OT-Copyright Lawsuits

If a writer cannot read an article, or follow a publication, or research an event or subject, then rewrite it and not change enough at least to comply with, or have a plausible argument against alleged copyright infringement, they need to put down their pen because they are not a writer, but a cut and paster, and need to go down in a flaming trail of twenty dollar bills. Maybe it will thin out the herd of cut and paste bloggers who couldn't pass a first year creative writing class.

Steve

visit my blog at

The idealistic part of me wants to believe that.

The cynical part of me believes that the brick & mortar houses are finding a way to cut down the competition.

Very clever idea. Let's say that I find an interesting newspaper article and post it in thie newsgroup. If Steve Gibson finds me, he could very conceivably shake me down for a few grand.

When they steal your product and then sell it to compete with you, it's a seriously grating experience.

We have fair-use provisions in the Copyright Act. The bloggers, and many others online, have just abused it to steal.

None of this applies to links, by the way. It's about wholesale lifting of copy.

Nope. He'd have to show that you made money off of it to win anything. He may write you a legal letter, and he could even get a cease-and-desist order. But he can't win money damages, nor would you be charged with a crime.

The problem is the cost of defending ones self, its often cheaper to pay off the the lawyers than fight to win a case. Looks like they plan to file thousands of lawsuits in the hopes most will settle before trial. Wanna bet the lawyers check on the offenders abillity to pay before they sue. A homeless person posting to thier blog from a public library wont get sued.

Best Regards Tom.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: snipped-for-privacy@netfront.net ---

Spinrite Steve Gibson?

Ed, what is the time interval from having say, NBC news issue an original report on something, to having the other networks parroting the same stuff that would not abuse copyright?

Serious question, you understand this stuff better than anyone on the list.

Wes

Woot would seem to have a better case.

There's no copyright involved there, Wes. Copyright pertains to your exact words, in the case of writing, or a close paraphrasing intended to copy what you said without actually changing a thing. And the latter applies mostly to works of fiction -- plays, movie scripts, etc.

There are other provisions, but in terms of blog entries and words on a page, you just can't directly copy a "substantial" part of someone else's work. I've seen some of my articles posted on the Web, in the early years, but it didn't hurt me and I doubt if it made them any money, so I just let it go. But if they screwed me up on something I intended to re-sell, I would have raised hell.

"Fair use" also has several provisions. A paragraph from an article is Ok. A parody or critique also is Ok.

Woot has no case at all. That's fair use. Posting a link is not copyright violation, and those few words are 'way inside of the Fair Use Doctrine.

They're just doing what they say they do for a living -- post junk.

Or they may all be buying the story from the AP.

Or at least tie you up until you cry UNCLE and give him a few thou to just go away. Lawyers are like that.

Steve

visit my blog at

My point exactly.

ADA compliance comes to mind. Seems a few years back there were a number of lawyers intimidating businesses with ADA compliance lawsuits to make money. Its funny, because a few of the businesses who were referenced when I read about it were so small and had room for so few employees/customers that they were not required to meet all the ADA compliance issues they were threatened over. Many still settled and/or made changes to comply.

Copyright the press and sue if someone gets the message. Boston Globe sues Philly newspaper for saying in the same words 'The British are Coming'.

Bet ole grandma is still paying grease $ to the grandson cause he found out about her partaking in the herb.

SW

Sue them !

Oh no, their after me Ctrl C ...

SW

Pro Se ?

Best Regards Tom.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: snipped-for-privacy@netfront.net ---

Who? Me? I wouldn't sue, unless they really deserved it. I think the whole thing is silly and I'd be ashamed to extort $ with the treat of going to court. That paper is all about $. They charge too much to advertise, charge too much to buy it, use bait and switch tactics, and must have to pay them to have them print a story (Sure seemed that way to me after decades of reading it.) They have a win win win (especially after getting rid of the Sun) situation and now they want to extort $ through the pink tie dude, pathetic. They don't even let you search past papers beyond something like a couple of days without paying. No public service or gov't. watch dogging there.

Suppose my opinion is slander and I'm next. For some reason I just feel like newspaper articles are the public domain, obviously not so though.

SW