thearmedcitizen.com under attack ... please help

[esquare]

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

Please read the article below, and then call the Review Journal to let them know you are boycotting their business. Please also visit their site and call their advertisers to let them know you are boycotting them and why.

It's ridiculous to use copyright infringement against an academic/research site that properly cites its sources - especially publicly released news material.

BTW, if anyone isn't aware of what this site is, it's probably the best collection of actual articles showing proper use of firearms in justifiable self defense. Anyone that I've pointed to this site has had their eyes opened!

On July 21st, The Armed Citizen received an indirect and informal notice of a lawsuit against this website and its owners, David Burnett and Clayton Cramer.

The suit, reportedly filed in US District Court on July 20th, alleges that The Armed Citizen and its owners “willfully copied” and infringed on original source content from the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

According to news reports, Righthaven LLC has filed lawsuits against no less than 80 other political websites and individual blogs for “infringement.”

Righthaven has offered no prior contact, cease-and-desist warnings or any attempt at good-faith resolution whatsoever.

Other defendants include FreeRepublic.com, the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and the Democrat National Committee of Nevada.

The “offending” entries reprinted on The Armed Citizen consist of six stories originating from the Las Vegas Review-Journal. There are several mitigating factors to consider:

* The Armed Citizen has posted nearly 4,700 such stories from a plethora of sources.

* Some of the stories were short enough to qualify under the Fair Use Rule, even disregarding that the goal of this website is academic, informational and in the public interest, not commercial.

* The stories – which were also properly cited and attributed – are still publicly available on the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s website.

* Some of these stories were posted on the website as far back as six years ago.

To the best of our knowledge, statutory damages can only be awarded if the plaintiff owns copyright on the articles in question. Righthaven sought and received a copyright on at least one of the articles in question on July 6…several months after the alleged offense. Clearly, this group is interested in money, not resolution.

The Armed Citizen has been excerpting articles from newspaper, TV station, and radio station websites for a number of years without a single complaint or infringement notice. If any copyright holders decided that The Armed Citizen had exceeded fair use, they only needed to send us an email. (Indeed, on the YouTube channel for The Armed Citizen, multiple news outlets have acknowledged copyright, yet chosen to let the content stay active for mutual benefit.)

Instead, in an apparent eagerness to intimidate small websites, Righthaven has chosen to pursue legal action.

Until this matter can be resolved, and a thorough review of Armed Citizen content can be made, all updates and archives at The Armed Citizen are hereby suspended.

At this time, the future of The Armed Citizen is uncertain, and possibly in jeopardy, thanks to Righthaven LLC and the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

We recognize that our readers will be shocked and disappointed. If you wish to help, please contact the Review-Journal and their advertisers to express your dismay at this unprecedented harshness. Your voice may be the only thing left that can save this website. (The Armed Citizen encourages such contact only on the condition that you say nothing that would reflect poorly on the website or its readership.)

Las Vegas Review-Journal
1111 W. Bonanza Road
P.O. Box 70
Las Vegas, NV 89125

Las Vegas Review-Journal main phone number:
702-383-0211
Newspaper office number:
702-383-0264

Click here to read a copy of the lawsuit (as forwarded by a reporter…The Armed Citizen has received no official notice of pending litigation.)

Please consider donating using the link on your right to help offset the legal costs of this lawsuit.

To e-mail David and Clayton, write to [email protected]

Further information:

Las Vegas newspaper sues websites over use of content
Conservative website among 3 sued over R-J copyrights
LV Review-Journal may be violating law with selective copyright suits
REVIEW-JOURNAL SUES ITS OWN SOURCE
Newspaper Chain’s New Business Plan: Copyright Suits

 

[Oyeboten]

How horrible...


The RJ went through some changes a while ago...hired a $300.000.00-a-year part time 'consultant' who they intend to be the 2014 governor...fired most of their reporters and other staff...ugly brazen graft and greed and politics and paper-games.


I stopped reading the newspapers fifteen years ago anyway.


I guess these sorts of lawsuits are another example of casting a wide net, and seeing if they can get lucky on a few who did not know how to defend themselves.


I hope the Judge throws it out of Court as the baseless gambit it is.



Sorry times we live in...

 

[Sniper X]

Since all news papers are liberally biased anyway I never even read them anymore. I hope they go out of business like the rest and stay that way....forever. Maybe someday a paper will learn how to not loose their readers.

 

[bigalexe]

This is not a firearms specific issue, it is a larger issue having to do with newspaper revenues falling. The new trend seems to be the newspaper holders are attempting to sue for infringement against re-use of any of their material.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/07...m_campaign=Feed:+Slashdot/slashdot+(Slashdot)

This is the same tactic the recording and movie industry has turned to (RIAA/MPAA): When sales fall go after the little guy with lawyers and steal money via the court system.

This is not meant to de-legitimize the thread but to spread awareness of the greater issue at hand.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Selective Enforcement

They are picking and choosing their targets.

Any organization supporting the Second Amendment is a valid target for this new policy of theirs.

They are not attacking "friendlies," just the eeeevil folks.

No, it's not "specifically gun related" but it is an attack on supporters of the 2A.

I agree that acting in assistance of thearmedcitizen.com is worthwhile.

For anyone wondering what's behind this, here's an article that explains it:
Newspaper Chain’s New Business Plan: Copyright Suits

Also, in keeping with the implications of this new attack posture, please do not post the full text of Las Vegas Review Journal articles.

 

[Oyeboten]

Just looking at the picture of the lawyer 'gibson' I feel the same instinctive urge a Mongoose has when looking down on a Cobra.

I wish our Society had a lot more Mongooses...


I think this is why I noticed endless little Movie Clips on 'Google Video' and 'You Tube' having disappeared, or, a 'dead' screen frame with the text "Video removed for violation" or whatever it is.


This is a weapon now of pretext for going after all sorts of private use and private sharing on the Web, and thus, a serious damage to what had been a harmless and free medium in these regards.


I thought Copyrite Laws allowed people to share excerpts or to reproduce articles when no selling or profit or recompense was involved? so long as the article carried no proviso of saying one was forbidden to reproduce it for any reason?



What a mess...


They are just driving 'wedges' into everything for greed and control and invasive dominance by petty pretext.

 

[Old Shooter]

Only in America.

Seems like whenever we get a good thing going, somebody has to come along and step on it.

 

[shockwave]

This is a weapon now of pretext for going after all sorts of private use and private sharing on the Web, and thus, a serious damage to what had been a harmless and free medium in these regards.

The producers of creative content expect to be paid for their work. Digital information, as we all know, is nothing but a [CTR+C] [CTR+V] away from spreading all over the Internet for free. The people who hold copyright have every reason to protest illegal redistribution of their property.

I like Armed Citizen and I think there is a serious lack of media outlets for stories showing how firearms are used to thwart criminals. I support each and every journalist who wants to get that information out there.

However, I also expect such persons to obtain permission to use any material they reprint from other sources. Doesn't matter one little whit if this is "selective enforcement" or not - if Armed Citizen went beyond Fair Use guidelines, they are culpable for the fault.

 

[bigalexe]

However, I also expect such persons to obtain permission to use any material they reprint from other sources.

The story I linked regards a suit by the same company against a reprint which used proper citation.

IANAL but I believe that if you properly cite references and give credit where credit is due then that is fair use. This is why we have an entire course at the college I attend on writing research papers!

So considering that they are suing even against those giving credit to the source I don't think the suing party or the lawyer give a crap about Fair Usage even though it is law.

 

[cerberus65]

The way out for the Armed Citizen is mostly likely to only put excerpts of the articles on their site and then link to the full articles on the newspaper sites they came from. It will be less convenient that way but also less likely to get them sued.

 

[benEzra]

IANAL but I believe that if you properly cite references and give credit where credit is due then that is fair use. This is why we have an entire course at the college I attend on writing research papers!

So considering that they are suing even against those giving credit to the source I don't think the suing party or the lawyer give a crap about Fair Usage even though it is law.

There is a very concerted effort by the larger media conglomerates to do away with as much of Fair Use doctrine as possible, so they can charge as many people as possible as much as possible, even if you end up paying multiple times for the same content. There is a fair bit of that in the DMCA, but Big Media wants much, much more.

Even under the DMCA, it is legal Fair use for you to make a backup copy of a DVD you legally purchased, or rip your purchased DVD to your iPhone, but I believe it is a Federal felony to bypass the DVD's copy protection in order to do so (which is necessary to actually archive it). So it's both legal and illegal, as I understand it, due to conflicting statutes.

 

[Gottahaveone]

Straight from the horses...er....mouth
I think it has far more to do with making a buck than with a political agenda against the 2nd.
http://www.lvrj.com/blogs/sherm/Copyright_theft_Were_not_taking_it_anymore.html?ref=164

Copyright theft: We're not taking it anymore
Posted by Sherman Frederick
Friday, May. 28, 2010 at 02:40 PM
{snipped, as it's available on the link the poster left. Why antagonize?}

 

[nalioth]

Yet, when it comes to copyrighted material -- news that my company spends money to gather and constitutes the essence of what we are as a business -- some people think they can not only look at it, but also steal it. And they do. They essentially step into the front yard and drive that content away.

Nice analogy, BUT

If we want to be more accurate, Joe Stargate pops in and points his clonerizer at the Corvette, producing an identical copy, which he then jumps in and drives away.

Now who's missing their 'vette?



Theft is when you deprive someone of their goods (but it makes a good buzzword, doesn't it?).

 

[bensdad]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gottahaveone
Quote:
Yet, when it comes to copyrighted material -- news that my company spends money to gather and constitutes the essence of what we are as a business -- some people think they can not only look at it, but also steal it. And they do. They essentially step into the front yard and drive that content away.

Nice analogy, BUT

If we want to be more accurate, Joe Stargate pops in and points his clonerizer at the Corvette, producing an identical copy, which he then jumps in and drives away.

Now who's missing their 'vette?



Theft is when you deprive someone of their goods (but it makes a good buzzword, doesn't it?).

Nice analogy, BUT, still not right.
Let's say the guy with the original Corvette was in the business of restoring and SELLING old vettes. Now, your clonerizer just deprived him of his livelihood. That's not cool. Nor is it legal.

 

[nalioth]

Nice analogy, BUT, still not right.
Let's say the guy with the original Corvette was in the business of restoring and SELLING old vettes. Now, your clonerizer just deprived him of his livelihood. That's not cool. Nor is it legal.

No, I am right.

The owner hasn't been deprived of his 'vette. Ergo, no theft has occurred.

His ability to "restore and sell" hasn't been impaired (he still has his original 'vette).

So "theft" isn't the proper word.



To put this in the "ridiculous" category in which it belongs:

The actions taking place by these lawyers could also be aimed at every barber or beauty shop or doctor's office in America. After all, Barber Billy pays 50 cents for a license to read the newspaper. He is violating the law by providing it to his customers. Same thing with the magazines in the beauty shops and doctor's offices.

 

[shockwave]

I believe that if you properly cite references and give credit where credit is due then that is fair use.

What you believe is not correct. You cannot abridge copyright by making up your own rules and deciding that you like them and that you personally approve of them and therefore they are sound practice. It doesn't work that way.

Fair Use doctrine allows for brief excerpting. Academic style for citations is similar. That's totally allowed and legal and the guidelines are clear enough to be followed safely.

Here - I do this sort of thing professionally because of my occupation, so here's an example from real life: I read an editorial in a scientific journal that I wanted to reprint for the readers of a different association, as the material was pertinent and would be of interest. I wanted to reprint the editorial in full.

So I contacted the editor who wrote the piece and explained my interest and asked if I could re-run the piece, with attribution. He sent me written permission and then I was golden.

But no, I could not run that piece without permission, thinking that by giving attribution I'd be OK. You give attribution on top of the permission. Usually, the owner of the material will provide you with the attribution line that they prefer, or vet your copy and approve it as part of the permissions process.

In other cases, you have to pay a fee for the right to reprint. The comment by cerberus above is a good one: Armed Citizen could post small snippets and link back to the original sources. That's honest and fair. I understand that some of these conventions don't always seem to make sense, but if you are a professional writer, the general protections in force are greatly appreciated.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Funny how some gun folks are so willing to say that theft is okay and a good thing when it pertains to their special interest of 2nd amendment rights, but often own guns for protection against theft of their belongings.

If the suit is successful, it will be a shame, a shame that The Armed Citizen didn't bother to secure proper permission before reposting in total articles that were not original to The Armed Citizen.

Nice analogy, BUT

If we want to be more accurate, Joe Stargate pops in and points his clonerizer at the Corvette, producing an identical copy, which he then jumps in and drives away.

Now who's missing their 'vette?

Okay, I make and sell Corvettes. Joe Stargate pops in and points his clonerizer at one of my models and produces identical copies that he now sells has his own property. He has stolen my intellectual property and is depriving me of sales.

There is a very good reason for copyright, trademark, and patent laws.

 

[Mike J]

What this is all about is revenue. If you cut & paste a news article to a forum the news source does not receive any revenue from the people reading the article on that forum. If you briefly excerpt the article & link back to the source when the people who want to read that article go to the link to read it that generates advertising dollars for the source.
A local forum I participate in here that is owned by a lawyer has had the policy of not allowing entire articles to be cut & pasted in for a while because of the legal issues.

 

[Flynt]

ArfinGreebly,

I'm not qualified to debate merits of the case, but I do wonder what you mean when you say that the newspaper is picking and choosing its targets and only going after supporters of the Second Amendment. Do the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and the Democrat National Committee of Nevada have records of supporting the 2nd?

 

[stiletto raggio]

For all of those "information wants to be free" people, maybe you should try making a living as the producer or distributor of professional intellectual property. Taking an article in its entirety and reposting it on your blog is intellectual property theft. It is blatant when it is done for profit (because you profit from web traffic to your site, which advertisers pay for) but even if it is not done for profit, it is still well outside the bounds fo fair use.

Some people rely on their writing as a source of income. The fact that you would want to repost what they wrote is testament enough that you put value on it. Why would you want to steal from and ultimately hurt the people who are producing intellectual works of value?

That which is free is not valued. I, for one, do not want the only sources of news to be semi-pro bloggers. I want well-researched, well-written and thought-provoking journalism to be around for my children. You don't get there by ripping off the people who write it, fund the research and travel necessary to write the good stuff, and dedicate their lives to producing good articles.

 

[308win]

Internet version of ambulance chasers

 

[nalioth]

I, for one, do not want the only sources of news to be semi-pro bloggers. I want well-researched, well-written and thought-provoking journalism to be around for my children.

Not sure where you've been, but the "semi-pro bloggers" are doing a better job these days than some "professional journalists".

Sad but true.

 

[50caliber123]

Doesn't this action by this newspaper mean that several people who frequent any of the 22 different sites are ticked to say the least at these lawsuits? Way to get customers?t don't see it. It seems like short-term gain, long-term loss. I concur, hope the newspapers all go out of buisness. Thats what happens when there is a disconnect between buisness and consumers. Whatcan the average person on this forum do to help thearmedcitizen.com?

 

[benEzra]

Looks like several bloggers are working on a blacklist checker to remove links and citations to those sources.

http://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/07/31/AutomatedBlacklistChecker.aspx

If those sites don't want to be cited and linked to, then they don't have to be; the newspaper staff can generate traffic to their site themselves and the blogosphere can just ignore them.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I would count credited re-posting of a news item to be free advertising for the newspaper. Maybe that's just me.

LVRJ published a news article on a website with cut'n'paste enabled. Then Righthaven sues if you exceed their unknown definition of fair use. Quite frankly other news outlets do not object if stuff is reprinted with credit to the orginal source. And that's news which, like history, is looked at different from creative fiction.

(I got a lackadaisic attitude to some of my creative fiction: in 1985 I wrote and the editor of Nexus published a short story with the common law copyright notice it could be reprinted as long as the author and source were cited. In 1992 The Cameleopard reprinted the story with credit (and that was in the day when you had to retype from hardcopy). To me it was no big deal as long as the author was credited.)

On the other hand, there is an author who has posted her early unpublished stories on her website, with a warning they are not to be copied and reposted without express permission. When she finds someone doing that, she sends a cease-and-just-stop-doing-that warning which is usually sufficient to protect her rights. She has not gone apestuff over quotes in review or commentary.

Without fair use of quotations, there would be fewer book reviews; without book reviews, there would be fewer book sales.

If one cannot comment or cite on Las Vegas Review Journal articles without running the risk of a lawsuit over how far they can quote from them under fair use, then fewer people should be commenting on or citing from LVRJ or other publications run by Stephens Media LLC with Righthaven LLC monitoring those who copy from their website.

Did those who implemented the RightHaven policy think through the logical implications? Righthaven is being operated as a profit center for Steven Media LLC, which sounds like strictly legalistic lawyers moving in to the news publishing business and taking a harder stance than other news publishers.

And other news outlets do NOT take the hardline stance of Stephens Media/Righthaven. Armed Citizen is facing lawsuit over one article out of 4700.