thearmedcitizen.com under attack ... please help

[MisterMike]

I'm going to disagree with some of the sentiments expressed here, with the caveat that I nonetheless consider the leaches behind this effort to be among the lowest life forms.

The law is pretty clear on the point behind these lawsuits--the wholesale copying and pasting of entire articles without the author's approval is not "fair use." It's an illegal infringement of the author's rights. I've seen what I would consider copyright violations on THR pretty frequently, something that kind of surprised me when I joined. I'm a moderator on another website, and we've endeavored to kick the butts of our members who do this sort of thing, since it's clearly illegal. Maybe the moderators delete the stuff that appears here as soon as they can, but it sure appears that a lot of members are intent on placing THR in peril.

The solution is easy, but it requires that those posting not be lazy: Excerpts that comprise a small part of an article can be quoted, with comment, but the wholesale cutting and pasting of a substantial part of an article without the author's express permission is verboten. For those who are interested in the continued viability of THR, or any discussion board you value, you'd be well-advised to follow the law and inform the moderators when you see a violation.

Truthfully, it makes for better discussion anyway. Any dolt can copy and paste an entire article. It requires a little bit of intellectual effort to pick out the important bits and comment on them intelligently.

 

[esquare]

The articles are copied and pasted onto forums to allow for archival of the original story so that when website links break, get modified, etc, the discussion in the archive is still relevant. Obviously, drive by posts aren't fun, but I do see value in archiving the whole story. Otherwise, the forum archives become sort of useless.

 

[MisterMike]

The articles are copied and pasted onto forums to allow for archival of the original story so that when website links break, get modified, etc, the discussion in the archive is still relevant. Obviously, drive by posts aren't fun, but I do see value in archiving the whole story. Otherwise, the forum archives become sort of useless.

I understand your point, but the only legal way to do what you suggest is to get the author's approval. If you fail to do so, then you and the proprietor of the board/website can be sued. It doesn't do a lot of good to have a complete archive if the website gets closed down due to the costs associated with defending a lawsuit and paying damages.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...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,"...

And they are free to do so.

...I do see value in archiving the whole story. Otherwise, the forum archives become sort of useless.

But nonetheless, it is the case that:

[1] the law of copyright is what it is; and

[2] if someone infringes your copyright, you're entitled to sue him; and

[3] lawyers work for their clients, are obliged to zealously advocate their clients' interests, that is how they make their livings, it's hard work and we like to get well paid for doing it; and

[4] if you don't want to get sued for infringing someone's copyright, don't; and

[5] if you think things ought to be different, write Congress.

 

[nalioth]

[3] lawyers work for their clients, are obliged to zealously advocate their clients' interests, that is how they make their livings, it's hard work and we like to get well paid for doing it; and

IN this case, it's lawyers working for themselves.

All in pursuit of Mammon, due to the twisted state of our copyright laws.

Nobody is being sued. They are being "legally extorted" as in "Pay us a settlement and we'll consider not suing you." (because part of paying the settlement is signing a letter admitting wrongdoing).

As has been put out here before, it's bullying, and I doubt they want ANY of these cases to actually go to court, as too many losses for them there would upset their "legal extortion" racket.

 

[stiletto raggio]

I know what you are saying about the high quality of some of the bloggers (mostly due to expert, rather than passing, knowledge in a given area) but semi-pro bloggers don't have the funds to send correspondants overseas, research a story for months at a time or arrange to interview major players in business, government and society at large. The benefit of a competitive but profitable professional media is far more important than the ability to lazily pirate the work of others. When real reporting fails to be profitable, people will stop doing it.

 

[stchman]

Sounds like the Righthaven outfit is trying to make some money. As others have said this is not a 2A issue. They probably would have sued the Armed Citizen even if they were talking about baking cookies.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Different news organizations have different stances on this.

Some only object to Uncredited copying (leaving out author byline, original title, publisher) otherwise known as blatant plagiarism, or object to a rival news org copying the story without permission or payment.

Problem becomes that "fair use" is often in the eyes of the copyright holder and the nature of the material. What one copyright holder might regard as "fair use" another might send a warning, but Righthaven sends a "pay or meet us in court" notice.

Since the rules have apparently been changed by one new group, Stevens Media LLC, and their enforcement arm, Righthaven, it might have a chilling effect on free speech as bloggers and others annoy other publishers (some of whom could care less as long as they are credited) with thousands queries about how much constitutes fair use of their material and can we have permission.

Dead links (404s) annoy the heck out of me when I try to follow a discussion.

One thing I would recommend is to always include a link to the source, and no matter how much or how little is copied, recommend that readers hit the link (because a lot of on-line publishers depend on hit counts to measure success) even if the publisher allows total copy.

Another thing is to avoid quoting from or linking to any Stevens Media LLC material at all, to avoid getting hammered by Righthaven like that little two person cat blog got nuked.

 

[Frank Ettin]

IN this case, it's lawyers working for themselves....

Anyone who owns and runs his own business, including doctors and lawyers, works for himself. That's how he pays the bills and supports his family. And he earns the compensation his clients pay him by delivering the services (or goods) his clients want.

...due to the twisted state of our copyright laws....

The copyright laws have been this way for quite a while. If you don't like them, write Congress. In the meantime, owners of copyrights are entitled to the protections afforded by the laws as they are.

...Nobody is being sued. They are being "legally extorted" as in "Pay us a settlement and we'll consider not suing you."...

It's not extortion if one has a valid claim. If one has a valid claim, and a right to sue, it's not extortion to offer to settle.

...because part of paying the settlement is signing a letter admitting wrongdoing...

I don't know where you get this notion. It's certainly not normally the case. I've written a great many settlement agreements, and reviewed and negotiated a great many more, and they have always included language to the affect that the party paying the settlement, "...expressly disclaims any and all liability and denies any wrongful conduct whatsoever...."

...As has been put out here before, it's bullying, and I doubt they want ANY of these cases to actually go to court, as too many losses for them there would upset their "legal extortion" racket.

And what evidence do you have to support this contention? If one owns a good claim to a copyright, and someone infringes on that copyright, the owner has a good claim, every right to sue, and a likelihood of success in court.

...Problem becomes that "fair use" is often in the eyes of the copyright holder and the nature of the material. What one copyright holder might regard as "fair use" another might send a warning, but Righthaven sends a "pay or meet us in court" notice....

[1] Yes, fair use is a somewhat nebulous concept. But it never includes reproduction of the entirety of the copyrighted material, even with attribution.

[2] Fair use is always limited to the quotation of a short excerpt, with attribution. There may be some disagreement about how short is short enough, and that may finally be a question for a judge or jury. But once you have reproduced the whole thing, you've left fair use behind.

[3] And if you own a copyright and someone infringes it, you as the owner of the copyright have discretion as to how aggressively you pursue the vindication of your legal rights.

 

[Oyeboten]

So, when we post a Thread here on THR, in which a Newspaper Article is referenced, and, we paste some of the Article, or, all of the Article when short...


Would that be a violation then of the Copyright, and, no longer be under the 'Fair Use' provision?


If I were a Newspaper, and, others were reproducing articles with attribution, I would be totally fine with it...God Bless 'em...that means my Paper is getting a far wider Readership than it would have.


I am not understanding the objection I guess.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

There are two sides to this argument, as I see it:

1) If you link an article and it becomes important years later, the original may no longer be there. Therefore, it's helpful to quote it.

2) If they write it, they own it. If we direct 1,000 viewers to the original site to read the article, they get to collect some advertising revenue, and there's a chance a viewer or two will decide to subscribe.

In the end the law may be the driver here. Sounds like a staff discussion brewing.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Would that be a violation then of the Copyright, and, no longer be under the 'Fair Use' provision?...

A short quote, with attribution and with or without a link, could be "fair use." The problem is that there can be disagreement about how short is short enough, so the question could wind up being one for a judge or jury.

The factors to be considered in deciding whether too much has been quoted to be afforded protection of the fair use doctrine are:

"1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

2. The nature of the copyrighted work

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work." (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html)

I realize this doesn't really clarify anything. So the best course would be to quote as little as possible -- just enough to identify a core issue or to "whet" one's appetite.

At any rate, quoting the whole thing, even with attribution, takes you out of the protection of the fair use doctrine.

...If I were a Newspaper, and, others were reproducing articles with attribution, I would be totally fine with it...

That's fine for you, but the copyright laws give the copyright owner far deeper and broader protection. So if that's not fine with some other copyright owner, he's free to sue and will probably win.

 

[nalioth]

Back when folks got a good education, an article's first paragraph was a synopsis of the whole.

I was taught this was fine to quote, with attribution.

O'course, nowadays, you can't count on the first paragraph being comprehensible sometimes.


. . Again, this isn't about copyright per se, but "legal extortion" enabled by our rat's nest of laws.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Again, this isn't about copyright per se, but "legal extortion" enabled by our rat's nest of laws.

And how do you figure that? A copyright holder's copyright is infringed, and he pursues his available legal remedies in a lawful fashion. How is that "legal extortion"? What is this "rat's nest of laws"? Exactly why is it a "rat's nest"?

 

[nalioth]

These corporations are not suing anyone.

They are threatening to sue, unless the target pays a "settlement", which includes a sworn statement of their wrongdoing (whether they actually did anything criminal or not). This lawyer group does not promise to "never sue" upon settlement (hence the sworn statement).

You can bet your bananas that some of the folks approached by this are not violating any laws.

I call that "extortion".

 

[Frank Ettin]

These corporations are not suing anyone.

They are threatening to sue, unless the target pays a "settlement"...

What evidence do you have? In any case, it doesn't matter.

There are several ways civil claims are customarily pursued:

[1] The lawyer for the aggrieved party (plaintiff) sends a letter to the other party (defendant) stating his claim for damages and offering to negotiate a settlement prior to filing the lawsuit. Sometime, but not always, a copy of the planned lawsuit will be included with this letter. The letter will usually recommend that the defendant engage legal counsel and have legal counsel contact the plaintiff's counsel within X days. In the law business this letter is called a "demand letter."

[2] In some cases, when the demand letter is sent the complaint in the suit will already have been filed with the court but not formally served.

[3] The lawyer for the aggrieved party files the complaint and has it properly served on the defendant, thus beginning formal litigation. The defendant has a certain amount of time to file in court an answer (or other responsive pleading, such as a motion to dismiss) to the lawsuit. The plaintiff may sometime, but not always, give the defendant an extension of time in which to formally answer (or sometimes "answer or otherwise respond") as long as good faith settlement discussions are ongoing. Once the complaint is answered by the defendant, various pretrial activities (discovery, motions seeking ruling from the court on matters of law. etc.) will begin. But during such activities, settlement negotiations will usually be taking place as well.

All of those approaches are common and acceptable modes of conduct in the world of civil litigation. Which one a particular plaintiff chooses will be up to him and his lawyer.

...a "settlement", which includes a sworn statement of their wrongdoing (whether they actually did anything criminal or not). This lawyer group does not promise to "never sue" upon settlement...

And exactly what evidence do you have to support that contention? Such a settlement agreement would be very uncommon, so if you claim this is so, it's your burden to prove it.

...You can bet your bananas that some of the folks approached by this are not violating any laws....

I guess that's what any litigation will be about. If a defendant prevails and can later demonstrate that the plaintiff's suit had no basis, the former defendant has a good claim for malicious prosecution. And since the newspaper folks have assets, that would be a good claim to pursue if the facts will support it.

But of course you state no good basis upon which to conclude that the targets here did not infringe these copyrights, so your belief is simply wishful thinking.

...I call that "extortion".

Yes you do call it extortion. That doesn't mean that it is. It only means that you're misusing the word.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

2) If they write it, they own it. If we direct 1,000 viewers to the original site to read the article, they get to collect some advertising revenue, and there's a chance a viewer or two will decide to subscribe.

You know, that is really the crux of the damage to the copyright holder. When TAC started reproducing articles in their totality away from the copyright holder's site, they took away those directed views. The copyright's site gets bypassed. So their advertising does not get seen, their site does not get seen, their "counter" does not advance (which they use for landing advertising), and they lose the possibility of getting new subscribers. The action of bypassing the copyright holder's site in this manner is damaging to the copyright holder and does result in lost revenue.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Again, there are thousands of news clippings on armed self defense on TAC without complaint from the originators except one, Las Vegas Review-Journal and Righthaven of the Stephens Media LLC.

The American Rifleman has published news article clippings sent in by readers in its monthly "the armed citizen" for decades; the latest one includes clippings from Chicago Tribune, Daily-News Miner Fairbanks AK, Associated Press, Chillicothe Gazette OH, St. Louis-Dispatch MO, Sun Herald Gulfport MS, The Anniston Star AL. Charles Fort basicaly rewrote news clippings of odd events into his Book of the Damned. Cited newspaper clippings have been re-used under laxer standards than creative writing for generations.

There is an author who has her early, unpublished stories on her website, with a warning not post them on your website without permission. When she has found the stories posted without permission, she sends a warning, a notice, that if they are not taken down the next contact will be her lawyer. (The usually excuse is the re-poster did not read the fine print.) The legal threat is not the first notice.

Now let's look at the fine print above a Las Vegas Review-Journal article.

SAVE THIS - EMAIL THIS - PRINT THIS - MOST POPULAR - RSS FEEDS - POST A COMMENT
Aug. 04, 2010
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Sheriff says department can't 'circle the wagons'

Shooting incidents require police to explain why action was taken, Gillespie says

http://www.lvrj.com/news/sheriff-says-department-can-t--circle-the-wagons--99923939.html

I won't quote beyond the title because I feel like the guy in the bank in ''Raising Arizona'':
Bank robber: "Everybody freeze. Everybody get down on the ground."
Old geezer: "Which is it young feller? Effen I freeze, I cant rightly get down, and iffen I get down, Ima gonna be in motion, you see."

SAVE THIS EMAIL THIS PRINT THIS
later we might sue your behinder off, but copy our copyrighted material anyway.

I am beginning to suspect Abbie Hoffman's 1971 book entitled "Steal This Book!" may have been a set-up.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Again, there are thousands of news clippings on armed self defense on TAC without complaint from the originators except one, Las Vegas Review-Journal and Righthaven of the Stevens Media LLC....

So what? The fact that others may not aggressively pursue their legal rights doesn't change the law. And the fact that someone else may have chosen one way to attempt to vindicate his legal rights doesn't mean the someone else might choose another way.

You may disapprove of the way the LVRJ and Righihaven are doing things, but how they conduct their lawful business is not your decision. They don't need your permission to pursue their legal rights in any lawful way they choose.

...The American Rifleman has published news article clippings sent in by readers in its monthly "the armed citizen" for decades;..

Nope, the NRA, in The American Rifleman (and other of its magazines) paraphrases the article and cites the source. It may or may not include a short quote or two from the article, but it never reproduces the entire article.

...Charles Fort basicaly rewrote news clippings of odd events into his...

Rewriting or paraphrasing is not the same thing as duplicating.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Postings on how Righthaven operates have been questioned.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/copyright-trolling-for-dollars/ Newspaper Chain’s New Business Plan: Copyright Suits, by David Kravets, Wired magazine, July 22, 2010.

Basicly, Righthaven does not send a takedown notice. The equivalent of 'others may allow this, but we don't; please take down our material or we will sue'. No. It appears that they send an offer to settle out-of-court for an amount about what one would pay for an attorney retainer fee, with a threat to otherwise sue to the limit of the law.

The Righthaven business model has been compared to patent trolling described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll but it is somewhat different.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Postings on how Righthaven operates have been questioned....Basicly, Righthaven does not send a takedown notice. ... It appears that they send an offer to settle out-of-court for an amount about what one would pay for an attorney retainer fee, with a threat to otherwise sue to the limit of the law...

Again, you may disapprove, but what they are doing is still legal and doesn't change the law for anyone else. If their copyrights have been infringed, how they deal with the issue, as long as it's legal, is up to them and not you.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Basicly, Righthaven does not send a takedown notice. The equivalent of 'others may allow this, but we don't; please take down our material or we will sue'. No. It appears that they send an offer to settle out-of-court for an amount about what one would pay for an attorney retainer fee, with a threat to otherwise sue to the limit of the law.

Right. So they give an option of what is essentially paying damages or gambling in court. What's the problem?

Simply asking something be taken down is sort of like asking somebody to stop beating you. The beating may stop, but damage has occurred. TAC could have been asked to take down the articles, but that does not compensate the copyright holder for the losses already incurred, does it?

The Righthaven business model has been compared to patent trolling described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll but it is somewhat different.

Somewhat different? I would think so since patent trolls often operate with no intent of production. In the case of the news articles, production has been run. So these are very different, though both are correct in taking action to recover theft of intellectual property.

 

[nalioth]

And since the newspaper folks have assets,

You keep missing the point.

This isn't the newspapers doing this.

This is a group of lawyers doing it on their own, in sole pursuit of the almighty dollar.

TAC could have been asked to take down the articles, but that does not compensate the copyright holder for the losses already incurred, does it?

How many folks outside of Las Vegas have ever heard of the LVRJ before this foulness reared it's head? I'd think that LVRJ readers get their fix from the LVRJ.com, not "The Armed Citizen" or "Joe's Blog" or anywhere else.

Do you honestly think that Joe Citizen of Bangor, Maine (and theoretical member of "TheArmedCitizen.com) is gonna surf the LVRJ site for his news? Do you think that even if he visits the LVRJ he's gonna hire some plumbing company that works in LV and advertises on LVRJ to come to his house for service? Do you honestly think that non-NV-based readers of TheArmedCitizen would click on any ad at the LVRJ? How can you lose something that never happens?



This is slimy lawyers maintaining their reputation.

I'm done here.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I do not need lawyers' permission to disapprove of using a nuclear option when a polite warning or reminder would be sufficient for most people, and most lawyers included.

What Righthaven is doing is over-kill and it is building ill-will for its clients which could result in greater losses than the value of a backlist of stale news articles.

 

[MisterMike]

Righthaven may indeed be nothing more than a greedy lawyer's efforts to make money, but the legal concept behind the lawsuits is crystal clear . . . and it's nothing new. It's always been illegal to copy another person's published works in their entirety and re-publish them elsewhere without the author's permission. The only thing that's changed is that modern technology makes it a lot easier for someone to do it: click, copy, open a new thread, and paste . . . Voila! You've now broken the law, essentially "stealing" another's intellectual property.

The fact that it's easy, or that a lot of people do it, or that you can somehow rationalize it as beneficial to future readers has nothing to do with it. It's a violation of copyright law and you place this website in peril when you do it. To my way of thinking, that answers the question of whether or not you should do it. As fiddletown noted, the only answer, apart from the obvious notion of doing things legally, is to get the law changed (and that's not likely to happen).