The definition of stealing is that the previous owner no longer owns it. Please do not muddle the conversation with emotional terms like stealing, because it's counter-productive. And in a different lawbook all together even.
Call it copyright infringement, as that's the proper term, and it's also as illegal. (just gouverned by a different law)
And you can keep your preconceived notions about techdirters at the door also. We do not condone copyright infringement, but we do care about the proper naming of things.
It's not theft, never has been never will be, unless PHYSICAL property changes hands.
Napster was centralized file sharing. They tried to squash it.
Then came decentralized file sharing, making it harder to find who shared what. They tried to squash that
Then came bittorrent, everyone shares a tiny piece with torrent files in a central location. And they are currently trying to squash it.
that they need to compete with free content.
You can't use Hulu and watch the ad-supported shows, so you can only go to piracy. It's as if they WANT you to pirate.
If Hulu was smart, they'd strike a deal with Witopia, and only allow Witopia users that are originating from the US. I'm sure that Witopia could set it up like that.
you have implied that a paywall for a news scoop will never work because someone else can just repost the content and offer it for free
and YET
you claim here that the very concept of someone copying and reposting content is imaginary.
Incentive. Yes, indeed, it will happen, but why would I go to the copy-site, if I can go to the original site for free? It's a different matter when the original site is asking me money for the same article.
Personally I've seen my own content which I placed on Wikipedia re-served verbatim through some other ad filled site, so this automated scraping definitely goes on. Why it would not happen for news is a bit hard to fathom.
No one is saying that it doesn't happen, but it doesn't matter.
This is not ideal (like automatic takedown actions without due process) but google have the talent to automatically decide for themselves if page x is actually plagiarised from page y (or vice versa) based on content scanning and publishing dates based on their own spider visits.
As we see with the DMCA takedown notices. Someone flags a piece of content as being infringing, and the site takes it down often without investigation.
We don't need MORE gatekeepers in the internet world, we need less. As gatekeepers will only hinder progress.
Yes the downside of this are the spamsites, but they are easily recognizable as such. And isn't a big threat. The biggest threat for newspapers is themselves.
They don't want to move along with the 21st century, then they are destined to go down.
Newspapers should focus their attention on making good content, and making sure that they build a good community. Word-of-mouth is a much better advertisement for your newspapers than litigation is.
Plagiarism is bad, that, I'm sure, is something we all agree on. But is it worth that much time and money? If the net benefit of the fight is approaching zero?
I, for one, only see those spamsites, if I mistype an address. If I search for news, I use news.google.com or some other aggregator, and those are generally well kept.
It doesn't matter.
Indeed beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Example:
If person A thinks Glen Beck is the best thing to have happened since sliced bread, then he/she will find many sites to suit their needs. And to them those are the best places to find news.
But person B can't stand Glen Beck, then for him/her there are a whole host of other sites that suits their needs.
It doesn't matter that good and bad are relative to the beholder.
Watch and see how The Town News will go under in this online world. They will become irrelevant, as apparently you aren't even allowed to quote their articles, thus making discussions on weblogs and other sites impossible.
They won't be getting direct links, lowering their Google Rank.
They will disappear from Google News, as that's "clearly" one of 'them content thieves'. (no, I don't really think that)
Thus they won't be getting any traffic, which means lower ad-income, which means lower revenue/loss, meaning that they will go out of business.
And then the AP will spin it in such a way, that it was all the content thieves fault that yet another newspaper had to fold.
You already pay through the nose for a ringtone (no I do not think that a 3 euro a week subscription plan for 3 ringtones is cheap, when the full song is 0.99 in Itunes)
So why do we have to pay again in order to have your phone go off?!
Newspapers are in the business of reporting news (at least they should be).
Techdirt is in the business of commenting on news.
See the difference? They completement each other.
The community is added bonus, but if you let it fester, then you lose a potential revenue stream. If you foster it, you can actually make yourself bigger, because you matter. That goes for newspapers as well. If you don't take your readers seriously, why should the readers take you seriously?
You don't have to own the rights of the Eiffel tower to take and publish pictures of it.
You don't have to own the rights to the Washington monument to take and publish pictures of that.
What business in their right mind would object to free advertising? That's just bad business.
If I take a picture of a building or a sporting event or a crowd of people that are/happens in a PUBLIC space, it should be public property and I don't need rights to publish the pictures.
On the post: Attacks On File Sharing Simply Drive People Further Underground
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Swedish Pirate Party Gets A Second EU Parliament Seat
Re: Re: Re: Effective Name?
On the post: UK Law Firm Sets Up Special Team To Hunt Down Anonymous Commenters
laws on the intarwebs
Or am I allowed to anonymously insult their clients?
On the post: Swedish Pirate Party Gets A Second EU Parliament Seat
Re: Effective Name?
Does that consist solely of labourers and pregnant women?
Or the "Conservative party"? Do they want that everything stays the same.
Or the "Democratic party"? Do they imply that only they are following democratic principles, and do they even follow those principles?
A name is a name.
On the post: Attacks On File Sharing Simply Drive People Further Underground
Re: Re: Re: Attacks on File Sharing
Call it copyright infringement, as that's the proper term, and it's also as illegal. (just gouverned by a different law)
And you can keep your preconceived notions about techdirters at the door also. We do not condone copyright infringement, but we do care about the proper naming of things.
It's not theft, never has been never will be, unless PHYSICAL property changes hands.
On the post: Attacks On File Sharing Simply Drive People Further Underground
Re:
It has nothing to do with potential illicit behaviour shielded behind VPNs.
On the post: Attacks On File Sharing Simply Drive People Further Underground
history repeats itself
Then came decentralized file sharing, making it harder to find who shared what. They tried to squash that
Then came bittorrent, everyone shares a tiny piece with torrent files in a central location. And they are currently trying to squash it.
What's next?
Decentralized torrent trackers?
On the post: Dear Hulu: Stop Treating Me Like A Criminal
The networks haven't found out
You can't use Hulu and watch the ad-supported shows, so you can only go to piracy. It's as if they WANT you to pirate.
If Hulu was smart, they'd strike a deal with Witopia, and only allow Witopia users that are originating from the US. I'm sure that Witopia could set it up like that.
On the post: NJ Gubernatorial Candidate Using Monty Python Video Without Authorization In Campaign Commercial
Re:
On the post: Musician Making A Living With Forty Committed True Fans
Re: On the other hand...
On the post: AP Convinces Newspaper That Watermark Will Stop Mythical Evil Copiers
Re: Arguing against yourself
Incentive. Yes, indeed, it will happen, but why would I go to the copy-site, if I can go to the original site for free? It's a different matter when the original site is asking me money for the same article.
No one is saying that it doesn't happen, but it doesn't matter.
As we see with the DMCA takedown notices. Someone flags a piece of content as being infringing, and the site takes it down often without investigation.
We don't need MORE gatekeepers in the internet world, we need less. As gatekeepers will only hinder progress.
Yes the downside of this are the spamsites, but they are easily recognizable as such. And isn't a big threat. The biggest threat for newspapers is themselves.
They don't want to move along with the 21st century, then they are destined to go down.
Newspapers should focus their attention on making good content, and making sure that they build a good community. Word-of-mouth is a much better advertisement for your newspapers than litigation is.
Plagiarism is bad, that, I'm sure, is something we all agree on. But is it worth that much time and money? If the net benefit of the fight is approaching zero?
I, for one, only see those spamsites, if I mistype an address. If I search for news, I use news.google.com or some other aggregator, and those are generally well kept.
On the post: The Fact That Anyone Can Publish Means More Of The Good Stuff... And Yes, More Of The Bad Stuff
Re: The problem with this article
Indeed beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Example:
If person A thinks Glen Beck is the best thing to have happened since sliced bread, then he/she will find many sites to suit their needs. And to them those are the best places to find news.
But person B can't stand Glen Beck, then for him/her there are a whole host of other sites that suits their needs.
It doesn't matter that good and bad are relative to the beholder.
On the post: AP Convinces Newspaper That Watermark Will Stop Mythical Evil Copiers
They won't be getting direct links, lowering their Google Rank.
They will disappear from Google News, as that's "clearly" one of 'them content thieves'. (no, I don't really think that)
Thus they won't be getting any traffic, which means lower ad-income, which means lower revenue/loss, meaning that they will go out of business.
And then the AP will spin it in such a way, that it was all the content thieves fault that yet another newspaper had to fold.
On the post: Monster Madness: Monster Energy Drink's Hired Trademark Trolls Go After Movie Monster
Re: i hope they don't sue me...
On the post: Sorry ASCAP, A Ringtone Is Not A Public Performance
A case of double billing?
So why do we have to pay again in order to have your phone go off?!
On the post: It's 2009 And Newspapers Are Just Now Realizing That Reporters Should Interact With Their Communities?
Re: Re: Re:
Newspapers are in the business of reporting news (at least they should be).
Techdirt is in the business of commenting on news.
See the difference? They completement each other.
The community is added bonus, but if you let it fester, then you lose a potential revenue stream. If you foster it, you can actually make yourself bigger, because you matter. That goes for newspapers as well. If you don't take your readers seriously, why should the readers take you seriously?
On the post: Olympics Clarifies Problems With Flickr Photos... But Still Doesn't Make Sense
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Olympics Clarifies Problems With Flickr Photos... But Still Doesn't Make Sense
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can't sell pics through Flickr, it's only a gallery.
On the post: Olympics Clarifies Problems With Flickr Photos... But Still Doesn't Make Sense
Re:
You don't have to own the rights to the Washington monument to take and publish pictures of that.
What business in their right mind would object to free advertising? That's just bad business.
If I take a picture of a building or a sporting event or a crowd of people that are/happens in a PUBLIC space, it should be public property and I don't need rights to publish the pictures.
On the post: Dutch Collection Society Backs Down Slightly On Video Embeds
Re: The appropriate response for bloggers to give the collection racket
You're welcome. :)
Next >>