[X4U] OT: Question on cross posting and copyright infringement

[dz at caribe.net]

> How do you figure? It's always been against copyright to copy things out of
> books and newspapers and magazines without permission; why didn't that
> create a "climate of fear"? Why should the Internet be treated differently
> than the media to which you've been accustomed all your life? It isn't!

Linda, you seem to have a somewhat distorted view of Copyright Law, which makes me question your experience with it.  I'm sorry, I do not mean to be offensive, but have you heard of encyclopedias, published scientific white papers, and other reference materials being used for research, homework, and just plain old conversation?  You do not need to ask the author's permission to copy excerpt material from these works, or from any authorship work, as long as certain conditions are met or circumstances are in place; for instance that attribution is made, and that they are factually correct or, if paraphrased, noted so.  You also cannot claim the quoted parts to be originally yours, as that amounts to plagiarism.

"Fair Use" is expressly encoded in the Copyright Act, and its not an accident, nor some dirty little act that everybody does, yet knows secretly that is wrong.

The reason that copying things out of books and newspapers and magazines without permission didn't cause a "climate of fear" in the past is not because we tolerate the behaviour, but because it is perfectly legitimate, legal, and encouraged.  How do else do reviews of products, books, movies, and other works occur?  How else can students write their homework?  How else do scientists derive new discoveries from previous work?  However the Internet, for various complex reasons that I do not care to go into right now, is being treated as a "special case", and instead of updating our rights and laws, Congress and large corporations seem to be addressing the issue in a reactionary manner, failing to reconcile the "Digital World" (how I hate that phrase) with long standing traditions, rights, laws, and legal precedents.

I agree with some of Richard's comments:  A "climate of fear" is being created.  It is easier, faster, cheaper, and less painful to settle a pending lawsuit than to test its premise in court, however questionable it may be.  This has had a chilling effect on many would-be authors, and even on free speech in general; having to second-guess each and every inclusion or reference because they may be accused of infringement.  And even if they ultimately win the legal action, their reputation, character, and income is in jeopardy while the media plays out the fight.  This fear of legal entanglements, meritous or not, is very real indeed.

The Supreme Court has traditionally ruled on Fair Use cases on a case-by-case basis, that is, there is no "blanket argument" that covers all, since speech and expression fall under our First Ammendment rights.  So it is not as easy as saying "You can't post my words without my permission".  You have to see the context of the post, the reasoning, its use, and its intent.  You can certainly sue the poster.  But this will probably result in the defendant settling with you, because trials are long, expensive and painful.  However, a settlement is not a trial, and is devoid of judicial judgement; so the matter will remain untested.  And although you will feel vindicated, all you did was legally agreed with the defendant that he will pay you for you to shut up and not sue, and not do it again.  And the same applies to a lot of those new "Terms & Conditions" imposed on most online services, where they reserve certain rights, or deprive you of others, without regard to the actual letter of the law.  But again, as long as you are afraid to get sued, you'll comply.

    -dZ.