Article

2010-07-24

Some thoughts on copyright oppression and the 'bloid

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2010-07-24 11:53|| || Front Page|| [11129 views ] Top

#1 Fred, you have provided an excellent site and service. The Rantburg website has provided a source of commented, interpreted, and analyzed news. It has done the work that the MSM is too lazy or agenda-driven to do themselves.

These copyright leeches could end up freezing out the blogging sites and bloggers. I saw reference to a lawsuit yesterday where a man was sued for using a copyrighted article that he wrote.

Suppose the poster writes a few original lines getting at the meat of the article and the site with the original article is linked; is that O.K.? Is a analyzed and commented article really the original copyrighted article? Glenn Reynolds is a Constitutional lawyer at the University of Tennessee. I wonder what he would say about this issue of intellectual property?

Posted by JohnQC 2010-07-24 13:07|| 2010-07-24 13:07|| Front Page Top

#2 Suppose the poster writes a few original lines getting at the meat of the article and the site with the original article is linked; is that O.K.?

Absolutely. Fair use is fair use. The issue with bloggers who have been sued is that the bloggers being sued made no effort at respecting the copyright of the originator of the article.

For example:

From the Las Vegas Tribune:

Amy Kremer, one of the founding members of the modern Tea Party movement, was in Las Vegas this week to help propel Conservative Republican Tea Party activist, Sharron Angle, to victory in the campaign for U.S. Senate to Defeat Harry Reid.

Could be rewritten like:

The Las Vegas Tribune reports that Amy Kreme, who was a founding member of the Tea party organization, was in Las Vegas to help he senatorial campaign of Sharron Angle.

Did we violate copyright?

No.

Did we include salient elements of the original article that could be construed as copyright violation?

Hell, no. We rewrote it. Web crawlers can pick the article apart until hell freezes over and other thing they will get out of it is a lousy bandwdith bill.

The issue is not to paste the article, but if you can't rewrite, only use a little bit of it, i.e. the meat of it.

The alternative is to do what Fred does: Inline comments. What is done at rantburg changes the whole complexion of copyright if commentary is added to the articles. It makes the article a whole new work, and that is protected.

Posted by badanov 2010-07-24 13:35|| 2010-07-24 13:35|| Front Page Top

#3 In short, look at this as an opportunity to do a better job than the regular media.

Posted by Pappy 2010-07-24 13:39|| 2010-07-24 13:39|| Front Page Top

#4 Yeah, Pap. That'd be hard...

Posted by tu3031 2010-07-24 13:40|| 2010-07-24 13:40|| Front Page Top

#5 I figured the comments and pictures would make it harder to machine-match to an original. I've also note WaPo uses -- instead of a dash, which I change to -, figuring the -- is a marker of sorts. I've seen that same thing - funny punctuation marks - somewhere else, but with a different marker.

Posted by Bobby 2010-07-24 13:57|| 2010-07-24 13:57|| Front Page Top

#6 The easiest way to get around this problem is a filter for postings so that if the URL content comes from a copyright sensitive site, the posting is automatically abbreviated to just a title.

This is close to how things are right now, the only difference being it is automatic, based on the linked URL, instead of the guesses of posters.

For example, if a link is from http://ap.tbo.com/
it posts as link only, because all their links are AP links.

Free Republic has used "link onlys" for a while now.

Posted by Anonymoose 2010-07-24 14:00|| 2010-07-24 14:00|| Front Page Top

#7 My 2 cents. Posters should write the titles different than the articles. The hidden link is ok. The poster can do a snarky executive summary highlighted. Then the reader goes to the link. That would be done for the alpha hotel type of sites that like the lawfare model. The rest of sources should be reported using Fred's model.

We just need to know the hazmat sites.

And yes, Fred, put me on the bloid. You have my email address. The enemy will not quit without a fight, foreign or domestic.

Posted by Alaska Paul in Hooper Bay, Alaska 2010-07-24 14:22|| 2010-07-24 14:22|| Front Page Top

#8 A few points in response to Fred's and others --

1) Fred -- no deal. The Burg is yours, I'm just a happy worker-bee :-)

2) Use just the meat of the article.

Absolutely. I'm guilty too, but I do try, as the unofficial Rantburg Copy Editor ~~and Style Bitch~~, to cut the fluff. We should always do that. It's tougher to complain about infringement if we're using only a part of an article.

Readers who wish to post should review our style guide (linked on the main page) and work to trim / rewrite / translate a post. Think of it as an opportunity to teach the MSM how to write.

3) Use our foreign sources.

Absolutely. Who wants to read the NYT for their news?

4) Add your commentary.

Whether serious or snark, your commentary makes the Burg special. I know there is a tendency to post articles 'straight up' without comments if time is limited, but that just sets us up for a complaint. Add your comments!

If you don't have comments to add and don't have the time / inclination to edit, seriously consider just posting a link and letting us mods handle it.

5) Headline and link

I'd personally leave it the way it is.

And now one plea from me -- let's start limiting the non-WoT stuff. Some is unavoidable and helps us understand what's going on in the world. But some of the political corruption, etc., causes us to stray from what makes the Burg unique. Again, I'm guilty too. I point out that posting those stories without commentary also makes it tough for us to defend the Burg -- why is a story about a local crooked Dhimmicrat posted if the Burg is about the WoT?

Just my thoughts. I don't often get to thank Fred for allowing me to mod and have a barrel of fun doing so, but I thank him now.

AoS

Posted by Steve White 2010-07-24 15:44|| 2010-07-24 15:44|| Front Page Top

#9 snark away! Fair use, baybee!

aside to Dr Steve: you are one ~~stylish bitch~~ great asset. Don't change!

oh wait...you said style...nevermind

Posted by Frank G 2010-07-24 16:02|| 2010-07-24 16:02|| Front Page Top

#10 As far as the non-WoT stuff, overwhelming WoT stuff, it might work to use a "linkdump" page, sort of like the Sink Trap, which has a good look. For example, I've long admired the *style* of Linkdump.be, even though their content is for the most part crapola, (and some NSFW, be advised.)

http://linkdump.be/

What it would amount to is a page of "Ephemera links that posters here found, that they thought someone here might think was interesting." No commentary attached to it, unless interesting enough to mention in the O Club.

It could serve double duty for the mods to put links that were bloating the main page, or had posting errors, without killing them outright. No frets about the double posting of popular stories, or archiving, either.

Just a thought.

Posted by Anonymoose 2010-07-24 16:38|| 2010-07-24 16:38|| Front Page Top

#11 Fred:

One of my Golf Buddies is an Exec with the group that owns the Las Vegas Riverview-Urinal. He said as far as he knows the big gripe with the blogs is that some are taking content and posting it as there own. He felt as long as you link to the original and include the byline (Written by Sam Smuck etc.), we should be ok. His statement: "Bring on the links!"

Just his opinion.

Conservative website among 3 sued over R-J copyrights

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2010-07-24 19:02|| 2010-07-24 19:02|| Front Page Top

#12 Fred:

Please add me to the bloid, you should have my address.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2010-07-24 19:05|| 2010-07-24 19:05|| Front Page Top

#13 A suggestion.

After having dicked around editing out inline ads, filler text, unnecessary paragraphs, etc, I find I often don't add a comment giving the reason I posted the piece - snarky or otherwise.

Hence, a box on the posting page in which a comment must be added would be both helpful and cover the 'fair use' requirement.

Ie, either you post a link or you post the text of an article with your comment.

Posted by phil_b 2010-07-24 20:04|| 2010-07-24 20:04|| Front Page Top

23:00 junkiron
22:51 phil_b
22:50 3dc
22:38 3dc
22:12 chris
22:09 Hellfish
22:07 swksvolFF
21:58 Willy
21:44 badanov
21:36 tu3031
21:30 swksvolFF
21:15 3dc
21:13 3dc
21:12 3dc
21:10 3dc
21:08 3dc
21:00 Pappy
20:56 tu3031
20:47 DMFD
20:34 Frank G
20:33 abu do you love
20:26 Anonymoose
20:17 abu do you love
20:13 junkiron