American judge proposes a ban on linking to online content without permission(guardian.co.uk)
guardian.co.uk
American judge proposes a ban on linking to online content without permission
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jul/01/richard-posner-copyright-linking-newspapers
7 comments
There is no way that existing copyright law can even remotely be stretched to say that incidental linking to a site on the web constitutes copyright infringement.
This would be akin to saying that a library's use of the Dewey decimal system to help you locate a book infringes the copyright held by the book's owner because it directs you where to find it.
The judge's proposal is purely a political one and that is why it appears in a blog.
Unless Congress acts to do a radical extension of current copyright law, linking of any normal type will not come under legal scrutiny of any sort, even from Judge Posner (who, whatever else he is, is nobody's fool). The danger here will lie with politicians who might succumb to lobbying pressure. It will not come from judges.
This would be akin to saying that a library's use of the Dewey decimal system to help you locate a book infringes the copyright held by the book's owner because it directs you where to find it.
The judge's proposal is purely a political one and that is why it appears in a blog.
Unless Congress acts to do a radical extension of current copyright law, linking of any normal type will not come under legal scrutiny of any sort, even from Judge Posner (who, whatever else he is, is nobody's fool). The danger here will lie with politicians who might succumb to lobbying pressure. It will not come from judges.
It's more like me mentioning a book and telling you where to go to buy it is copyright infringement. Terrible idea.
s/internet/web
I don't see the point in this. Any publisher or news site who wants people to sign up or pay (with a password) can do so already, without being affected by anyone linking to it. Those who choose to make it public, will want more people to see it I guess.
If copying content from a site is what he means, yes, it should be banned and that makes sense, but how can linking to a public URL be an issue? I just don't see how.
If copying content from a site is what he means, yes, it should be banned and that makes sense, but how can linking to a public URL be an issue? I just don't see how.
I hate to say that not even American legislative and judiciary branches could be stupid enough to outlaw the anchor tag, because they prove me wrong half the time I make that sort of assumption. But this is really another "series of tubes" moment; I don't think it'll go anywhere.
I thought the "series of tubes" was an excellent analogy for the internet.
I don't think it's that part of Stevens' speech that bugged people.
He also said: "an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday. I got it [Tuesday]. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially." And a lot of other gibberish about network neutrality.
He also said: "an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday. I got it [Tuesday]. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially." And a lot of other gibberish about network neutrality.
Ahh, that makes sense. I hadn't heard his entire talk, only the "series of tubes" snippet that was repeated and played upon.
It's not the first time and probably won't be the last.
But there's just no way it could ever go through.
But there's just no way it could ever go through.
well, a judge is probably 60 or something. I mean by the time the internet became widespread they were thinking of retirement, not to mention that they might have secretaries and stuff so perhaps don't really need to even use a computer, so can;t blame them, blame those who are supposed to help the judges make a decision, like the clerks.
If you're wondering why you're being voted down you should probably check the age of Vint Cerf: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vint_Cerf
Yes, I was going to apologise, I commented generally and did not even read the article :P, but the judge apparently blogs so am proven wrong. My lecturer is a judge also, albeit he does crime rather than copyrights. He clearly knows how to use a computer, he is quite advanced with office words, but then he does crime :P he can't afford a secretary ha.
My point is that these people might not actually know how the internet works and it is the fault of the court clerk not the judge if they arrive at a wrong decision. However, in defence of this judge, I think the article exaggerates a bit. The judge is speaking about a specific circumstance, not banning all linking.
My point is that these people might not actually know how the internet works and it is the fault of the court clerk not the judge if they arrive at a wrong decision. However, in defence of this judge, I think the article exaggerates a bit. The judge is speaking about a specific circumstance, not banning all linking.
Ah, Richard Posner. I have never understood why he's so well thought-of among a lot of politically-inclined geeks. I can only guess it was the public hate-on he had for MS back during the anti-trust trial.
Anyone who'd suggest "Expanding copyright law to bar...linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's consent", especially to prop up newspapers' websites, should be reviled by geeks.
Anyone who'd suggest "Expanding copyright law to bar...linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's consent", especially to prop up newspapers' websites, should be reviled by geeks.
Really unbelievable.
allowing old people to regulate technology is like putting fish in charge of the FAA.
I think this is just the tip of the iceberg. In reality fair use has been wilfully abused by internet aggregators. At the moment we're in the absurd situation where the aggregators like google, youtube, etc. make money for serving other people's content for free.
And what's worse is that because they've got used to all content being stolen they value it so lowly that Amazon are prepared to offer the content providers just 30%!
Look it from a different perspective and bloggers aren't a news-source, they're ill-informed, amateur, unaccountable commentators. We need the papers. Sites like YouTube don't make quality content, they steal it and serve it for free. Google doesn't create any websites, it steals your money by advertising competitors products right next to yours.
I love the internet as it is, but I honestly believe it's not going to last.
And what's worse is that because they've got used to all content being stolen they value it so lowly that Amazon are prepared to offer the content providers just 30%!
Look it from a different perspective and bloggers aren't a news-source, they're ill-informed, amateur, unaccountable commentators. We need the papers. Sites like YouTube don't make quality content, they steal it and serve it for free. Google doesn't create any websites, it steals your money by advertising competitors products right next to yours.
I love the internet as it is, but I honestly believe it's not going to last.
Have you heard if this thing called the robots.txt file? To get all those pesky, content-stealing search engines off your lawn, all you need to do is put the following two lines in your robots.txt file:
For the rest of your comment, I can't really say anything without being pointlessly snide.
User-agent: *
Disallow: /
For the rest of your comment, I can't really say anything without being pointlessly snide.
>I can't really say anything without being pointlessly snide.
Congratulations, you just summarized the Web 2.0 experience with a sentence fragment.
Congratulations, you just summarized the Web 2.0 experience with a sentence fragment.
Look at it from different, different perspective: economics. News supply, even what you call "quality" news supply, has skyrocketed during the past few years. Recall that supply is not just the abstract amount produced, either, which may not have changed much, but the supply available to the customer. That's where the skyrocketing has occurred.
This has had the perfectly predictable effect on price (dropped it like a rock), with further perfectly predictable effects (eventually the supply is going to consolidate and contract some) coming in as second-order effects. The only question is timeframe.
"I love the internet as it is, but I honestly believe it's not going to last."
So, for that reason, it pretty much can't. Which isn't to say there won't be some "free-to-the-consumer" news, but there can't be so much of it.
That said, your distinction between "bloggers" and "quality" is already out of date. Ultimately, that's a form of ad hominem. Just as it logically doesn't matter where an argument came from, it doesn't matter whether a good bit of reporting comes from a "blogger" or a "quality" news outlet. Maybe one blog post in 10,000 is a "quality" journalism story, but that's still a lot of real journalism getting done.
(Just to be clear, since the presumption is usually that a post is an argument or disagreement, I'm not disagreeing or arguing, I'm further explaining. Except with the idea that you can completely, 100% write off "bloggers" as a news source as if they are some sort of distinct species or something.)
This has had the perfectly predictable effect on price (dropped it like a rock), with further perfectly predictable effects (eventually the supply is going to consolidate and contract some) coming in as second-order effects. The only question is timeframe.
"I love the internet as it is, but I honestly believe it's not going to last."
So, for that reason, it pretty much can't. Which isn't to say there won't be some "free-to-the-consumer" news, but there can't be so much of it.
That said, your distinction between "bloggers" and "quality" is already out of date. Ultimately, that's a form of ad hominem. Just as it logically doesn't matter where an argument came from, it doesn't matter whether a good bit of reporting comes from a "blogger" or a "quality" news outlet. Maybe one blog post in 10,000 is a "quality" journalism story, but that's still a lot of real journalism getting done.
(Just to be clear, since the presumption is usually that a post is an argument or disagreement, I'm not disagreeing or arguing, I'm further explaining. Except with the idea that you can completely, 100% write off "bloggers" as a news source as if they are some sort of distinct species or something.)
it steals your money by advertising competitors products right next to yours
This is the same situation as, say, billboards. They owners don't produce any content, but they still make advertising revenue. (Other techniques include advertising on the back of airline boarding passes, direct mail, etc.)
Turns out that there is no rule or fundamental property of the universe that requires you to produce content in order to sell advertising space.
This is the same situation as, say, billboards. They owners don't produce any content, but they still make advertising revenue. (Other techniques include advertising on the back of airline boarding passes, direct mail, etc.)
Turns out that there is no rule or fundamental property of the universe that requires you to produce content in order to sell advertising space.
It is as if he said he wants to prosecute football players for battery when they tackle an opponent. By stepping on the field in a uniform you are agreeing to play inside the rules of the game. Linking is one of the rules of the game on the internet.
Couldn't we use the legal argument that posting something online without taking further steps to password protect it or what have you is implied consent for the content to be linked to?