Why we're such a pain...

[nrc]

Sometimes people wonder why we're such a pain in the butt about insisting that members quote small portions of articles and provide links rather than cutting and pasting entire articles.

Of course the main reason is because it's the right thing to do. But here's a story that portends exactly the kind of scenario that we're trying to guard against.

However, the problem, flagged by copyright cop Attributor Corp., could turn into a golden opportunity if media companies figure out a way to mine advertising revenue from the traffic flocking to their pirated stories posted on blogs and other sites.

Attributor, which makes software that trolls the Internet for copyright violations, estimates the average Web publisher could collect more than $150,000 in additional revenue by selling ads alongside its unlicensed material.
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20081113/D94E5IH82.html

Every time an old media industry starts to whither they go searching for ways to start collecting money for infringements on their content - whether they're real or imagined. I suspect it's only a matter of time before these companies start engaging third parties to go out and start collecting money for content that they can find on other sites.

[Methanolandbrats]

10-4, loud and clear. But I think what those web nazis are trying to do is find a way to provide website owners with a way to prove their circulation is larger than the hits on their site so they can bill their clients for more traffic. Going after individual sites that violate the copyright would not be cost effective.

[OW]

If you scan a print article...and post on the Internet Its Infringement.
Once the "source" posts on the internet - it's fair game...

my $.02

[Methanolandbrats]

If you scan a print article...and post on the Internet Its Infringement.
Once the "source" posts on the internet - it's fair game...

my $.02 If by "source" you mean the original creator such as a newspaper, no it's not fair game if their copyright is on the article or artwork.

[cameraman]

If you scan a print article...and post on the Internet Its Infringement.
Once the "source" posts on the internet - it's fair game...

Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

[OW]

No guys.... The Internet is the Internet.....
Once you post ... Its free Game..

If you want privacy then SSL the thing...

[trish]

Sounds like a work from home opportunity I'd be interested in. :D

[dando]

No guys.... The Internet is the Internet.....
Once you post ... Its free Game..

If you want privacy then SSL the thing...

Sorry, but that depends entirely on what the copyright policy states for the site/provider that contains/distributes the content. For example, the AP contains this little bit of legalese for its content:


Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

And yes, I've dealt directly with our corp legal geeks on this very issue.

-Kevin

[Methanolandbrats]

No guys.... The Internet is the Internet.....
Once you post ... Its free Game..

If you want privacy then SSL the thing...
If an artist (writer, photographer, painter, blogger, etc...) distributes an original work with a copyright notice, it's protected under the copyright act. Does'nt matter if it's distributed on the net, in a magazine, in a paper or sold individually on the street corner.

[OW]

Sorry, but that depends entirely on what the copyright policy states for the site/provider that contains/distributes the content. For example, the AP contains this little bit of legalese for its content:



And yes, I've dealt directly with our corp legal geeks on this very issue.

-Kevin

Frankly - Not Really -
As an example - google is now Sending Searches for "the Flu" to the CDC.... You go to a Private company to get information and it's your stats that become public information.....

You have the option to not use google (for example)

And forwarding info Openly placed on the internet - is fair game -

A tiny "footnote" will NOT cut it......

Its a new world -
Don't search? Don't Post....

[dando]

Frankly - Not Really -
As an example - google is now Sending Searches for "the Flu" to the CDC.... You go to a Private company to get information and it's your stats that become public information.....

You have the option to not use google (for example)

And forwarding info Openly placed on the internet - is fair game -

A tiny "footnote" will NOT cut it......

Its a new world -
Don't search? Don't Post....

So by that logic the copyright terms on books don't apply. :laugh: Sorry, but you are WRONG. Period. Feel free to start your own site and see what happens. You can and will be sued. :shakehead

-Kevin

[datachicane]

And forwarding info Openly placed on the internet - is fair game -

A tiny "footnote" will NOT cut it......

Its a new world -
Don't search? Don't Post....

I'm not accustomed to encountering this level of wrongness on this forum (unless it's from Stu, of course :tony:)

[TKGAngel]

Thanks for the reminder to link and cite, Boss!

Here's something else to think about. Technically, the AP can charge for posting a quote from an article even if you provide a link. According to the AP, a 0-4 word quote from a story is free, but a 5-25 word quote is $12.50. Found that out this summer when the AP was thinking about cracking down on blogs.

[emjaya]

So how much is too much? :confused:

[cameraman]

So how much is too much? :confused:

Probably depends on how deep your pockets are.:rolleyes:
Anything over a paragraph is an open invitation for unwanted attention.

[Methanolandbrats]

"was that too much?".............that question has been asked before :saywhat:

[Insomniac]

10-4, loud and clear. But I think what those web nazis are trying to do is find a way to provide website owners with a way to prove their circulation is larger than the hits on their site so they can bill their clients for more traffic. Going after individual sites that violate the copyright would not be cost effective.

The intention would probably be to make it cost ineffective for people to use their content by nailing some people. Like the RIAA attacking P2P services and some individuals. Get the message out that using our content without permission could be costly.

[Gnam]

So by that logic the copyright terms on books don't apply. :laugh: Sorry, but you are WRONG. Period. Feel free to start your own site and see what happens. You can and will be sued. :shakehead

-Kevin

What is the status of Google's attempt to scan everybook ever written? Aren't they scanning copyrighted material and asking for forgiveness instead of permission?

[Don Quixote]

And what about the book people that walk around in the woods reciting the classics? :D

[Methanolandbrats]

And what about the book people that walk around in the woods reciting the classics? :D nobody hears them, so it's not a violation. :gomer:

[OW]

I'm not accustomed to encountering this level of wrongness on this forum (unless it's from Stu, of course :tony:)

I sure respect copyrights.......

I can't combine all the posts here....on this subject.....
(and it's a good one)

Like trish saying "how much is too much"......

But......From datachicane
"this level of wrongness............"
..is weak...
just ..... making discussion...

I guess it is the INTENT for $.... that makes a lawsuit.......

Been Just making altierior thinking...

[trish]

I sure respect copyrights.......

I can't combine all the posts here....on this subject.....
(and it's a good one)

Like trish saying "how much is too much"......
But......From datachicane
"this level of wrongness............"
..is weak...
just ..... making discussion...

I guess it is the INTENT for $.... that makes a lawsuit.......

Been Just making altierior thinking...

Me? :confused:

[OW]

Me? :confused:

Oh My
I guess I meant "emjaya" not Trish

I'll kill this thread yet

Hi Trish... How are you

No disrespect "boss"

[trish]

I'm good, how about you?

[OW]

I'm sorry ...
Let me go back to nrc's (the boss)'s premise, which he was explaining...
Not to copy whole articles
I respect that....

But it made interesting discussion..

OW

[TravelGal]

What is the status of Google's attempt to scan everybook ever written? Aren't they scanning copyrighted material and asking for forgiveness instead of permission?

Last I heard they gave it up. They cited $$$ but maybe it was copyright?


And what about the book people that walk around in the woods reciting the classics? :D

LOL! Mostly out of copyright, I suspect. :)

I can attest to the bots that troll the net. I had a picture of the Taj Mahal on an interior page of my website and bot caught it. I was sent a $12,000 bill because they charged as a single use for every day it had been up.

Fortunately, I believe I beat it (have not yet had a collection agency call although this happened to a friend of mine she started getting dunning calls after about 18 months of silence so I'm still nervous). I believe I wore them down because I demanded to have proof of the service's right to enforce the copyright. They sent me a compilation. I said not good enough. What about the individual image? They called me (notice no longer in writing) to say the author of the image was Canadian but had a contract with them. I figured I had them by then because the Canadian law if much more murky than ours (if you can believe it) about works for hire, etc. so they would have had to prove the guy had the right to transfer reproduction rights and, and, and.....

I pretended I was Harriet Homemaker but I used to negotiate copyright contracts with the likes of DuPont and Ford Motor Company. Of course, that's what made it so ironic that I got caught myself!!!!