Copyright Violations

[DrPizza]

In this day and age when companies are suing because of copyright violations (particularly the copying of music and videos), I think it's treading on thin ice when members here are allowed to simply cut and paste entire news articles. Quite often, they even cut and paste the part in the copyright where it says "All rights reserved. The information contained . . . may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of . . . "

Other than a thread in HT where patentman warned someone about the practice, I've never seen something said. Perhaps this is an issue that should be discussed by the higher-ups here? Or, perhaps there should be clarification of copyright? As far as I know, cutting and pasting entire articles *is* a copyright violation. Am I wrong?

 

[DrPizza]

Do a search for "all rights reserved"; it's amazing how many people simply cut and paste entire news stories. Even with the link to the original story (on the page that contains the advertising for the other site), I don't believe it's legal, nor should it be allowed.

 

[compuwiz1]

I don't think it's a problem, if the source and credits to the article are posted as well. This goes on everywhere, not just here.

 

[RichUK]

I don?t know the legality behind this. But what I do know is there could never be a law to enforce this on the internet.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: RichUK
I don?t know the legality behind this. But what I do know is there could never be a law to enforce this on the internet.

But, there *IS* a law - they're called copyright laws. That's like saying "I don't know the legality behind copying CD's, but there could never be a law to enforce this on the internet."

 

[SVT Cobra]

This "practice" has gone on for a long time, and most even include links back to the original article. While the AP states this

Associated Press text, photos, graphics, audio and/or video materials shall not directly or indirectly be published, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Subscriber does not hold the AP liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damage arising from any of the foregoing.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive_legal.html#AP

I hardly call quoting an article on an online forum copyright infringement because the OP is not selling it or taking credit for it.

I do not see how this is any different from emailing someone the article, which many news services even allow and provide links for, not to mention links included for printer friendly versions that are used for research and postings etc. The patents are there so they are not republished by someone else (meaning another news story). I am sure that this does not fall under sopyright infringement, but I do not know all that much about the patent office. If the innocent copy-pasting actions you described are copy right infringement, then Slashdot and Daily Tech commit a crime everyday, as they link and quote to articles from news services that are not the AP.

 

[compuwiz1]

So what are you proposing by starting this thread? Do you feel we should ban the copying and posting of articles here? In that case, the entire P&N forum would need to be shut down. 😉

 

[SVT Cobra]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: RichUK
I don?t know the legality behind this. But what I do know is there could never be a law to enforce this on the internet.

But, there *IS* a law - they're called copyright laws. That's like saying "I don't know the legality behind copying CD's, but there could never be a law to enforce this on the internet."

Yes, and copy right laws do allow this sort of use, especially since posting on the internet in a forum can hardly be called reproducing/publishing.

And Dr. Pizza while we all appreciate being graced by your intellectual and moral values everyonce in a while, please research before bringing up such a topic. Many news services would probably even appove of this action if asked to do so because of its tendency to bring more traffic.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I don't think it's a problem, if the source and credits to the article are posted as well. This goes on everywhere, not just here.

I agree that it goes on everywhere. At first, the copying of songs was going on everywhere too; the copyright laws just weren't enforced.

I don't want to sound too... <what's the word?>
I just think it's a potential risk.

If I were to re-broadcast the entire superbowl to a large public audience, or re-broadcast it via the internet, I'm sure the NFL would have some issues with that, regardless of whether or not I gave the source and credits.

 

[SVT Cobra]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I don't think it's a problem, if the source and credits to the article are posted as well. This goes on everywhere, not just here.

I agree that it goes on everywhere. At first, the copying of songs was going on everywhere too; the copyright laws just weren't enforced.

I don't want to sound too... <what's the word?>
I just think it's a potential risk.

If I were to re-broadcast the entire superbowl to a large public audience, or re-broadcast it via the internet, I'm sure the NFL would have some issues with that, regardless of whether or not I gave the source and credits.

Yes, because the magnitude of the Super Bowl can be compared to a daily news article.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
So what are you proposing by starting this thread? Do you feel we should ban the copying and posting of articles here? In that case, the entire P&N forum would need to be shut down. 😉

Along with a chunk of OT.

NFS4 would be out of work

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
So what are you proposing by starting this thread? Do you feel we should ban the copying and posting of articles here? In that case, the entire P&N forum would need to be shut down. 😉

Noooo! Don't do that! Those people need to be semi-confined to their own little area! 😉

I'm just constantly hearing copyright this and copyright that where I work (as a teacher). We're constantly getting new directions as to what we're allowed to use and not use in classrooms. What is and what isn't fair use.

Oh well. I suppose I may be wrong. Don't get my intentions wrong though - I'm not on a moral high horse here... I'm just trying to help look out for this place.

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
So what are you proposing by starting this thread? Do you feel we should ban the copying and posting of articles here? In that case, the entire P&N forum would need to be shut down. 😉

Along with a chunk of OT.

NFS4 would be out of work

Not to mention, Brutuskend. 😉

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Son of a N00b
I hardly call quoting an article on an online forum copyright infringement because the OP is not selling it or taking credit for it.

Neither of which are requirements for copyright violations. 😉

 

[DrPizza]

I've been searching through http://fairuse.stanford.edu/ to see what I can find. One of the parts that I'm most familiar with is

If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work--for instance, writing a book review -- fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. Some examples of commentary and criticism include:

* quoting a few lines from a Bob Dylan song in a music review
* summarizing and quoting from a medical article on prostate cancer in a news report
* copying a few paragraphs from a news article for use by a teacher or student in a lesson,or
* copying a portion of a Sports Illustrated magazine article for use in a related court case.

The underlying rationale of this rule is that the public benefits from your review, which is enhanced by including some of the copyrighted material. Additional examples of commentary or criticism are provided in the examples of fair use cases in Section C.

So, as a teacher, I'm only allowed to copy *a portion* of a work under fair use (and I have to give credit to the source), yet websites are free to copy entire articles? Somehow I'm not quite sure that's correct.

Following further through the Stanford site, I found that one of the important factors is whether the person it's being copied from is denied potential revenue. Clearly, if I'm reading an article that someone cut and pasted, rather than clicking on a link, someone's missing out on some advertising revenue from the hits on their website.

 

[compuwiz1]

Anal much, Dr.? 😉

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I don't think it's a problem, if the source and credits to the article are posted as well. This goes on everywhere, not just here.

Straight from the Stanford Law site: "Some people mistakenly believe it's permissible to use a work (or portion of it) if an acknowledgment is provided."

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html

😛 I only quoted a line of that page, not the whole page!


This'll be about the last I say in this thread, at least for now. I don't think the issue should be simply dismissed because "everyone is doing it." I did find that ultimately, the website owner is responsible (not the webmasters.) And, I'm sure that if HardOCP or Tom's Hardware simply quoted the reviews in their entirety from Anandtech (but left a link to the original source), Anand would be a bit irritated. (and rightly so.. after reading an entire article, what reason would there be to click the link to go to Anandtech; Anand loses the advertising money the site generates)

 

[SVT Cobra]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Son of a N00b
I hardly call quoting an article on an online forum copyright infringement because the OP is not selling it or taking credit for it.

Neither of which are requirements for copyright violations. 😉

Absolutely true, but I doubt it would hold in court. 😉

 

[DrPizza]

Nope, I guess that wasn't the last time I'd be in this thread today.
It appears I *am* correct.

The commercial nature of Free Republic?s operations, as well as its decision to permit the posting the full-text of copyrighted newspaper articles, were critical to the failure of the fair use defense.

Very similar situation, entire articles were allowed to be posted on the website.
full article

Question: Can I copy an entire news article from a commercial news web site and post the article on my web site?

Answer: The fair use doctrine, as currently interpreted by the courts, probably would not entitle you to do so. Even though news items are factual and facts themselves are not protected by copyright, an entire news article itself is expression protected by copyright.

A court would apply the four factor fair use analysis to determine whether such a use is fair. In Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic, the court found that such a use was minimally -- or not at all -- transformative, since the article ultimately served the same purpose as the original copyrighted work. The initial posting of the article was a verbatim copy of the original with no added commentary or criticism and therefore did not transform the work at all. Although it is often a fair use to copy excerpts of a copyrighted work for the purpose of criticism or commentary, the copying may not exceed the extent necessary to serve that purpose. In this case, the court found that only a summary and not a complete verbatim copy of the work was necessary for the purpose of commentary and criticism.

From here
And, as I mentioned above (according to the Stanford law site) acknowledging or posting a link does not excuse the infringement.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Anal much, Dr.? 😉

I just don't like having to admit I'm wrong too often 😛 (although, I have been wrong several times on these forums)

 

[Reckoner]

Hell, most people cite the source of the article. I don't see the big deal with this.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
Hell, most people cite the source of the article. I don't see the big deal with this.

The big deal is another website was sued for that exact same thing. It doesn't matter if you cite the source - when you're copying the *entire* article and not changing it or adding to it in any way.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
Hell, most people cite the source of the article. I don't see the big deal with this.

The big deal is another website was sued for that exact same thing. It doesn't matter if you cite the source - when you're copying the *entire* article and not changing it or adding to it in any way.

Could the requirement that commentary be included within P&N at least (and enforced) meet the intent of "adding to it."

 

[Reckoner]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
Hell, most people cite the source of the article. I don't see the big deal with this.

The big deal is another website was sued for that exact same thing. It doesn't matter if you cite the source - when you're copying the *entire* article and not changing it or adding to it in any way.

How many people just start a thread and paste an article? People usually add a comment or two in addition to whatever they copy.

Btw, P&N already has a sticky saying to add comments to whatever article/story you reference.

 

[Evadman]

Even if it is copyright infringement, wouldn't the user be at fault not the forum? The only thing I can compair it to without using an online reference would be suing a cork board bulliten board maker, or owner because someone put up a flyer that was copyrighted?

BTW, I am not a lawer, don't sue me 🙂