Comments on: Have Media Companies Destroyed Their Copyrights With The ‘Share’ Button?

By: Carl J. Skalak, Jr.

Carl J. Skalak, Jr. — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:40:45 +0000

“For all the gray areas around what’s legal and illegal when it comes to repurposing content in the digital era, there’s one basic copyright principle people agree on in nearly every situation—and you don’t need to be a lawyer to figure out: You can’t make a whole, perfect, 100% copy without permission. ”

See Gary L. Taylor, United States District Judge finding in Kelly v. Arriba Soft where the search engine used a …”a whole, perfect, 100% copy without permission”

By: Tatiana Covington

Tatiana Covington — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 01:37:22 +0000

Who cares, anyway? 99.9% of that stuff is crap anyway. 1000 years from now, it’ll be totally forgotten.

By: @JoeWatchesTV

@JoeWatchesTV — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 20:47:15 +0000

Just like the AP a couple years back complaining about people embedding their youtube clips when they PROVIDED THE EMBED CODE in the first place.

WTF, do these companies don’t understand how the web works?

Apparently they don’t.

By: Ken Bingham

Ken Bingham — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 19:17:53 +0000

This is a conflict of interest because these newspapers have written policies as to what is acceptable use of their copyrighted works and theoretically if you follow them then the papers will not sue you but then they turn around and sell the copyright to Righthaven which can sue you regardless of the newspapers written policies since the newspapers are not a party to the lawsuit and no longer hold the copyright. Newspapers and Righthaven are engaging in an elaborate scheme to entrap victims for profit.

By: Andrew Elston

Andrew Elston — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:57:42 +0000

Excellent analysis, Joe.

The real concern is not the “share” buttons, which usually provide a convenient link back to the original article on the copyright owner’s site, but the “Print” and “Email” buttons that facilitate rampant redistribution, depriving the copyright owner of eyeballs and ad impressions. Often, these buttons present the original content in a format that is very appealing and that present no copyright notices or reminders of fair use—thus suggesting an implied license. Paid Content itself is an example of this.

All publishers should be very concerned about preserving their rights while allowing readers to reuse content in ways that are useful to them and comfortable for the publisher. iCopyright offers a very simple and elegant solution. Our article tools give readers a quick way to obtain limited rights to reuse and re-post content in a way that respects copyright and preserves the publisher’s IP. And when a reader has circumvented the publisher’s article tools, our Discovery service can track down infringements and automatically redress them according to the copyright owner’s terms.

Check it out at http://info.icopyright.com/

By: Billy

Billy — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 08:33:20 +0000

Your last 2 paragraphs are more than 125 words. Seems to show that it’s a stupid assumption. A work of 125 words would be pretty light on creative expression, and I can see plenty of reason to quote it in full to criticize it or otherwise bring attention to it.

By: Shay Rapaport

Shay Rapaport — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 07:35:38 +0000

The situation is even worse with content aggregation: Some sites copy other sites’ entire content to re-publish it and earn the traffic. This practice is very common on job boards, online classifieds, phone directories and other web indexes. In Austrlia, just recently, the local YellowPages, Sensis, lost an apeal to federal court over a copyright case against such aggregators.
The question is if we’re not looking at a universal phenomenon, namely the decline of content copyrights. Even if some courts would enforce copyrights over some kinds of content, they cannot effectively enforce the law globally. Think about what happened to the music industry when sharing became available. With written content, we see thew same now on the enterprise level.

SiteBlackBox promotes an entirely new approach: taking proactive technological measures and prevent the damage, rathen than litigating when the damage is done.