Cut-and-paste copyright infringement ...

[neveronfriday]

Because I just did the same on my site (mea culpa), I started thinking about the following, which we can see here all the time:

Whereas some people have quite decided opinions about copyright infringement in regard to recordings, these same people have no qualms copying entire news articles from various sites around the Internet and then pasting them, often in their entirety, into the various (mostly politics) threads here.

When I then go and check out the direct link provided by the person who started the thread or posted the item, every time it clearly states that the material may not be publised elsewhere, etc.

Hypocrisy?

Any thoughts on this?

Cheers!

Edited December 8, 2004 by deus62

[JSngry]

Who's losing money by cutting from a free site and pasting it here?

[neveronfriday]

Who's losing money by cutting from a free site and pasting it here?

Is money really the only issue?

[Dan Gould]

I would say it is a matter of money because copyright protects economic interests. It also protects against plagiarism but most cut and paste jobs don't leave any doubt that it is someone else's words, and no one is paraphrasing or stealing without attribution.

The thing is, if copyrighted articles were published in Flash, there would be no "cut and paste". Problem solved. If it is one

[7/4]

The thing is, if copyrighted articles were published in Flash, there would be no "cut and paste". Problem solved. If it is one

And then people with phone modems might not read the articles.

[Jazzmoose]

The thing is, if copyrighted articles were published in Flash, there would be no "cut and paste". Problem solved. If it is one

So if you can do it, it's okay? Hmmm...

[Dan Gould]

The thing is, if copyrighted articles were published in Flash, there would be no "cut and paste".  Problem solved.  If it is one

So if you can do it, it's okay? Hmmm...

If they publish in a way that encourages stealing, it might suggest they don't worry too much about copyright infringement.

[neveronfriday]

I think the issue goes beyond economic interests. It has to because otherwise copyright as it is defined by law(s) today wouldn't make sense.

Of course saying that it won't hurt anyone to copy sth people can read elsewhere for free helps one's own conscience when doing it, but I think it is hypocritical to say that if nobody loses any money (and on larger boards, maybe the original author/company does lose money because he/she/it loses readership and thereby, for example, income generated by click-through rates) it's ok.

I do it myself, as stated above, but I don't go prancing around yelling when, for example, a European company "reissues" a recording out of copyright (but, when they "steal" the remastering, I think things do change majorly). I just shut up.

The reason I really brought this up is because just a few days ago there was a major fight about copyright issues on another board where the various arguments were reinforced by ripped-off articles which were all copyrighted.

In this one case it seemed to me that the "fight" for other artist's copyright was, for the individuals that did it in the way described above, more an "act" to get a clean and innocent image. But what they were saying was certainly not backed-up by any serious thought.

Now if you do say that economic interests are the decisive point, at least that's honest. Then you can justify cut-and-paste jobs. But in the other discussion, many other thoughts were voiced (the artist's right to have a say in what's done with his work and where it appears, etc.), and I thought then things turned hypocritical.

It has also happened here.

Cheers!

[Claude]

I think it would be fine to post only the links to the articles, but some posters prefer to copy/paste the entire article because it is more visible, and because some articles are only available after (free) registration.

Copying complete articles without permission is certainly copyright infringement, but I think newspapers will only take action if a commercial site does this and if it is done systematically and not occasionally, as it is the case here.

If copyright law was enforced systematically the internet would have to be shut down.

Edited December 8, 2004 by Claude

[neveronfriday]

If copyright law was enforced systematically the internet would have to be shut down.

Exactly.

[WD45]

Does the notion of tracking hits on a website have any significance here? If we all read an article in the Politics forum, the site that it was originally posted upon does not get the dozen or two hits that it would if there were a link to the story instead. Multiply that by the number of boards on the "internets" then you have a larger number.

If that website judges readership by hits, then that is a problem. If no one is going there with the exception of the first reader, then the organization might think that no one is reading and then charge advertisers less. That is if they don't trim staffs, or, worse yet, shut down altogether due to low traffic.

[neveronfriday]

The thing is, if copyrighted articles were published in Flash, there would be no "cut and paste".  Problem solved.  If it is one

So if you can do it, it's okay? Hmmm...

If they publish in a way that encourages stealing, it might suggest they don't worry too much about copyright infringement.

So if FreshSounds rips of a (remastered) disc which is not copy-protected, it's ok?

[JSngry]

Does the notion of tracking hits on a website have any significance here? If we all read an article in the Politics forum, the site that it was originally posted upon does not get the dozen or two hits that it would if there were a link to the story instead. Multiply that by the number of boards on the "internets" then you have a larger number.

If that website judges readership by hits, then that is a problem. If no one is going there with the exception of the first reader, then the organization might think that no one is reading and then charge advertisers less. That is if they don't trim staffs, or, worse yet, shut down altogether due to low traffic.

That's why whenever I cut and paste, I always provide a link to the original site.

But other than the hits issue, if it's a straight cut-and-paste for "informational" purposes only, and it's from a free site onto a free site, then I refuse to even begin to entertain the notion that "harm" of any sort is being done unless a better argument is made than is being made here.

Money is exactly the issue afaic. We resent the Definitives, et. al. of the world because they cheat. What else can you call it? And there is a transfer of revenue involved. That's sort of thier raison d'etre. If somebody posts an AP story here that is offered for free at umpteen jillion free sites, where's the loss of revenue, especially if a link to the original source is provided and clicked on? There ain't none. Where's the gain of revenue? There ain't none. The only way for there to even concievably be a gain would be if people were primarily drawn to a site by "borrowed" content and then proceeded to purchase auxillary merchandise from the same site. Ain't happening here!

The main objective of copyright law, I believe, is to protect the right to just compensation. The rest of it - proper crediting of authorship, control of context, etc., has relevance in other contexts, but is pretty much irrelevant as it pertains to posting widely and freely available news articles and such on a bulletin board. If anybody on a board is caught taking credit for themselves for somebody else's work, or knowingly MIScrediting a source, or knowingly quoting out of context, then, yeah, ream'em out good. But otherwise, bfd afaic.

[Dan Gould]

The thing is, if copyrighted articles were published in Flash, there would be no "cut and paste".  Problem solved.  If it is one

So if you can do it, it's okay? Hmmm...

If they publish in a way that encourages stealing, it might suggest they don't worry too much about copyright infringement.

So if FreshSounds rips of a (remastered) disc which is not copy-protected, it's ok?

The issue was copy and paste of words from one web server to another. My point has nothing to do with ripping off CD companies.

[neveronfriday]

Where's the difference?

[Dan Gould]

Where's the difference?

If you go back to the original statement I was being challenged on, I was specifically asserting that publishing of web pages in Flash would eliminate the ability to cut and paste and therefore the easy ability to violate copyright. I was suggesting that failure to publish in Flash suggests a blasè attitude toward those who copy and paste.

[JSngry]

So if FreshSounds rips of a (remastered) disc which is not copy-protected, it's ok?

No, it's not. Neither is cutting-and-pasting content from a paid site to a free one.

Now, to compare apples to apples (almost), would it be "ok" if Fresh Sounds took ONE LABEL UNDER A GROOVE, totally repackaged it with full credits being given, and gave it away absolutely free to anybody who wanted one with no strings attached, just as BN did? Probably so, although BN might not see it that way. A total freebie either way, with full credit being given so the "promotional" intent is not compromised.

But that ain't gonna happen, is it now...

[neveronfriday]

Let me get into a little more detail here to expand on what I'm trying to say:

I've been doing freelance work for Germany's biggest news site almost since it came into existance.

This site has been making some real money through two channels:

a) archived content has to be payed for

b) advertising

As of October, this site has had page impressions in the range of 185 million (average) per month ... and rising.

The legal department has noticed the following: as blogging and Internet forums are spreading, there is a direct correlation between page impressions (especially on news-heavy days) and the various articles spreading throughout the (mostly European) Internet. It becomes increasingly difficult to sell site areas for advertisement at the current rate because advertising agencies are well aware of this problem and are asking for reduced prices (based on facts or not doesn't matter much in these discussions).

The first consequence has been to reduce paychecks for authors/journalists.

Additionally, the management is currently debating two consequences:

a) turning the site into a pay-site throughout (not an option, as far as I understand)

b) sending out seize-and-desist orders (I think that's what they are called in English) to bloggers and forums with a daily/monthly number of visitors yet to be decided.

Why?

They're losing money.

More than what Mosaic would lose if one of their sets is ripped 1:1 and sold cheaper in Europe.

A lot more money.

But on the Internet the old urban myth still prevails, that news sites are

a) not making money

b) not hurt by material being lifted off the sites

c) will not react to copyright infringement

So, what's happening quietly at the moment all over the place (I'm extrapolating here) is that the management is considering limiting access to the content in some way or other.

I see parallels to arguments often popping up in copyright discussions concerning sound recordings. One of the (very convincing) arguments is usually that companies will not see a future in re-releasing material out of copyright (or just about out of copyright) or that because of the infringement rampant everywhere copy-protection or other mechanisms will hurt the enjoyment of the music.

In both cases, the audience (=we) is the one hurt most by whatever the consequences might be.

That's why I think this is an issue one should consider with a bit more attention.

Cheers!

Edited December 8, 2004 by deus62

[Dan Gould]

b) sending out seize-and-desist orders (I think that's what they are called in English) to bloggers and forums with a daily/monthly number of visitors yet to be decided.

"Cease and desist" as in stop what you're doing and don't do it again.

Interesting points. Maybe the next major corporate effort to enforce copyrights will be to sue "copy and pasters" instead of the file sharing sites?

[neveronfriday]

b) sending out seize-and-desist orders (I think that's what they are called in English)  to bloggers and forums with a daily/monthly number of visitors yet to be decided.

"Cease and desist" as in stop what you're doing and don't do it again.

Interesting points. Maybe the next major corporate effort to enforce copyrights will be to sue "copy and pasters" instead of the file sharing sites?

Do you have any idea what the DailyKos, for example, does to ruining news sites?

Yes, it does further political discussion, but it also hurts the hand(s) that feed(s) it. I know I'm out of my depth here, because I don't visit there often, but it's an URL that often turns up in legal discussions as a general example....

As it turns out, more often than not visitors DO NOT click through to sites that are linked on the various huge political forums/blogger sites. We are talking relatively small percentages here ... and you can see that in the log files. Lately I have seen quite a bit of analyzing going on there ... the consequences are as of now still VERY vague ....

And yes, Dan, those are the corporate efforts right now.

I think that is scary.

Cheers!

Edited December 8, 2004 by deus62

[Jim Dye]

Using Flash doesn't eliminate the ability to take a screenshot.

[JSngry]

Interesting perspective, to be sure.

Still, it makes one ask why information is provided fully and freely if it is not meant to be shared in a like manner. To expect otherwise seems terribly naive. After all, this is the Internet, and the "rules" were kinda already in place long before it became an "income opportunity". So it's up to the sites to bend to the users to get what they need, not the other way around. "Establishment" types don't like that way of thinking, they like to think "Hey, it's mine, and all I have to do is put it out and the money should automatically roll in." Hey, welcome to the present. You want to make hard cash without the ambiguity of context, make a hard copy. Print a newspaper or such. You come to the Internet, you gotta think differently. Ask the record companies about CDs (hard copies) vs downloads. They're clueless too, at least for now. But some of them show signs of figuring something out. New beast, new dynamic, new rules. Gots ta'be.

On the whole, I remain unmoved by the argument against cutting and pasting from free site to free site, albeit less rigidly so. Partly because of the nature of the beast, and because there are other options.

Why don't they do like Salon and some other sites and offer "teasers" or some other type of barebones content for free and then charge for full access? Or some kind of "premium" access, something that's worthwhile to enough people to bring in some money?

Even better - require registration, compile some of that "aggregate date" I keep reading about, and make some money off of that? And make the cookie expire every month or so so the data can be recompiled, with a slightly different set of fields each time the user reregisters, so you always have some form of "fresh" data to sell. Nothing too invasive, mind you, just enough to have something good to offer.

Even more better - put a different naked woman on the site every few hours and get numbers that you can't argue with! And CHARGE for it!!!

Even MORE more better - get a hipper sales staff and come up with some savvy deals. If it's that much of a buyer's market, they'll be screwed no matter what, I'd think. But if an advertising presence on the site remains desireable (and those numbers would seem to suggest that it would), get some sales personnel who can play to that desireability, not be distracted from it. Show me a salesperson who can't find an angle somewhere to sell anything, and I'll show you a sales person who's too decent to be in sales!

BTW, I'm a habitual click-througher. Can't help myself!

But my firewall blocks out a helluva lot of ads and such. Oh well!

[RDK]

You come to the Internet, you gotta think differently. Ask the record companies about CDs (hard copies) vs downloads. They're clueless too, at least for now. But some of them show signs of figuring something out. New beast, new dynamic, new rules. Gots ta'be.

Certainly agree about the "think differently" part, but this isn't just limited to the internet but to this new "digital age" in general. The ease with which data - news, publishing, photos, music - can now be transmitted more effectively to the masses is causing (for right or wrong) a sea change in the way we think about copyrights and such stuff. The digital age is still in its infancy and we're still figuring out just how to use it. Technology now often develops at a faster rate than we, as a society, can process it it fully on legal, moral, and ethical grounds.

Overall, I think D62 is right on in pointing out the hypocrisy in the copyright rules - or more accurately how us music fans relate to such rules and have different standards for music and text. It doesn't matter if it's "free" or not - it's an artist's work dammit - and I thought the artist was supposed to have a say. It's not only about money. To mix apples and bagals, wasn't one of the James Newton's complaints about the Beasties using his sample from Axum that, though they paid him, he didn't want them to use his piece in the first place?

Yeah, there's a big difference between Definitive ripping off another mastering and issuing it as their own - that "plagarism" to me - and someone cut-and-pasting an article appearing on Yahoo, but there are fundamental similarities as well. Copyrights and the digital age don't mix well, and I think there are going to be some fundamental changes made in the future.

And don't get me started on patenting DNA/gene sequences!

[Big Wheel]

I was under the impression that most bloggers usually don't lift entire stories for posting. Rather, they usually will quote a paragraph or three and provide a link. This at least seems close to fair use. But I don't frequent Kos that often, so I've never really seen what they do.

[neveronfriday]

I was under the impression that most bloggers usually don't lift entire stories for posting. Rather, they usually will quote a paragraph or three and provide a link. This at least seems close to fair use. But I don't frequent Kos that often, so I've never really seen what they do.

Yes, but log files show that there are not all that many inquiring minds about that actually click to read the rest of the article.

Just one of the many problems.