Podium Charter Revision: Don't post entire articles or large blocks of text

Quote from appleyum : Looks like nail in the coffin http://www.theinquirer.net/inquir...ontributor

I'm no fan of Righthaven, but I disagree with this: "ruling that Hoehne's republication of the story was consistent with the provisions of the US Copyright Act governing Fair Use, because he made no profit and it did not have an adverse effect on the market for the original article."

Republishing an article in its entirety does have an adverse effect on the market for the original.

If you visit the LRJ web site, take note of the column on the right side of the screen. It's all advertisements which, of course, are sold entirely on the basis of traffic to the site.

Making the entire body of the article available at another location -particularly with the assumption that the blog's readers would like to consume the original content- denies the LRJ the traffic that should have been directed to their site to consume their content.

Further, the site to which the article was re-posted also sells ad space, no less dependent on traffic for revenue generation. Presumably, the content on that site is the reason that visitors come to the site.

In an ad-based industry, siphoning off someone's traffic is siphoning off their revenue.

Imagine re-broadcasting NBC's original content (without permission) but selling your own ad blocks instead. You betcha that's theft.

Righthaven may not have had grounds to sue, but LRJ sure does as such behavior certainly does affect the market for the original.

The proper way to share these stories with interested readers is with an excerpt and a link, to refer the traffic- and the traffic value- back to the people who own the rights to the content.

Quote from skiman : It's all advertisements which, of course, are sold entirely on the basis of traffic to the site.

There's advertising on websites these days?!

Quote : Making the entire body of the article available at another location -particularly with the assumption that the blog's readers would like to consume the original content- denies the LRJ the traffic that should have been directed to their site to consume their content.

This is the same reasoning that the RIAA employs when it argues that file sharing reduces the number of people consuming their member's content. In actuality, they can't prove anyone would have read the article in the first place, just like the RIAA can't prove that their sales were diminished due to file sharing (studies show an actual increase in purchases due to filesharing sometimes).

Quote : Further, the site to which the article was re-posted also sells ad space, no less dependent on traffic for revenue generation. Presumably, the content on that site is the reason that visitors come to the site.

Then Righthaven should have sued the owners of the site, not someone who is not employed by and does not make any money from the site. That's one of the qualifications of fair use, is that Hoehne is not doing this for profit.

Quote from redmaxx : This is the same reasoning that the RIAA employs when it argues that file sharing reduces the number of people consuming their member's content. In actuality, they can't prove anyone would have read the article in the first place, just like the RIAA can't prove that their sales were diminished due to file sharing (studies show an actual increase in purchases due to filesharing sometimes).

Sharing vs selling.

If other parties are, in essence, selling the material (using it to drive traffic and earn ad revenue) then it's self evident that these unauthorized "sales" reduce the opportunity for the rightful owners to sell. If people are reading the ad-supported content, at the unauthorized site, then they will have almost no reason to read the same ad-supported content wherever the rightful owners have made it available.

Again, the perfect comparison is mirroring NBC's content and using those attractions to sell your own ad space.

Or, verbatim, mirroring the content of the LA times and republishing it to sell your own ad space.

It's theft and it's wrong.

Quote from redmaxx : Then Righthaven should have sued the owners of the site, not someone who is not employed by and does not make any money from the site. That's one of the qualifications of fair use, is that Hoehne is not doing this for profit.

Righthaven probably shouldn't have sued anyone, but I don't have any problem with content owners suing unauthorized republishers.

Not making money is one element of fair use, but not the only element, and not the most important element. His lack of profit is complicated by the fact that he copied the content and gave it to someone else to "sell.

Quote from skiman : If other parties are, in essence, selling the material (using it to drive traffic and earn ad revenue) then it's self evident that these unauthorized "sales" reduce the opportunity for the rightful owners to sell. If people are reading the ad-supported content, at the unauthorized site, then they will have almost no reason to read the same ad-supported content wherever the rightful owners have made it available.

That's not self-evident. There's no evidence that anyone reading the republished version would have read the original in the first place and/or didn't click through to the original site.

I'm telling you man, your argument is the RIAA's, verbatim. It has failed just about everywhere.

Quote : Again, the perfect comparison is mirroring NBC's content and using those attractions to sell your own ad space.

You mean like YouTube? Then there's the DMCA. The original holder should have sued the original site to have the material taken down under the DMCA if they knew there was infringement going on.

Quote : Righthaven probably shouldn't have sued anyone, but I don't have any problem with content owners suing unauthorized republishers.

Sure, but you need to look at intent. When the article clearly states he wasn't making money, saying he was making money is... wrong. It also changes the outcome of the case because his intent is different.


Bloggers looking to make a profit? Yeah, that's a problem. SD Podium? No problem here.

Quote from redmaxx : That's not self-evident. There's no evidence that anyone reading the republished version would have read the original in the first place and/or didn't click through to the original site. I'm telling you man, your argument is the RIAA's, verbatim. It has failed just about everywhere.

It's not the same argument. The distinction is that with ad-supported content, all consumers are "paying" with time, bandwidth, etc.

If a customer seeks out the content and "pays" via ad consumption at the re-publisher's site, it is self evident that they would likely have been willing to consume the same content on the right-holder's site.

It's not just sharing copyrighted material, it's selling the copied content.

Imagine that you, without permission, cloned the content of your local newspaper with the only change being that you removed their advertisements and substituted your own revenue generating ads. Theft, yes?

Quote from redmaxx : You mean like YouTube? Then there's the DMCA. The original holder should have sued the original site to have the material taken down under the DMCA if they knew there was infringement going on.

DMCA provides some protection to the site itself, but individual users can still be held responsible for their actions, AFAIK.

Quote from redmaxx : Sure, but you need to look at intent. When the article clearly states he wasn't making money, saying he was making money is... wrong. It also changes the outcome of the case because his intent is different.

As I said, he may not have personally made money from the action, but he put the content to work making money for another entity. His actions deprived the original owner of exclusive (and profitable) use of the content as much as the site that continued to re-sell the content.

Quote from redmaxx : Bloggers looking to make a profit? Yeah, that's a problem. SD Podium? No problem here.

No, it certainly is a problem. SD is ad-supported. If I consume unauthorized original content here, I am paying SD with eyeball time rather than paying those with the rights to the content. If I want to consume protected content I should have to click a link and go pay the rights holders with my traffic.

Of course, if SD is to be sued over reposting on The Podium, I imagine that the great big giant target is the re-posting of cartoons in the humor thread. Those are entirely creative works and we are "paying" SD to view them rather than paying an authorized distributor.

Or, to look at it from the other direction, if sites can simply steal original content from one another, who is going to pay for content creation? We could suggest alternative business models, but we certainly don' t have a right to try to force other business models. Ad-supported models work fine, as long as people respect copyrights.

Quote from skiman : It's not the same argument. The distinction is that with ad-supported content, all consumers are "paying" with time, bandwidth, etc. If a customer seeks out the content and "pays" via ad consumption at the re-publisher's site, it is self evident that they would likely have been willing to consume the same content on the right-holder's site. It's not just sharing copyrighted material, it's selling the copied content. Imagine that you, without permission, cloned the content of your local newspaper with the only change being that you removed their advertisements and substituted your own revenue generating ads. Theft, yes? DMCA provides some protection to the site itself, but individual users can still be held responsible for their actions, AFAIK. As I said, he may not have personally made money from the action, but he put the content to work making money for another entity. His actions deprived the original owner of exclusive (and profitable) use of the content as much as the site that continued to re-sell the content. No, it certainly is a problem. SD is ad-supported. If I consume unauthorized original content here, I am paying SD with eyeball time rather than paying those with the rights to the content. If I want to consume protected content I should have to click a link and go pay the rights holders with my traffic. Of course, if SD is to be sued over reposting on The Podium, I imagine that the great big giant target is the re-posting of cartoons in the humor thread. Those are entirely creative works and we are "paying" SD to view them rather than paying an authorized distributor. Or, to look at it from the other direction, if sites can simply steal original content from one another, who is going to pay for content creation? We could suggest alternative business models, but we certainly don' t have a right to try to force other business models. Ad-supported models work fine, as long as people respect copyrights.

Here is WHY your "argument" fails skiman, and why the exact opposite is in fact more true than ever - we SHOULD be allowed to copy and paste entire articles.

If a SD Podiumite clicks a linky, the reason they do so is because it was posted HERE.
Their REASON for seeking out the linky is BECAUSE of the discussion, not necessarily the content having any merit or being of interest to the debater.
It is the need to be informed FOR the debate's principle point that drives that traffic - traffic which SD generated FOR them.

Without the Podium that site would NEVER have seen the traffic - ergo, no loss of revenue has occurred.
What HAS occurred is FREE advertising, visitors who want to verify and scan for associated content AT the source.
The source should in fact be paying SLICKDEALS for the increase in traffic, not suing to prevent copyright violations.

It is similar to the legal argument about fruit of the poison tree.

Especially with electronic content with immediacy relevance, there should be a very narrow window for copyright protection, less than 30 days in fact.
After a month NOBODY is going to seek out old content, other than the odd googler looking for reference material - and half the time when you visit a site looking for content more than a month old it's either buried so deep their own site search engine can no longer find it or it's been taken down and archived to save bandwidth.

Quote from Anonymouse : [B][COLOR="Green"]Here is WHY your "argument" fails skiman, and why the exact opposite is in fact more true than ever - we SHOULD be allowed to copy and paste entire articles.

That's what I tried to explain to him, but he was hung up on the ad supported part of it. Which has no bearing on whether or not someone was ever actually going to go to the site in the first place (unproven) and completely ignores that it may draw readers that otherwise wouldn't have come.

Quote from Anonymouse : Their REASON for seeking out the linky is BECAUSE of the discussion, not necessarily the content having any merit or being of interest to the debater.

Notice the inherent contradiction? The reader doesn't want to consume the content, but the reader does want to consume the content.

A person who reads the content reads the content. It doesn't matter why there is demand, just that there is demand.

There is substantially less reason to click through any link if the full content has been republished elsewhere. Hence, republishing does harm the market for the rights holder. We do not give them their due.

Quote from Anonymouse : It is the need to be informed FOR the debate's principle point that drives that traffic - traffic which SD generated FOR them.

Except that by posting the full content we eliminate at least some traffic.

The proper route is to excerpt and link.

Quote from skiman : There is substantially less reason to click through any link if the full content has been republished elsewhere. Hence, republishing does harm the market for the rights holder. We do not give them their due.

But you can't prove that there was any harm because you can't prove that anyone that read the reproduction here was ever going to read the original and you certainly can't claim that there aren't any click-throughs to read other articles. What seems like common sense to you actually isn't true.

Quote : Except that by posting the full content we eliminate at least some traffic.

You don't know that at all. It's merely an assumption without any data to back it up.

Quote from redmaxx : But you can't prove that there was any harm because you can't prove that anyone that read the reproduction here was ever going to read the original and you certainly can't claim that there aren't any click-throughs to read other articles. What seems like common sense to you actually isn't true.

There shouldn't be any question of manufactured hypotheticals.

If a person wants to consume the content, they should have to click through and consume content under the terms of those with the rights to the content. Those are the terms under which the content is provided.

Quote from redmaxx : You don't know that at all. It's merely an assumption without any data to back it up.

That's nonensense.

The reasoning that you put forth effectively ends copyright, applying equally to any sort of piracy from selling Chinese DVD bootlegs to for-profit, unauthorized movie screenings. After all, there is no way to prove that those buying the unauthorized content would have bought authorized content.

The fact that the consumers of unauthorized copies were willing to pay to consume the content should not, in any way, be construed to mean that they would pay to consume the content.

Quote from skiman : There shouldn't be any question of manufactured hypotheticals. If a person wants to consume the content, they should have to click through and consume content under the terms of those with the rights to the content. Those are the terms under which the content is provided.

Excepting that the content is still made available under the legal environment of fair use. We're all here for educational purposes and would likely be seen as fair use reproductions.

Secondly, I haven't met a single free news website that requires my consent prior to consuming content. Do you have any legal basis for retroactively applying the terms of an agreement that a user never saw, understood or actually agreed to upon that user?

Quote : That's nonensense. The reasoning that you put forth effectively ends copyright, applying equally to any sort of piracy from selling Chinese DVD bootlegs to for-profit, unauthorized movie screenings. After all, there is no way to prove that those buying the unauthorized content would have bought authorized content. The fact that the consumers of unauthorized copies were willing to pay to consume the content should not, in any way, be construed to mean that they would pay to consume the content.

Oh it does no such thing. Your argument just goes to show that you don't understand the difference between reproducing for educational value and reproducing to make a profit.

Quote from redmaxx : Excepting that the content is still made available under the legal environment of fair use. We're all here for educational purposes and would likely be seen as fair use reproductions. Secondly, I haven't met a single free news website that requires my consent prior to consuming content. Do you have any legal basis for retroactively applying the terms of an agreement that a user never saw, understood or actually agreed to upon that user? Oh it does no such thing. Your argument just goes to show that you don't understand the difference between reproducing for educational value and reproducing to make a profit.

1. Slickdeals operates "for profit" and the content published by Slickdeals is sold for eyeball time (ad supported)

2. Madjack sports is operated for profit, and not as an educational service.

2. Even claiming an educational motivation does not give you the right to republish protected material.

You may be confused by the general acceptability of distributing copies of an article for the classroom. This is a very limited exemption and should not be construed to mean that copyright does not apply to the educational setting. The focused purpose and very limited impact on the market for the original have earned extra latitude in court.

However, even a teacher running a not-for-profit educational blog does not have the right to republish copyrighted material for an unrestricted audience. Nor should they.

1. Slickdeals is not arguably drawing users to the Podium to make a profit. The links to which SD makes profits from are deals links and ads related to deals. This is more of a sideshow intended for our own educational value.

2. The nature of the copyrighted works we reproduce here tend toward the factual (though some do reproduce opinion, which is more murky). This alone severely restricts the ability of the publisher to claim that the work is copyrighted (as Righthaven just learned).

3. Working against would be the fact that the entire work is reproduced, but see #2. It's not copyright infringement if the work isn't copyrightable.

4. The effect of the use. It is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove their claim that their market is affected. As I explained before, you haven't offered any proof that full-on reproductions have reduced the click-throughs, and in fact, studies conducted on music show that file sharing does not reduce sales and in some cases actually increases sales.

On the four major points of fair use, I cannot see how a claim for fair use of reproducing full articles that are primarily fact would not be legal. They aren't copyrightable in the first place.

Madjack Sports is covered under #2 as the judge noted:

“While the work does have some creative or editorial elements, these elements are not enough to consider the work a purely ‘creative work’ in the realm of fictional stories, song lyrics, or Barbie dolls,” he wrote. “Accordingly, the work is not within ‘the core of intended copyright protection.’"

To put it in your parlance, your argument is "nonsense".

Quote from redmaxx : 1. Slickdeals is not arguably drawing users to the Podium to make a profit. The links to which SD makes profits from are deals links and ads related to deals. This is more of a sideshow intended for our own educational value.

The Slickdeals service we are enjoying right now is ad supported. Look at the top of your page.

The fact that there are other types of content which generate traffic is irrelevant to the fact that the content of this forum generates traffic and revenue.

Quote from redmaxx : 2. The nature of the copyrighted works we reproduce here tend toward the factual (though some do reproduce opinion, which is more murky). This alone severely restricts the ability of the publisher to claim that the work is copyrighted (as Righthaven just learned).

Very few of that articles republished here would get a pass on this point. Apply the same standard that you must use when avoiding plagiarism. You can reproduce facts without attribution, but not interpretations or opinions on what those facts mean. The greater the ration of original thought to common facts the greater the sin to copy.

Quote from redmaxx : 3. Working against would be the fact that the entire work is reproduced, but see #2. It's not copyright infringement if the work isn't copyrightable.

Most articles here are protected for copyright, as most contain significant amounts of analysis that goes well beyond a shared set of facts.

Quote from redmaxx : 4. The effect of the use. It is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove their claim that their market is affected. As I explained before, you haven't offered any proof that full-on reproductions have reduced the click-throughs, and in fact, studies conducted on music show that file sharing does not reduce sales and in some cases actually increases sales.

You simply misunderstand this. Stop and think about what you are saying here. It is utterly impossible to meet that burden of proof. I could sell burned copies of CDs for $1 a-piece outside of Tower Records and not meet that standard!

Were your misunderstanding of the standard actual law, it would end copyright altogether. Which, in turn, virtually eliminates the financial incentive to create content. This is why it's nonsense.

The rest of us will use a more sensible standard. It is reasonably assumed that if people are buying unauthorized copies then they would have payed at least the same price for an authorized copy.

This is a direct substitute, one replacing the other in the market and is therefore correctly said to have harmed the market for the original.

Quote from redmaxx : On the four major points of fair use, I cannot see how a claim for fair use of reproducing full articles that are primarily fact would not be legal. They aren't copyrightable in the first place.

Hoping that a court will judge the nature of a republished article to be primarily fact is a VERY thin shield.

Quote from redmaxx : Madjack Sports is covered under #2 as the judge noted: “While the work does have some creative or editorial elements, these elements are not enough to consider the work a purely ‘creative work’ in the realm of fictional stories, song lyrics, or Barbie dolls,” he wrote. “Accordingly, the work is not within ‘the core of intended copyright protection.’" To put it in your parlance, your argument is "nonsense".

Which should not be misread to conclude that the work in question is not protected by copyright.