers to be aware of that and build brand name, but without constant attention, people will copy your content. To recap: Imitation (or copying) is the most sincere form of flattery.
Much of the value in a news site such as this one is in the "We've got it first" angle. You may want to consider your position with this in mind, and change the way you license your content thusly. You may decide that the value to Newsforge in terms of direct ad revenue for a single article lasts, say two weeks.
After that time, you may want to allow for redistribution with attribution for non-commercial use.
Commercial use would be different, since such an entity is, theoretically, taking revenue from you, but Newsforge should be open to that to. If another site wants to use your articles in whole or in part, they can arange a scheme by which Newsforge is paid for that.
There's no conflict of interest here as far as I see on any side.
This is the Linux community you're supposed to donate your time and work for the good of the community. You're not supposed to make a profit or anything like those greedy M$ folks. Now get with the program and let the community leech off of you just like the leech off of all the programmers.
..someone needs to take economics (or maybe life outside of high school) 101. Do you realize what they do here is their full time job? Without making money from this they can't pay their bills. People like you (who think they deserve everything for free) are what give the Linux community a bad name. Everything in the world can't be open source and free, companies have to survive somehow. Be it through advertising, support contracts, or *gasp* licensing fees. Get a life.
erm, take your sarcasm filters off and read the post again. I believe that is just what the poster's point was.
Thank You, I'm glad somebody got it.
Sorry, the Linux community is not my community. The Free Software community is, and we believe that selling things is great - but it must be with permission. The kernel that is Linux belongs to my community, not a mythical Linux community that disregards international copyright law.
Please see the following references:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
to get informed about the difference between licensing terms and economic compensation. In short, a copyrighted work means the creator owns it and regulates who can use it and in what way. A license describes how other people may use the copyrighted work.
Now, TO GET a license you either pay or don't pay. You pay for MS Office, but you don't pay for MS Internet Explorer. The licenses does not say anything about what either product costs. The same applies to GNU GPLed software. You pay or you don't pay - this is up to the distributor. Since distributing software has about zero marginal costs, most companies based around free (as in freedom) software charge for services and support. One supplier of Microsoft licenses told me they make about 10% profit from selling licenses. The rest is services and support. The two world are not that different.
Please see the following references:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
to get informed about the difference between licensing terms and economic compensation. In short, a copyrighted work means the creator owns it and regulates who can use it and in what way. A license describes how other people may use the copyrighted work.
Now, TO GET a license you either pay or don't pay. You pay for MS Office, but you don't pay for MS Internet Explorer. The licenses does not say anything about what either product costs. The same applies to GNU GPLed software. You pay or you don't pay - this is up to the distributor. Since distributing software has about zero marginal costs, most companies based around free (as in freedom) software charge for services and support. One supplier of Microsoft licenses told me they make about 10% profit from selling licenses. The rest is services and support. The two world are not that different.
I never claimed that the Linux community violates international copyright laws. There are however countless Linux users who believe that all software should be free and part of the "community". I.E. any company not freely giving away licenses to their software is inherently evil. The worst offender being MS (or M$ for these folks) because they have the unmitigated gall to actually make a profit in a capitalistic society.
Now applying that logic to the article at hand I pointed out (sarcastically) that the author should be freely giving away licenses to his copyrighted material. Otherwise the author faces the wraith of the community.
Sorry I find these folks to be rather naive to believe that such a software utopia could exist. Worst yet instead of thanking those who donate their copyrighted material to the world they demand it.
Now applying that logic to the article at hand I pointed out (sarcastically) that the author should be freely giving away licenses to his copyrighted material. Otherwise the author faces the wraith of the community.
Sorry I find these folks to be rather naive to believe that such a software utopia could exist. Worst yet instead of thanking those who donate their copyrighted material to the world they demand it.
No, you don't get "it". You ask for free as in gratis, not free as in freedom. You do understand that even in a state controlled economy resources are used? That distribution of different goods and services takes time and effort from other goods and services? That if there was only you and me in the world, I could only give you a few hours of the day, because the rest of the time you and I would be looking for food and shelter? What if you broke your leg, and couldn't contribute? That's OK, because I can work double for three to six months, I don't want any compensation from you at all. Scale this up to everyone on earth, and all the work that needs to be done. Wow, you really motivate me! Yeah, right... Money is just a way to keep score and distribute balance.
Ahhh. I get it now. You believe Utopia can actually happen. Ignorance is bliss....
After my company pulled out of my home town and closed our office, I finally had a chance to pursue a website business fulltime to see if I could make a modest income. I've always wanted to do this, even back in '95, but I had full time job with family. Whew, its been hard, and I'm negative in cash flow! PLUG: (www.linuxelectrons.com).
Its sad that people do not respect the work of others. They were probably raised by their parents in a bad environment without being taught "morals". Another alternative is the infringer thinks he/she will never get caught because the internet is a place of anonymity. It could be an honest mistake. I have caught myself doing the same due to excitement over the topic. When your self-editing I guess some error's are expected.
LinuxToday pushes that envelope to very edge, between fair use and copyright infringement. I dont mind them linking to me right now because I'm in the "starving artist" mode. However, when I do look at LinuxToday quotes, you do not have to go to the original article for the rest, because all the meat is there.
LinuxToday is not the only guilty one. A couple of others come to mind also, SlashDot, OSNEWS and countless others do the same. They either quote, or they paraphrase. Aren't those two outfits part of OSDN? Is the teapot calling the kettle black?
What do the big publishers offer over the little guy as far as real content? Nothing that I can see. They regurgitate press releases into original articles. They get company exec's time because of their supposedly large readership, and they squander that opportunity with dribble. When 99.9% of that readership is getting free subscriptions!
I've had my articles with web site enclosed in frames, other articles copied onto forums and so forth. How do I find these? Usually they are so lazy or in a haste they don't change URLs in the article itself, so I might get lucky and the log file will show hits on things that doesn't make sense. I visit their website, find a webmaster email and ask them to stop. I cannot afford fulltime attorney's. If I think infringer will give me more traffic, I want say anything.
Am I guilty in aiding and abetting by not saying anything in every single instance? Probably so.
Byte
Its sad that people do not respect the work of others. They were probably raised by their parents in a bad environment without being taught "morals". Another alternative is the infringer thinks he/she will never get caught because the internet is a place of anonymity. It could be an honest mistake. I have caught myself doing the same due to excitement over the topic. When your self-editing I guess some error's are expected.
LinuxToday pushes that envelope to very edge, between fair use and copyright infringement. I dont mind them linking to me right now because I'm in the "starving artist" mode. However, when I do look at LinuxToday quotes, you do not have to go to the original article for the rest, because all the meat is there.
LinuxToday is not the only guilty one. A couple of others come to mind also, SlashDot, OSNEWS and countless others do the same. They either quote, or they paraphrase. Aren't those two outfits part of OSDN? Is the teapot calling the kettle black?
What do the big publishers offer over the little guy as far as real content? Nothing that I can see. They regurgitate press releases into original articles. They get company exec's time because of their supposedly large readership, and they squander that opportunity with dribble. When 99.9% of that readership is getting free subscriptions!
I've had my articles with web site enclosed in frames, other articles copied onto forums and so forth. How do I find these? Usually they are so lazy or in a haste they don't change URLs in the article itself, so I might get lucky and the log file will show hits on things that doesn't make sense. I visit their website, find a webmaster email and ask them to stop. I cannot afford fulltime attorney's. If I think infringer will give me more traffic, I want say anything.
Am I guilty in aiding and abetting by not saying anything in every single instance? Probably so.
Byte
If it is possible to render a two or three page article worthless by quoting just a paragraph, then there is no problem. See, thought are free (check your copy of the constitution) anything that only need a paragraph to convey the whole of it is a thought, and therefore not something you could own. The point of an article is to take a thought/story and mull it over, bring new light to it, or put a spin on it or to convey some quantity of information to me so that I can be informed. If you don't do that then your article is not worth my time and I have no reason to visit you. Try writing in depth articles with the content properly spaced out throughout the whole of it and it would be impossible for me to prevent people from clicking through to learn more.
Its sad that people do not respect the work of others. They were probably raised by their parents in a bad environment without being taught "morals".
No. Actually, when people copy it, i'd say they very much do respect the work. What they don't respect OR understand is copyright vs. fair use over their work.
For a random citizen i'd say: "Ok, that can happen. Let's start education" but for a company i'd say "Sue them, they're trying to make profit from my work". I believe the BSA also works in such way. You never hear them going after individuals, only after corporate entities.
I don't understand what you're talking about morals either. Morals as you might now, are not common status quo rules. Few morals are defined as humanity. For example the EVRM (Universal Rights of Humans; don't know English name) but not everyone abides them.
To understand copyright infringement you have to understand that information INDEED wants to be Free. We are Free to copy it, so we DO. (Hence DRM.) Copyright is an artificial layer of rules, it has nothing to do with morality. The only thing it does is lower Freedom.
PS: Unless my computer prohibits me i'll remain using sites like Newsforge to link to on my Wiki's and sometimes partly use small texts. Because i like that.
No. Actually, when people copy it, i'd say they very much do respect the work. What they don't respect OR understand is copyright vs. fair use over their work.
For a random citizen i'd say: "Ok, that can happen. Let's start education" but for a company i'd say "Sue them, they're trying to make profit from my work". I believe the BSA also works in such way. You never hear them going after individuals, only after corporate entities.
I don't understand what you're talking about morals either. Morals as you might now, are not common status quo rules. Few morals are defined as humanity. For example the EVRM (Universal Rights of Humans; don't know English name) but not everyone abides them.
To understand copyright infringement you have to understand that information INDEED wants to be Free. We are Free to copy it, so we DO. (Hence DRM.) Copyright is an artificial layer of rules, it has nothing to do with morality. The only thing it does is lower Freedom.
PS: Unless my computer prohibits me i'll remain using sites like Newsforge to link to on my Wiki's and sometimes partly use small texts. Because i like that.
What would be "fair" would be for you and all commercial entities to accept the nature of the Internet, and stop trying to change it. If you can make a profit off the Internet, great. However, that is not the Internet's purpose. As one of those who was on the 'Net in its earliest days in the universities, I can't tell you how unseemly it is to have seen johnny-come-latelies arrive on the scene and then whine that they can't make a profit off the thing.
It wasn't designed for your profit. Look elsewhere for those economic engines. It was designed for easy information transfer. This "theft" and "infringement" of which you speak were the Internet's original purpose. This is what it is supposed to facilitate. These are good things, not things to complain about. If you have to pack up and close up shop and leave the 'Net, so be it. I for one would be very happy to see all the johnny-come-latelies leave and return the 'Net to the friendlier place of unquestioned sharing which it used to be.
It wasn't designed for your profit. Look elsewhere for those economic engines. It was designed for easy information transfer. This "theft" and "infringement" of which you speak were the Internet's original purpose. This is what it is supposed to facilitate. These are good things, not things to complain about. If you have to pack up and close up shop and leave the 'Net, so be it. I for one would be very happy to see all the johnny-come-latelies leave and return the 'Net to the friendlier place of unquestioned sharing which it used to be.
Thank you. I couldn't have said it better.
Without the money and support from commercial use of the Internet, your "flower child" vision of the Internet (free love, peace, and brotherhood) would be running on dial-up BBS programs and Fido Net.
All societies change and evolve, the internet included. You either help steer those changes in the right direction (whatever that is, usually a compromise), or you sit in the back and whine about the "good old days".
You say that commercial entities should "accept the nature of the Internet, and stop trying to change it". Well, the Internet is changing with or without them. Or you. I suggest you stop your whining and get used to it.
I have read Linux Today for a *very* long time and Brian Proffit has never to my knowledge wholesale copied any content to the site without *prior* permission to do so, and usually it was in the form of a press release by said organization.
Mike Z. should pull his head out of his backside long enough to realize that his content has a very limited shelf life and Brian is doing him a hell of a favor by driving traffic to CMP sites.
There is a solution to the problem - it's call reasonable expectations. Mike needs to define for Brian what "fair use" would be acceptable. 2 paragraphs out of a long article is not "theft" or Copyright violations - but a fair use synopsis.
If Mike is so anal that he can't handle two paragraphs then a hand written sysnopsis should be sufficient.
I used to write for the trade rags years ago, so this nonsense about content theft holds less water today than it did back then when plaguarism was still rampamt, but in print media, not on a website.
Mike Z. should pull his head out of his backside long enough to realize that his content has a very limited shelf life and Brian is doing him a hell of a favor by driving traffic to CMP sites.
There is a solution to the problem - it's call reasonable expectations. Mike needs to define for Brian what "fair use" would be acceptable. 2 paragraphs out of a long article is not "theft" or Copyright violations - but a fair use synopsis.
If Mike is so anal that he can't handle two paragraphs then a hand written sysnopsis should be sufficient.
I used to write for the trade rags years ago, so this nonsense about content theft holds less water today than it did back then when plaguarism was still rampamt, but in print media, not on a website.
CMP actually BLOCKED REFERRALS from Linux Today. Linux Today was driving traffic to CMP, and CMP got in a snit and blocked it. This makes no sense. Mike Z is endangering his kid's education- Linux Today was helping it.
What about translations?
On the spot! I sometimes translate articles. Almost always when i'm asked for when i see the need. In such a case, i immediately do so because of that's the way my personality works; sortoff activist-alike. Problem? I can solve? I go. I do it. I want to help. It is something my mother teached me, and i very much still appreciate that.
After i translated it i put under it "License: fair use" and i link to the original article. I never ask, either forwards or afterwards, wether the original author is fine with it. That is partly for the reason i stated above and the fear that they'll create problems. Instead i chose to remain in license and the sites i translate for are small anyway.
The other reason is that i see myself as translater also as an author. I putted creativety, time, and energy in the hard work. I try to make it as accurate as i can. This also correlates with earlier said reason, but is also one of its' own: my morality is that because of this i am entitled to share it, to make more people understand what has been said -- which i find _important_!
PS: Finally, i don't agree with the authors' assertion that information doesn't want to be Free (as in speech) and i don't understand how one possibly can be pro-Open-source while denying the Freedom of information.
After i translated it i put under it "License: fair use" and i link to the original article. I never ask, either forwards or afterwards, wether the original author is fine with it. That is partly for the reason i stated above and the fear that they'll create problems. Instead i chose to remain in license and the sites i translate for are small anyway.
The other reason is that i see myself as translater also as an author. I putted creativety, time, and energy in the hard work. I try to make it as accurate as i can. This also correlates with earlier said reason, but is also one of its' own: my morality is that because of this i am entitled to share it, to make more people understand what has been said -- which i find _important_!
PS: Finally, i don't agree with the authors' assertion that information doesn't want to be Free (as in speech) and i don't understand how one possibly can be pro-Open-source while denying the Freedom of information.
Be happy with the hits you do get. As long as the copying sites don't mis-attribute then you still get the glory and the reputation. Trying to control this stuff will cost more than it earns.
I agree. I have let it go. This is what I have done:
"A. You are hereby granted permission to reprint a quote from LinuxElectrons as long as a URL link giving notice and full credit due to LinuxElectrons in the same material as published with the quote. A valid URL link to LinuxElectrons will satisfy this requirement."
So, anybody can use the content with permission within reason.
Byte
"A. You are hereby granted permission to reprint a quote from LinuxElectrons as long as a URL link giving notice and full credit due to LinuxElectrons in the same material as published with the quote. A valid URL link to LinuxElectrons will satisfy this requirement."
So, anybody can use the content with permission within reason.
Byte
You claim 'Linux Today copied an article from CMP Media's InformationWeek"
This is not true. Linux today may have taken a couple of paragraphs, but it clearly did not copy the article in question.
Before you make such claims, perhaps you should check your facts. As an information consumer, I value information sources that have credibility.
Alas, newsforge lost some credibility with me when it made that claim.
This is not true. Linux today may have taken a couple of paragraphs, but it clearly did not copy the article in question.
Before you make such claims, perhaps you should check your facts. As an information consumer, I value information sources that have credibility.
Alas, newsforge lost some credibility with me when it made that claim.
A better approach might be education. If everyone understood the economics of the situation, and that allowing creators to benefit from their creations raises everyone's standard of living, potential content pirates might think twice.
This statement highlights the argument. There is confusion between the economics of the situation (which are not even discussed in the article) and the desires of the author.
See, the author wants to eat, and clothe and shelter his family. He controls the means of producing an original work, which has a not insignificant cost to produce, and from which others hope to derive benefit and do provide input (that is, his employer, who pays some of the authors costs and hopes to take a cut of the income). These are all honourable goals and no reasonable person would deny these desires, on the part of the author or his employer.
The problem is that the economics of the situation make the copy cost of the original work negligible. The only way the creator of the original work and his benefactors can possibly profit from the dissemination of the work is by creating an artificial shortage of supply, which is how the legal enforcement of copyrights can be used to earn money. Again, there is nothing morally or eithically wrong from this, but that is the economics of the situation.
I might suggest that the author read and understand The Cathedral and the Bazaar by Eric S. Raymond before he starts arguing about the economics of zero-copy-cost information. In addition, there are numerous published papers by Richard M. Stallman addressing the same issue, albiet in a moe politicized way.
The economics are that the information wants to be free, and any attempts to manipulate the economic forces through artificial means is a losing game in the long run.
They are stealing from us, plain and simple, threatening our livelihoods and endangering my kids' college education.
-- CMP's Mike Azzara
[. .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.] he's right that this is a form of theft, even though the goods being stolen aren't tangible.
If he's right, then NewsForge itself is an empire of thievery. Because what Mr. Azzara was so boldly labelling theft was Linux Today posting the first three paragraphs of a twelve-paragraph article, and a link directly to Information Week (Mr. Azzara's employer) where anyone who wanted to read any more of the article would certainly follow, and thereby increase Information Week's advertising hits.
Let's not concentrate right away on the fact that your article title asks a question -- "Fair use, or not fair?" and then fails to put any thought into the answer -- it's not, because Mike Azzara says it's not! Let's look instead at the fact that <A HREF="http://newsvac.newsforge.com/newsvac/04/03/19/210200.shtml" TITLE="newsforge.com">Newsforge posted the exact same three paragraphs excerpt, again with a link to the rest of the article.</a newsforge.com>
If what Linux Today did is theft, then NewsForge is guilty of theft and hypocrisy.
One can argue about whether three paragraphs out of twelve is too large a sample of the whole to qualify as "fair use". One can argue whether the above answer has to be modified with the fact that traditional journalism puts the information considered most key into the top-most paragraphs, meaning that three paragraphs taken from the front of the articles constitute a more significant piece of the whole than three paragraphs from the middle or from the end. One can argue about just how many people would decide that those three paragraphs contained everything they wanted to know about the issue, and did not click through (thus stealing valuable advertising revenue out of Little Bobby Azzara's college fund) and how many people in contrast would go on to fund the Azzara's style of living by visiting the original CMP Media site to view the original story -- because the excerpt that Linux Today printed aroused their curiosity.
One could argue all those things. But the point is that you didn't. Instead you blindly accepted someone else's hardly disinterested flat declaration of "this is where the line is" -- and you omitted the mention of what you <A HREF="http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2004031902626OPBZ" TITLE="linuxtoday.com">must have known</a linuxtoday.com>, that NewsForge was just as much on the wrong side of that line as Linux Today.
You know something? I think Mike Azzara is being a fool. I think he's following in a long line of people who make fools of themselves by paranoidly safeguarding their "intellectual property" from its biggest market. TV executive Jamie Kellner, who thinks that every time you go to the bathroom during a commercial, you are violating a 'contract' with the broadcaster. Jack Valenti, who nearly strangled one of Hollywood's most crucial income streams in the cradle by telling Congress "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone." Mike Azzara may not have reached their heights of arrogance, but I am sure CMP Media appreciates his attempt to lower their ad revenue by blocking referrals.
But none of these went so far as to declare 90% of the activity of the website they write for to be "theft". Should we call NewsVac "NewsTheft" now? Shall we helpfully report to the original publishers of the content NewsForge brazenly pirates that NewsForge is laughing cruelly as they purloin other people's hard-earned reporting and threaten their childrens' college educations?
Or do you owe Linux Today a fervent apology, and your readers an article on "Fair use, or not fair?" that actually addresses the concept of fair use? I really hope you choose to do the right thing, because I am the most disgusted with NewsForge that I have ever been right now.
I had been trying to compose a response to address these very same issues. You said it all much better than I would have managed.
Now we get to see if Lee is man enough to admit his mistakes.
Now we get to see if Lee is man enough to admit his mistakes.
This was very well said, and to add to it, recognize that Newsforge is being very consistent in its viewpoint. Remember the format changes here several months ago? The whole purpose was to wring out more page views. Thus, unlike with the better format which was used previously by NewsForge, we now see posted news snippets that provide no information about who wrote it, and only after clicking through do we see, "Oh, it's one of those Enderle non-pieces, I don't want to read that."
The bottom line is that the focus is on the almighty dollar at the expense of the customer.
The bottom line is that the focus is on the almighty dollar at the expense of the customer.
I agree with this post wholeheartedly, but I must give credit to Newsforge for it's honesty. I have long suspected that a lot of "news" is actually fiction, and now Lee Schlesinger has stated it as a fact.
"Others, who put hard work into creating information, want to be compensated for their work."
It would be nice if sites such as this, weeded out such mis-information for us.
"Others, who put hard work into creating information, want to be compensated for their work."
It would be nice if sites such as this, weeded out such mis-information for us.
I tend to agree that it's a form of theft. That said this article is ridiculous given the stance OSDN and NF in particular take with regars to Open Source and Linux. I don't care what stand you take but be consistant....HYPOCRITS
I only come to newsforge if linux today links to it. You would do well to remember that.
In Australia in the 70's the record industry tried to charge radio stations for play time. The radio stations responded by refusing to play the records. The record industry soon worked out the stupidity of their actions. You would do well to consider that.
In short to be fare those that link to you should charge you for the link, after all they are bringing you business. When you set out to whine consider all points of view.
In Australia in the 70's the record industry tried to charge radio stations for play time. The radio stations responded by refusing to play the records. The record industry soon worked out the stupidity of their actions. You would do well to consider that.
In short to be fare those that link to you should charge you for the link, after all they are bringing you business. When you set out to whine consider all points of view.
Yup, same here. I just linked from LinuxToday... so if you hate LinuxToday linking to you, or quoting your article, go ahead and ask them to stop it. I'm sure it will pay your company and you very well.
I think you have made a big mess of yourself and your company and newsforge. Better fix that soon. That's not a threat, because I don't normally read NewsForge and ain't bothered. But then, supporting claims of LT pirating another site when you quoted the same exact thing, or because you are in league with them (since they didn't block your site) is ridiculous. The whole CMP argument is ridiculous, because LT could easily continue to quote whatever they had without linking to them if they wanted to... after all it is only the referral link that was blocked. Of course CMP can sue, but I think LT did not violate a single fair use law... so there, go ahead and be buddies with Mike. And go ahead and ask LT to stop linking to stupid news articles like this. I wish I didn't link now!
I think you have made a big mess of yourself and your company and newsforge. Better fix that soon. That's not a threat, because I don't normally read NewsForge and ain't bothered. But then, supporting claims of LT pirating another site when you quoted the same exact thing, or because you are in league with them (since they didn't block your site) is ridiculous. The whole CMP argument is ridiculous, because LT could easily continue to quote whatever they had without linking to them if they wanted to... after all it is only the referral link that was blocked. Of course CMP can sue, but I think LT did not violate a single fair use law... so there, go ahead and be buddies with Mike. And go ahead and ask LT to stop linking to stupid news articles like this. I wish I didn't link now!
Just a thought: Is google cache fair? If it is, what makes it diferent? And what if google starts to place adds in google cache?
I know that NewsForge includes RSS feeds, wouldn't whatever content remains in those feeds be deemed acceptable use in the way that a book abstract is? I think you could extend RSS to be an automatic agreement of what you consider fair-use of your material. If someone wants to link to your story using that then they need not seek further permission, but if they do wish to copy more then they have to seek permission.
"But he's right that copyright violation is a form of theft, even though the goods being stolen aren't tangible."
Theft is taking something that *IS* tangible. Copyright therefore cannot theft since nothing tangible is being taken.
If you wish to speak of advertising dollars being stolen, that would make more sense.
Theft is taking something that *IS* tangible. Copyright therefore cannot theft since nothing tangible is being taken.
If you wish to speak of advertising dollars being stolen, that would make more sense.
Other people copying editorial material is a two sided coin. As long as they attribute the source, it has as much (or more) chance of driving more traffic to your site than if the material wasn't posted.
That notwithstanding, the idea of a locked down, restricted access model for writing and ideas is not consistent with much of current technology and certainly not the web. It is an approach of creating an artificial scarcity and trying to pump demand to enable charging for access.
You make reference to publishing in general as a model, but magazines and books have always been passed around and given away. The only difference from a magazine being that if someone copies your web-published article, the ads don't get carried with it.
You're smart people. Give it some thought and figure out how to improve the model so that compensation for your ideas and work doesn't rely on artificial restrictions. Once you put an idea out there, it becomes part of the fabric of culture. It's theft if someone claims it as their own - it's not theft if they repeat it.
That notwithstanding, the idea of a locked down, restricted access model for writing and ideas is not consistent with much of current technology and certainly not the web. It is an approach of creating an artificial scarcity and trying to pump demand to enable charging for access.
You make reference to publishing in general as a model, but magazines and books have always been passed around and given away. The only difference from a magazine being that if someone copies your web-published article, the ads don't get carried with it.
You're smart people. Give it some thought and figure out how to improve the model so that compensation for your ideas and work doesn't rely on artificial restrictions. Once you put an idea out there, it becomes part of the fabric of culture. It's theft if someone claims it as their own - it's not theft if they repeat it.
The article that this author is whining about was labeled wrong to begin with. "Proven: Windows is more secure than Linux." should have been changed into soemthing like: "Windows is more secure than Linux?
A lot of people only read the headlines. Therefore, to state a fictional premise as if it were a fact hurts the Linux community and benifits the interests of Microsoft. Hey, Microsoft isn't paying Newsforge like it did SCO in a roud-about way is it?
A lot of people only read the headlines. Therefore, to state a fictional premise as if it were a fact hurts the Linux community and benifits the interests of Microsoft. Hey, Microsoft isn't paying Newsforge like it did SCO in a roud-about way is it?
You have some set of balls on you Mr. Schlesinger.
This little rant of yours has to be THE most hypocritical rant I've seen on the internet so far this year. And in a political season filled with hypocrites, that's some achievement.
Your mailto: shows as editors@osdn.com. That would include Slashdot, would it not?
You lament the advertising revenue loss of a colleague, and possibly a friend or acquaintance as well, after his complaint to you or your organization, over what percentage constitutes fair use. Then, you give us a definition, or your understanding, or that of your organization, of fair use.
You find a problem with other sites posting all, or a substantial portion of another writer's article? Where is your outrage over Slashdot practices?
For years, Slashdot has been the fair use piracy king. With a wink, wink, here, a nod, nod, there, here, a wink, there a nod, everywhere a wink, wink, nod, nod...
It is standard practice for OSDN to pirate copyrighted work. With the little sentence disclaimer above, OSDN disclaims responsibility of pirated, copyrighted work. Yet it is that pirated, copyrighted work that when included with other comments, and other author submissions, and author articles, that together make up the existence of Slashdot. Without pirating copyrighted work, Slashdot would be less than it is today.
What is Slashdot pirating? After years of massaging code, after years of development, after years of guiding the Slashdot community, a modus operandi has developed for your IP theft. The Slashdot community submits news articles, and the Slashdot editors, and possibly others, decide which stories run, and on which parts of Slashdot. Links are checked, stories may be checked for accuracy or whether it is a fake story or not, and when it does run, the Slashdot community, starting with premium users, take over. Any links to articles that require registration (you understand why circumventing <A HREF="http://www.osdn.com/advertising/mediabuilder/advertising/" TITLE="osdn.com">registration</a osdn.com> hurts revenue, Mr. Schlesinger, do you not?
Or do you profess the same ignorance as your supposed ignorance of <A HREF="http://www.osdn.com/advertising/OSDN_Rates.pdf" TITLE="osdn.com">ad rates</a osdn.com> on OSDN?
Here it is spelled out:
Slashdot publishes stories describing news articles
Same stories contain links to the news articles on other sites
Some of those articles are blocked unless the viewer registers, giving important and valuable demographic data to the news sites
Slashdot, through its community, provides a means of circumventing the registration process, thereby stealing the value of demographic data of a sizeable population from the news sites. The New York Times is an almost daily example, The Washington Post is another less frequent but persistant example, and there are others being stolen from daily, or almost daily.
Circumvention is easy. Slashdot regulars regularly, and with glee and laughter, provide circumvention tools. The most recent example witnesses was in the last couple of days, with the Username of "Slashdot2004" and the password "Slashdot2004" being used to deny valuable demographic data to the New York Times, enabling the Slashdot community to circumvent one of the tools that the New York Times publisher, and the article authors and reporters (and stringers, and drivers, and pressmen, and printers, and advertisers, and maintenance personel, and all the other supporting employees, and all the other reporting employees, use to earn one form of revenue, which goes to paying all those salaries, and which goes to making their publishing possible.
Other examples abound. While the above is one of the easiest, and most common circumvention techniques made available by and to the Slashdot readers, another example of stealing revenue from publishers is reader supplied (regularly) instructions of manipulating the referrer string, and the wget command. And more.
While the above is a detailed example of how Slashdot steals from the mouths of the children of the employees and stockholders of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other registration sites, and negatively affects other publishers, authors and companies directly and indirectly dependent on advertising revenue, other techniques, also part of the modus operandi of Slashdot are worse:
Through a reward system called mod points, Slashdot management issues rewards. Yet they dissassociate themselves from how some (I assume that Rob Malda and others at the top still have unlimited, or near unlimited mod control, right?) of the rewards are awarded. Not including the management and paid employees that have unlimited mod points, they transfer responsibility of who gets (some of?)the awards onto the regular contributors. And at the same time, through the same mechanism, they build deniability into the system, preferring to lame blame at:
While this may be more of an accurate shift of blame on regular blogs, the way that Slashdot operates which adds value to Slashdot, and which mod point awards exacerbate, this is not true, and not a defensible position for Slashdot, for anyone looking at the situation objectively.
Through a mod point reward system, and through reinforcement through prior training, the registered and premium membership gain rewards through the posting of entire copyrighted articles as comments. With a wink, wink, here, a nod, nod, there, here, a wink, there a nod, everywhere a wink, wink, nod, nod...registered and premium member Slashdotters are rewarded through "modding up" those posts that contain the full, pirated, copyrighted stories that are linked to in the Slashdot news story body. By doing so, the registered Slashdot poster is regularly "modded up", which affects "karma" positively, enabling a self-sustaining reward of more mod points, something highly sought after in the Slashdot community.
Bullshit.
OSDN will live or die by the numbers. The number of readers, the number of page views. The number of ads. By enabling, assisting, and sharing complicity in the piracy of copyrighted works from other sites through allowing registered users to post entire pirated articles, Slashdot is making the site more valuable, and more attractive, to a wider audience. Slashdot is in competition with other tech news sites. Just as in the logo, "News for nerds,..." there exist other tech news sites, some of which allow comments, some of which don't, some of which not only allow it, but use the Slashdot codebase. Slashdot is in competition with these other sites, for viewership (and ad views) from the tech community, just as The New York Times, the Washington Post, and other journals and newspapers are in competition with each other for viewership, readership, page views, ad views, and advertising revenue.
The ability to skip registration and still be able to read the news article through the pirated version on Slashdot brings higher viewership, and a more loyal (and more frequent visitation from) the Slashdot community. I should know, I limit visits to news sites that require registration, yet I know that if I want to view a popular tech story (especially on the New York Times), it normally makes it into Slashdot, and all I have to do is go to Slashdot (pageview/adview 1), change comment threshold to 5, change order to nested, then reload (pageview/adview 2) then scroll through the highest rated stories. If it doesn't make it within the first 50 comments, hit page 2 (pageview/adview 3). Still not there? Got there a bit early? Change comment threshold to 4, (pageveiw/adview4,5,6, etc.). Slashdot regulars regularly compete with who is going to pirate the copyrighted article first, with the losers adding in their "karma whore" comments to the bottom.
Do you, Mr. Schlesinger, pirate the copyrighted works of others for OSDN? I'll let the other comments on measurements of percentage of story quoted on earlier news stories speak for themselves. But in terms of what is listed above, you (as in OSDN) don't have to pirate the copyrighted works, through a mod point reward system, OSDN is inducing others to pirate copyrighted works on OSDN's behalf, and for the benefit of OSDN's coffers, and all the while disclaiming responsibility for the wholesale pirating of copyrighted works from other news sites by adding in a line in small print at the bottom of the rendered page, once again:
and relying on court decisions that lay liability at the feet of posters. It remains to be seen, however, on whether OSDN will really escape liability under the same umbrella, when OSDN's hands are a bit dirtier, when considering what is outlined in my post.
Do you, Mr. Schlesinger, place a lower value on reporters and authors who work for the New York Times or Washington Post, than you do to David Graham? And who, by seeing cdlu, now brings to my attention is a regular contributor of news stories to Newsforge? Is it ok to allow Slashdot posters to wholesale pirate copyrighted works from such popular newspapers, and yet when something similar happens to one of your own, you hypocritically point your finger of blame at other sites? Or perhaps its ok to criticize the other sites, as long as they aren't OSDN? Perhaps, Mr. Schlesinger, you believe it is ok to pirate copyrighted works from the New York Times or the Washington Post because they are mainstream? larger readership? old media? different political bent? different technical philosophy?
Why, Mr. Schlesinger, is it ok for Slashdot to be complicit in, and benefit from, the wholesale pirating of New York Times news articles, yet you have a problem when others do the same?
The court cases upholding the publishers' defense of "it's the poster, not me" don't blur the line as much as OSDN does. And one of the arguments used by the defedending publishers was they can't screen every post. Yet here on Newsforge (without a similar mod system for trollish or offensive posts), posts are removed sometimes by OSDN staff on complaints by readers. So OSDN is capable of, and does police the comments of users. Yet the pirated, copyrighted news stories on Slashdot are not removed.
Napster attempted to shift responsiblity to their users too.
This little rant of yours has to be THE most hypocritical rant I've seen on the internet so far this year. And in a political season filled with hypocrites, that's some achievement.
Your mailto: shows as editors@osdn.com. That would include Slashdot, would it not?
You lament the advertising revenue loss of a colleague, and possibly a friend or acquaintance as well, after his complaint to you or your organization, over what percentage constitutes fair use. Then, you give us a definition, or your understanding, or that of your organization, of fair use.
You find a problem with other sites posting all, or a substantial portion of another writer's article? Where is your outrage over Slashdot practices?
For years, Slashdot has been the fair use piracy king. With a wink, wink, here, a nod, nod, there, here, a wink, there a nod, everywhere a wink, wink, nod, nod...
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2004 OSDN.
It is standard practice for OSDN to pirate copyrighted work. With the little sentence disclaimer above, OSDN disclaims responsibility of pirated, copyrighted work. Yet it is that pirated, copyrighted work that when included with other comments, and other author submissions, and author articles, that together make up the existence of Slashdot. Without pirating copyrighted work, Slashdot would be less than it is today.
What is Slashdot pirating? After years of massaging code, after years of development, after years of guiding the Slashdot community, a modus operandi has developed for your IP theft. The Slashdot community submits news articles, and the Slashdot editors, and possibly others, decide which stories run, and on which parts of Slashdot. Links are checked, stories may be checked for accuracy or whether it is a fake story or not, and when it does run, the Slashdot community, starting with premium users, take over. Any links to articles that require registration (you understand why circumventing <A HREF="http://www.osdn.com/advertising/mediabuilder/advertising/" TITLE="osdn.com">registration</a osdn.com> hurts revenue, Mr. Schlesinger, do you not?
For publishers, things are not so easy. People don't buy on their sites. How do they know who's a valuable visitor and who isn't? Tacoda's technology addresses that issue. Since publishers' revenues come from advertising and site visitors view that advertising, visitors who view the most expensive (high CPM) advertising are most valuable. If a visitor has volunteered registration data, he's even more valuable. <A HREF="http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:wOM5gVgbtWQJ:www.clickz.com/experts/brand/buzz/article.php/1471431+registration+demographics+targeted+advertising+higher+revenue+yahoo+google&hl=en&ie=UTF-8" TITLE="216.239.39.104">Publishers can use those demographics to deliver targeted advertising</a 216.239.39.104> -- usually sold at a higher CPM. With the capability to gather that information, all you need to do is modify your site to maximize viewing of the high-CPM ads.
Tacoda's technology was inspired by some forward-thinking publishers, such as NYTimes.com. The company is doing other things right, too. Realizing the importance of visitor data, NYTimes.com embarked on a campaign to get site visitors (who were already registered) to verify their information was correct. Following the Times's lead, washingtonpost.com began to require registration for access to parts of its site. Newspapers across the country have followed suit or plan to, according to Morgan.
Or do you profess the same ignorance as your supposed ignorance of <A HREF="http://www.osdn.com/advertising/OSDN_Rates.pdf" TITLE="osdn.com">ad rates</a osdn.com> on OSDN?
Here it is spelled out:
Other examples abound. While the above is one of the easiest, and most common circumvention techniques made available by and to the Slashdot readers, another example of stealing revenue from publishers is reader supplied (regularly) instructions of manipulating the referrer string, and the wget command. And more.
While the above is a detailed example of how Slashdot steals from the mouths of the children of the employees and stockholders of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other registration sites, and negatively affects other publishers, authors and companies directly and indirectly dependent on advertising revenue, other techniques, also part of the modus operandi of Slashdot are worse:
Through a reward system called mod points, Slashdot management issues rewards. Yet they dissassociate themselves from how some (I assume that Rob Malda and others at the top still have unlimited, or near unlimited mod control, right?) of the rewards are awarded. Not including the management and paid employees that have unlimited mod points, they transfer responsibility of who gets (some of?)the awards onto the regular contributors. And at the same time, through the same mechanism, they build deniability into the system, preferring to lame blame at:
"Comments are owned by the Poster.
While this may be more of an accurate shift of blame on regular blogs, the way that Slashdot operates which adds value to Slashdot, and which mod point awards exacerbate, this is not true, and not a defensible position for Slashdot, for anyone looking at the situation objectively.
Through a mod point reward system, and through reinforcement through prior training, the registered and premium membership gain rewards through the posting of entire copyrighted articles as comments. With a wink, wink, here, a nod, nod, there, here, a wink, there a nod, everywhere a wink, wink, nod, nod...registered and premium member Slashdotters are rewarded through "modding up" those posts that contain the full, pirated, copyrighted stories that are linked to in the Slashdot news story body. By doing so, the registered Slashdot poster is regularly "modded up", which affects "karma" positively, enabling a self-sustaining reward of more mod points, something highly sought after in the Slashdot community.
But it's the readers...we're not responsible...we don't gain...
Bullshit.
OSDN will live or die by the numbers. The number of readers, the number of page views. The number of ads. By enabling, assisting, and sharing complicity in the piracy of copyrighted works from other sites through allowing registered users to post entire pirated articles, Slashdot is making the site more valuable, and more attractive, to a wider audience. Slashdot is in competition with other tech news sites. Just as in the logo, "News for nerds,..." there exist other tech news sites, some of which allow comments, some of which don't, some of which not only allow it, but use the Slashdot codebase. Slashdot is in competition with these other sites, for viewership (and ad views) from the tech community, just as The New York Times, the Washington Post, and other journals and newspapers are in competition with each other for viewership, readership, page views, ad views, and advertising revenue.
The ability to skip registration and still be able to read the news article through the pirated version on Slashdot brings higher viewership, and a more loyal (and more frequent visitation from) the Slashdot community. I should know, I limit visits to news sites that require registration, yet I know that if I want to view a popular tech story (especially on the New York Times), it normally makes it into Slashdot, and all I have to do is go to Slashdot (pageview/adview 1), change comment threshold to 5, change order to nested, then reload (pageview/adview 2) then scroll through the highest rated stories. If it doesn't make it within the first 50 comments, hit page 2 (pageview/adview 3). Still not there? Got there a bit early? Change comment threshold to 4, (pageveiw/adview4,5,6, etc.). Slashdot regulars regularly compete with who is going to pirate the copyrighted article first, with the losers adding in their "karma whore" comments to the bottom.
Do you, Mr. Schlesinger, pirate the copyrighted works of others for OSDN? I'll let the other comments on measurements of percentage of story quoted on earlier news stories speak for themselves. But in terms of what is listed above, you (as in OSDN) don't have to pirate the copyrighted works, through a mod point reward system, OSDN is inducing others to pirate copyrighted works on OSDN's behalf, and for the benefit of OSDN's coffers, and all the while disclaiming responsibility for the wholesale pirating of copyrighted works from other news sites by adding in a line in small print at the bottom of the rendered page, once again:
Comments are owned by the Poster
and relying on court decisions that lay liability at the feet of posters. It remains to be seen, however, on whether OSDN will really escape liability under the same umbrella, when OSDN's hands are a bit dirtier, when considering what is outlined in my post.
Do you, Mr. Schlesinger, place a lower value on reporters and authors who work for the New York Times or Washington Post, than you do to David Graham? And who, by seeing cdlu, now brings to my attention is a regular contributor of news stories to Newsforge? Is it ok to allow Slashdot posters to wholesale pirate copyrighted works from such popular newspapers, and yet when something similar happens to one of your own, you hypocritically point your finger of blame at other sites? Or perhaps its ok to criticize the other sites, as long as they aren't OSDN? Perhaps, Mr. Schlesinger, you believe it is ok to pirate copyrighted works from the New York Times or the Washington Post because they are mainstream? larger readership? old media? different political bent? different technical philosophy?
Why, Mr. Schlesinger, is it ok for Slashdot to be complicit in, and benefit from, the wholesale pirating of New York Times news articles, yet you have a problem when others do the same?
The court cases upholding the publishers' defense of "it's the poster, not me" don't blur the line as much as OSDN does. And one of the arguments used by the defedending publishers was they can't screen every post. Yet here on Newsforge (without a similar mod system for trollish or offensive posts), posts are removed sometimes by OSDN staff on complaints by readers. So OSDN is capable of, and does police the comments of users. Yet the pirated, copyrighted news stories on Slashdot are not removed.
Napster attempted to shift responsiblity to their users too.
If only this were as true as it's made out to be. You do understand that if the editors of slashdot make a regular practice of 'policing' their user's comments, they at *that* point, become legally liable for their users posts. Yes, the admins do remove offensive/inappropriate comments upon request, but that is the key: *upon request*. The NYTimes can and does request the removal of complete stories in 'comments'. So it is not simply that 'one line at the bottom of a page' that protects the editors of slashdot.
There is legal precedent protecting creators of open forums but ONLY if those forums are open: i.e. member determined. So, the slashdot editors are only doing what is legally required of them to avoid getting sued. Addition of the mod points system is actually a further legal insulation: the users are determining for themselves who to trust for their information.
I understand the frustration that is felt. And linking articles wholesale is wrong. Blaming the creators of an open forum for it, though, just isn't right.
There is legal precedent protecting creators of open forums but ONLY if those forums are open: i.e. member determined. So, the slashdot editors are only doing what is legally required of them to avoid getting sued. Addition of the mod points system is actually a further legal insulation: the users are determining for themselves who to trust for their information.
I understand the frustration that is felt. And linking articles wholesale is wrong. Blaming the creators of an open forum for it, though, just isn't right.
If only this were as true as it's made out to be.
Where's the falsehoods? That there is no pirating of copyrighted works from NYT, Washington Post and other news sites? Or that OSDN doesn't benefit? Or that registered users don't karma whore by pirating copyrighted works and aren't rewarded by OSDN through mod points?
You do understand that if the editors of slashdot make a regular practice of 'policing' their user's comments
OSDN does this on Newsforge. And not just on reader complaints. Comments have been removed based on content of the comments, not just complaints. Check the comments for the Saudi Arabia series. Another example (iirc) is the article on Joe Barr's fight with Time Warner Road Runner service, check the comments there for an explanation of a comment or comments that were removed. There are others. Some, as explained, were removed "on request" or "on complaint", but there have been instances, in the same stories iirc, that comments were removed without complaint, instead in the judgement (or policing in your terms) of the editors or authors of the stories. So OSDN itself fails your test.
The NYTimes can and does request the removal of complete stories in 'comments'.
Too little, too late. OSDN is fully exploiting the piracy tools available to it. The New York Times can complain all it wants. And OSDN can remove all the complete pirated, copyrighted stories it used to its benefit. But that comes hours to days later. Once the story reaches the bottom of Slashdot's index page, it's already old news. Prior to reaching the bottom of the page, comments on popular stories number more than a thousand. It has already been viewed and reviewed by the majority of readers. As soon as that story leaves the bottom of the page and rolls onto the "older stuff" section on the right hand column, it has already had its run, getting far fewer views. Articles appearing on "older stuff" can and often do represent articles published on the same day. Rolling off "older stuff" and onto "yesterday's edition" results in a more dramatic dropoff in the number of views, and the number of posts. So unless the New York Times and Washington Post and other news sites have a standing army ready to pounce on Slashdot/OSDN within the hour of a story running, and OSDN responds by removing pirated, copyrighted stories immediately, OSDN is fully exploiting the pirating of copyrighted works from other organizations through the delay in receiving complaints. So I doubt the news organizations issue takedown demands and OSDN responds within the hour of a story being posted on the front page, and if not done by then (and the stories are not taken down immediately), it's too late. The damage is already done.
Your combining of "policing member comments" with takedowns for obvious copyright infringement helps your argument, but is disingenuous at best. The two are not the same. The court cases providing the protection to publishers from reader comments were about reader comments and libel, not copyright infringement. To suggest that removing pirated copyrighted articles, articles that are clearly referenced in the news stories, articles that can be clearly and immediately checked, to comply with copyright law, and PROTECT AUTHORS YOU SO DEARLY WANT TO PROTECT IN YOUR EXAMPLE, opens OSDN to liability in libel cases is laughable.
I understand the frustration that is felt.
Frustration? By who? Me? The New York Times? Be serious. The top post points out the hypocrisy that hit Newsforge today. A case of "do as I say", and "not as I do". An example of the pot calling the kettle black.
And linking articles wholesale is wrong.
Linking articles? Who said anything about links?
Mr. Schlesinger's rant is about violating copyright law to the benefit of the violator, and to the detriment of the author of the copyright holder. Yet on the sister site of Newsforge, Slashdot, through the modus operandi outlined in the parent post, is benefitting from exactly the same problem Mr. Schlesinger accuses others of.
Blaming the creators of an open forum for it, though, just isn't right.
Slick. By attempting to suggest that the top post paints all open forums with the same brush, you effectively move readers to your position. Very slick. Now let's take a look at the truth. The tools, and conditioning of the readers, to get the desired results, the so-called modus operandi outlined in the parent post, is limited in the post, to Slashdot. Even Newsforge, which shares Slash code with Slashdot, does not operate using the same tools and procedures. Newsforge does not award mod points to the general readership, or the general population of registered users. And of the many sites I've seen that use Slash code as the basis for their sites, I don't recall any sites that award mod points to the general readership or to the general population of registered users. Or that benefit from the regular pirating of copyrighted works to draw an audience or increase page views, regardless of whether the pirating is committed by readers, or the publishers at other sites. Slashdot is providing the motive (mod points, karma), is clearly benefitting, and is doing nothing to mitigate the pirating of copyrighted works until the benefits have been fully exploited. The New York Times, the Washington Post, or other news sites send a takedown notice? Unless it is received within, and acted upon by Slashdot or OSDN within minutes to the first few hours of the story appearing on the top of the Slashdot index page, unless it is done within this critical time period, it doesn't matter. The damage is done, and the benefits are received by the relevant parties.
Does Mr. Schlesinger really respect the copyrights of authors? Then he needs to show it. Slashdot story submissions are reviewed and judged to see if worthy of publishing, to see whether to place on the front page or another page, and to check validity or links or categories, right? The links to stories on other sites that lead to sites that require registration are already old news at Slashdot, but are also enough of a hot button issue that they are regularly preceded by, or followed by comments that state "obligatory sacrifice of first born child" or some similar nonsense reference to the registration requirements. If Mr. Schlesinger were serious about respecting other authors' copyrights, he should take the following actions:
Mr. Schlesinger doesn't have time to do this? Perhaps then, Mr. Schlesinger is not serious about protecting other authors' copyrights? Or maybe Mr. Schlesinger needs an assistant to locate the posts, bookmark them, and go back to them to make sure the mod points stay at -1. No money to hire an assistant? So then you are choosing economics over IP protection, and choosing to allow the continuation of pirated copyrighted works, over protecting authors from copyright violations?
ianal. These are just my personal observations from my layman's understanding of the situation. Realiate away for my stating the obvious.
They also back rub one another. They will post stories on the front page to drive visitor's to other OSDN sites. Its a link to a link to a link. They artificially are propping up other OSDN sites to keep the ad revenue flowing. If I could steal has much as OSDN and get away with it, I would too. The problem with SlashDot readers is that they are like Microsoft users (sheep), they do not know any better.
My ISP started as a group of hackers (original meaning). They published information about phone phreaking, too. Before they became an ISP. That was all in '93 and earlier. In '99 or something they got bought by the phone company (an ex-monopoly which they actually fought against). The irony! They're still Pro-Speech/Liberal but i sense it is becoming less and more business oriented. Is there a better alternative? I'd like to know.
Not the same as in this story, but Slashdot also became incredibly popular and got bought out. The site has become mainstream, is extremely American-centric and it has lost its' grassroots. Also, it is _far_ from democratic. Now, is there a better alternative? I'd like to know that too.
Actually, i almost only and prefer to visit grassroot sites. This is because those contain the best and most original information as opposed to sites which care about the masses, profit, ads, morals and are undemocratic.
The general rule of a collective functioning on consensus is 150. More doesn't work in a True democratic way since consensus doesn't work anymore than. I want diversity and consensus in this world, hence i want it on Internet websites as well. It ain't here, for sure. The editors here, with this article, aren't acting like a benevolant dictator either.
Not the same as in this story, but Slashdot also became incredibly popular and got bought out. The site has become mainstream, is extremely American-centric and it has lost its' grassroots. Also, it is _far_ from democratic. Now, is there a better alternative? I'd like to know that too.
Actually, i almost only and prefer to visit grassroot sites. This is because those contain the best and most original information as opposed to sites which care about the masses, profit, ads, morals and are undemocratic.
The general rule of a collective functioning on consensus is 150. More doesn't work in a True democratic way since consensus doesn't work anymore than. I want diversity and consensus in this world, hence i want it on Internet websites as well. It ain't here, for sure. The editors here, with this article, aren't acting like a benevolant dictator either.
newsforge.com just endorsed the word "piracy"...
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 31, 2004 12:40 PM
...and on that note, I bid you adieu, suckas.
All the time I read copyrighted articles quoted
in full in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. commentary. It so often happens
that if I see a referenced article there that
requires registration.... I just wait a few hours
and 6/10 times (guesttimated) it shows up in the
comments.
Now, aren't y'all and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. the same corporate
entity?
You can't have it both ways.
-t
in full in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. commentary. It so often happens
that if I see a referenced article there that
requires registration.... I just wait a few hours
and 6/10 times (guesttimated) it shows up in the
comments.
Now, aren't y'all and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. the same corporate
entity?
You can't have it both ways.
-t
It's not really comparable, unless you can point to any example where it was the actual Slashdot editors who posted the pirated content. It's true that they often don't remove it from the comments, but that's not the same thing as being the ones to post it, and it's really not the same thing as giving it its own page.
Reposting comments without the author's permission of course is a copyright issue, most people who post on websites and find their work reposted don't really do anything about it. It's actually an issue of plagurism which is just wrong. Most people who write articles don't mind being used on other sites/works, they just want to be credited for coming up with the idea and/or words. Plagurism is not bothering (out of ignorance or laziness) to credit where you found the work, especially quoted directly.
i read your articles with a text only browser. i don't ever see any of your ads. apparently i am stealing from you? maybe you should figure out a better way to make money. i would much rather give you a donation for a good article than look at a bunch of annoying ads.
Nevermind copying<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. People should lighten up.
If your that afraid of people copying your work you should copyrite it and sue the bastards using it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:o)
If your that afraid of people copying your work you should copyrite it and sue the bastards using it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:o)
Please, don't use loaded words like "piracy" and "theft", it makes it very hard to sympathise with your plight.
Also the word "education" can be loaded in the wrong context. Convincing people to endorse your point of view is not the same as education.
I think of education as teaching people objective facts, to the extent such facts are known as understood.
Promoting your cause is not education.
Please, change your tune, then perhaps a few people might be inclined to listen, engage, maybe even help.
Also the word "education" can be loaded in the wrong context. Convincing people to endorse your point of view is not the same as education.
I think of education as teaching people objective facts, to the extent such facts are known as understood.
Promoting your cause is not education.
Please, change your tune, then perhaps a few people might be inclined to listen, engage, maybe even help.
Very hard to sympathise? Impossible.
The choice of words, directed to this particular forum, has been very careful. Easy to notice when you know who the autor is.
That leads me to check: Is there an advertisement on *this* page? Of course here it is.
The choice of words, directed to this particular forum, has been very careful. Easy to notice when you know who the autor is.
That leads me to check: Is there an advertisement on *this* page? Of course here it is.
From a philosophical point of view, only the wording is incorrect. Does a
stone want to fall? Does water want to flow? Probably not: it's not alive.
But it has a tendency to. Just like information has a tendency to spread.
Richard Dawkins invented the word 'meme', essentially a piece of information
(like a song, a story, an idea). In order to exist and keep alive, a meme
has to spread. If it doesn't spread, it's dead. A song which doesn't catch
on, will die.
So the author of a program, a story or a song faces a dillemma: he wants it
to spread (if not, it's dead), but he wants it to spread on its own terms
(paid). Is that an obstacle for its spread? Obviously. Unpaid it will spread
faster and further, which is good for its survival. So, yes it's in the
interest of the meme (information) itself to have as few obstacles (freedom)
as possible.
However, a 'meme' will not come into existence without a person willing to
do so. Even if it comes into existence he can decide not to spread it at
all. Which is not in the interest of the meme as well.
Conclusion: yes, information wants to be free. But a fee may be required to
set it free. The question remains each and every time: is it worth to set it
free? That's a question that either the meme's creator or user can and must
answer. Sometimes a creator will decide he wants to do it anyway (so he
writes that story, poem, song or program) and gives it away. Sometimes a
user is willing to pay a creator in order to obtain a meme he is unable or
unwilling to create himself. But, yes. Once free a meme will spread. And
since copying and handling information is becoming increasingly easy we will
have to address this issue, but the question is whether copyright is the
right way. Our previous "copy protection" was based on the unability of the
public to copy information. Trying to hold on to that is a losing game. We
will have to address this issue in another way. I know how, but you'll have
to pay me hefty before I let that meme free<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
stone want to fall? Does water want to flow? Probably not: it's not alive.
But it has a tendency to. Just like information has a tendency to spread.
Richard Dawkins invented the word 'meme', essentially a piece of information
(like a song, a story, an idea). In order to exist and keep alive, a meme
has to spread. If it doesn't spread, it's dead. A song which doesn't catch
on, will die.
So the author of a program, a story or a song faces a dillemma: he wants it
to spread (if not, it's dead), but he wants it to spread on its own terms
(paid). Is that an obstacle for its spread? Obviously. Unpaid it will spread
faster and further, which is good for its survival. So, yes it's in the
interest of the meme (information) itself to have as few obstacles (freedom)
as possible.
However, a 'meme' will not come into existence without a person willing to
do so. Even if it comes into existence he can decide not to spread it at
all. Which is not in the interest of the meme as well.
Conclusion: yes, information wants to be free. But a fee may be required to
set it free. The question remains each and every time: is it worth to set it
free? That's a question that either the meme's creator or user can and must
answer. Sometimes a creator will decide he wants to do it anyway (so he
writes that story, poem, song or program) and gives it away. Sometimes a
user is willing to pay a creator in order to obtain a meme he is unable or
unwilling to create himself. But, yes. Once free a meme will spread. And
since copying and handling information is becoming increasingly easy we will
have to address this issue, but the question is whether copyright is the
right way. Our previous "copy protection" was based on the unability of the
public to copy information. Trying to hold on to that is a losing game. We
will have to address this issue in another way. I know how, but you'll have
to pay me hefty before I let that meme free<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
Probably not piracy
Posted by: hardcode57 on March 30, 2004 10:14 PMIts much easier to cut and paste the whole thing.
#