I will now post the entire article describing this federal court decision. http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/reposting-aggregation-fair-use_b38173
Interesting. I guess it is good news to bloggers but I wonder how it applies to paid content like ESPN Insider. Now... I have wondered why this doesn't apply to movie clips etc... where people may only show small clips but youtube takes it down for copyright infringement.
Probably me. By posting the whole article you are robbing the person of click-throughs that generate revenue for the site. Most people don't post the author's name either so the they don't even get credit for creating the content. I think it's best to link to the article and just post highlights.
I don't get mad at you, but we're still not generally going to allow it. First of all, this is just a single judge. Not the Supreme Court. It's unclear where--if at all--this would apply to other cases. Secondly, it wouldn't be a good thing for Denny and the other owners to have to go to court to fight a suit merely because someone wasn't willing to play it safe with quoting passages, rather than entire articles. Ed O.
Denny Crane is just the "managing partner." There's a whole shadow council of other owners we will never see or hear of.
That single judge's ruling now stands as federal law. This case may not even make it to the USSC. I would have thought a lawyer would know this? Guess not. As long as the original source is linked and credited, it's legal as of yesterday.
In a federal case, they do. "Fair use" is out the window, for now. Somebody else could challenge in another federal circuit, but precedent has been set.
Who cares about the owners, administrators, global moderators, moderators and barfo? We need to post entire articles to get the best bang for the buck in our posts and now we have a legal precedent. I say we post entire articles and lawsuits be damned!! Power to the posters!! Let anarchy rule on S2!!!
Posting entire articles on this board passes pretty much every aspect of the law. Just talking, posters make no money off it. Now, if Denny did it to boost participation that might be different. Sad that some posters don't understand how to click the link to read the article completely, judging from many replies to links I have posted. They just guess at the content and respond.
Well, I care about all of those, except for moderators, administrators, global moderators, and owners. barfo
As long as Righthaven is around, it's going to be an issue for us. Their entire business model is about shaking down site owners for whatever they can get out of them. The hammer is the threat of lawsuit. Lawsuits are incredibly expensive to defend and the penalty PER copyright violation is on the order of $20,000. So 10 copyrighted articles would be a penalty of $200,000. More rulings like this would put Righthaven out of business. While the courts do pay attention to precedent and what goes on in other venues, they're not bound by them. If this were a SCOTUS case, a different story.
It's not controlling. If it were an appeals court decision, that'd be different. In any event, it appears that the decision was made based on standing, rather than on the merits of the suit. That renders commentary on the heart of the matter--whether posting a full article is fair use--dictum, and dictum does not carry the power of precedent. Ed O.
