"when actually copyright is simple common law: 'I made it, therefore I own it'."
This is a perfect demonstration that ootb doesn't actually understand the basics of copyright. When you get right down to it, people don't actually own what they've copyrighted. They own the copyright itself, which grants them special privileges in exchange for eventual release to the public domain and as the Constitution says "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". The timeframe for releasing works to the public domain has been unfairly lengthened to ridiculous levels by politicians since its inception, however.
So it's not as simplistically wrong as "I made it, I own it" at all.
Depending on what range of years is used, I'm either a late Gen-X or an early Gen-Y. Either way, my bank account can attest to the fact that book publishers are receiving plenty of my money.
I think the myth that the current generation doesn't read is nothing more than a gut reaction of the previous for having the audacity to have differing values. It's nothing more than the "kids these days" syndrome that occurs with every generation. I daresay we'll be just as guilty of it ourselves on some level.
A distributor that won't distribute is little more than a parasite, disallowing the creator from finding a distributor that will actually perform their job function.
I know a little bit of the history behind the agreement between Gaiman and McFarlane. It was essentially a handshake agreement, which is why the issues of copyright ownership, royalties, and the like have been in the courts for so long.
Not even close, but keep trying. You don't make any sense either...you bemoan someone's attitude as creating the "ownership structure we are stuck in now" when your notion of what constitutes ownership and theft leaves no room for fair use or the public domain. It also demonstrates a tremendous lack of common sense. As Sir Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."
Additionally, I'm not sure if you're trying to imply that you're a lawyer, but if so, you should definitely start spelling it correctly.
Whether the person is profiting is only one of the factors a court uses to determine fair use, and hardly the only thing that matters.
There is no hard line that determines what is and what is not fair use. There are generalities that can be used to determine if something would most likely be considered fair use based on common sense and court rulings.
I have long wondered why WSJ stories are accessible on-line during the initial search but then locked when you share them with others (e.g., via social media channels). It's unbelievable actually.
It's actually more evidence that Murdoch is trying to spread FUD about Google. The WSJ checks the referrer header, and if it comes from Google, you get to see the full article. If the link didn't come from Google, you don't.
Murdoch knows full well that Google provides a valuable service to his organizations, he just doesn't want to have to admit it.
You're making it sound like Google News provides nothing to the news sites, which obviously isn't true. If it were, every news site would simply modify their robots.txt file and be done with it. Google News sends visitors to the news sites - what they don't like is that Google makes money on providing a service making fair use of their material.
Your "solution" of stopping the aggregators simply wouldn't work, regardless. The newspapers all complain about Google, knowing full well they can block it easily. It's posturing, plain and simple - they don't want to lose the audience Google sends their way. So they raise the threat of a paywall, to see if they can get Google to cough up some money for them.
The newspapers aren't interested in solving their problems - they're interested in finding someone to blame, and trying to make them pay. Paywalls have been tried before, and for the most part have failed miserably. And without the ability to share links, social networks won't touch the sites. Micropayments are another dead-end - nobody wants to break out their credit card to read a news story.
It's not the aggregator's fault the news sites are losing money - they're just being used as scapegoats. The real problem is the news sites themselves, who have developed a massive sense of entitlement to any use of their content. They think if they can just "take back the news", everything will be fine, except what they're proposing is essentially a suicide pact.
Check your bank account, check his. Check the number of companies you own, check his list. Call me when you catch up. Just being insulting towards a very successful businessman is arrogant.
Translation: since you're not as successful as Murdoch, you should just automatically assume every idea he has is brilliant. Sorry, that's a logical fallacy.
The fact is, since they've always had the option to block Google's news aggregating, it's nothing but empty blustering when he bashes them.
Distribution should be something you ask for,
Says who?
not something that is shoved onto you without permission.
Sorry, the internet doesn't work that way. Linking, aggregating, embedding, etc...no permission required. If you don't want your stuff distributed on the internet, don't put it there.
Why are you arguing about the morality of stealing copy written material?
Because stealing and infringement aren't synonyms.
We're not talking about someone stealing bread and water so they can live in this case either.
Exactly correct - those are physical items. If you take someone's bread and water, they no longer have those items. It doesn't work that way with so called "intellectual property". Infringement is unlawful copying, not stealing.
Re: Re:
There are craft beers labelled as Imperial IPAs. That's what he's talking about...it's basically just a rebranding of double or triple IPAs.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Putting your best foot forward...NOT. (as DanC)
You're really going to great lengths to justify your inability to separate a fictional character from the person playing that character.
Re: Re: (as DanC)
(untitled comment) (as DanC)
Friendly proofreading - her first name isn't Florida.
(untitled comment) (as DanC)
This is a perfect demonstration that ootb doesn't actually understand the basics of copyright. When you get right down to it, people don't actually own what they've copyrighted. They own the copyright itself, which grants them special privileges in exchange for eventual release to the public domain and as the Constitution says "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". The timeframe for releasing works to the public domain has been unfairly lengthened to ridiculous levels by politicians since its inception, however.
So it's not as simplistically wrong as "I made it, I own it" at all.
(untitled comment) (as DanC)
I think the myth that the current generation doesn't read is nothing more than a gut reaction of the previous for having the audacity to have differing values. It's nothing more than the "kids these days" syndrome that occurs with every generation. I daresay we'll be just as guilty of it ourselves on some level.
Re: (as DanC)
Re: Re: Re: Maybe not Hypocrites ... (as DanC)
Re: Re: Re: Re: (as DanC)
Re: Re: (as DanC)
Re: RE (as DanC)
Not even close, but keep trying. You don't make any sense either...you bemoan someone's attitude as creating the "ownership structure we are stuck in now" when your notion of what constitutes ownership and theft leaves no room for fair use or the public domain. It also demonstrates a tremendous lack of common sense. As Sir Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."
Additionally, I'm not sure if you're trying to imply that you're a lawyer, but if so, you should definitely start spelling it correctly.
Re: Re: Fuzzy lines (as DanC)
There is no hard line that determines what is and what is not fair use. There are generalities that can be used to determine if something would most likely be considered fair use based on common sense and court rulings.
Re: Re: Re: Another lovely from Mike (as DanC)
Re: News must be free (as DanC)
Re: Murdoch's lock (as DanC)
It's actually more evidence that Murdoch is trying to spread FUD about Google. The WSJ checks the referrer header, and if it comes from Google, you get to see the full article. If the link didn't come from Google, you don't.
Murdoch knows full well that Google provides a valuable service to his organizations, he just doesn't want to have to admit it.
Re: (as DanC)
Your "solution" of stopping the aggregators simply wouldn't work, regardless. The newspapers all complain about Google, knowing full well they can block it easily. It's posturing, plain and simple - they don't want to lose the audience Google sends their way. So they raise the threat of a paywall, to see if they can get Google to cough up some money for them.
The newspapers aren't interested in solving their problems - they're interested in finding someone to blame, and trying to make them pay. Paywalls have been tried before, and for the most part have failed miserably. And without the ability to share links, social networks won't touch the sites. Micropayments are another dead-end - nobody wants to break out their credit card to read a news story.
It's not the aggregator's fault the news sites are losing money - they're just being used as scapegoats. The real problem is the news sites themselves, who have developed a massive sense of entitlement to any use of their content. They think if they can just "take back the news", everything will be fine, except what they're proposing is essentially a suicide pact.
Re: Re: Re: (as DanC)
Translation: since you're not as successful as Murdoch, you should just automatically assume every idea he has is brilliant. Sorry, that's a logical fallacy.
The fact is, since they've always had the option to block Google's news aggregating, it's nothing but empty blustering when he bashes them.
Distribution should be something you ask for,
Says who?
not something that is shoved onto you without permission.
Sorry, the internet doesn't work that way. Linking, aggregating, embedding, etc...no permission required. If you don't want your stuff distributed on the internet, don't put it there.
Re: Homework (as DanC)
Re: I just don't get why this is an argument (as DanC)
Because stealing and infringement aren't synonyms.
We're not talking about someone stealing bread and water so they can live in this case either.
Exactly correct - those are physical items. If you take someone's bread and water, they no longer have those items. It doesn't work that way with so called "intellectual property". Infringement is unlawful copying, not stealing.
Re: (as DanC)
It has ads, but does not rely on them to keep the site running.
More comments from Dys >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Dys.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt