Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Internet It's funny.  Laugh.

Judge Thinks Linking To Copyrighted Material Should Be Illegal 390

An article at TechCrunch discusses a blog post from Richard Posner, a US Court of Appeals judge, about the struggling newspaper industry. Posner explains why he thinks the newspapers will continue to struggle, and then comes to a rather unusual conclusion: "Expanding copyright law to bar online access to copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's consent, or to bar linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's consent, might be necessary to keep free riding on content financed by online newspapers from so impairing the incentive to create costly news-gathering operations that news services like Reuters and the Associated Press would become the only professional, nongovernmental sources of news and opinion."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Thinks Linking To Copyrighted Material Should Be Illegal

Comments Filter:
  • Thats unpossible (Score:3, Informative)

    by RichMan ( 8097 ) on Sunday June 28, 2009 @01:53PM (#28505419)

    - without destroying the net
    a) everything written essentially has creator copyright
    b) making a link to anything else would then be violation

    - internet assumption
    a) if it is on the net you can link to it
          this follows from the basic structure of the net as addressable content

    If someone does not want a link made they had better not put it on the internet. Putting it on the internet essentially means permission to link.

  • by that this is not und ( 1026860 ) on Sunday June 28, 2009 @02:03PM (#28505541)

    Being a prominent figure in a large institution impresses men.

    That gives him a leg up on the rest of us in lobbying his legislators to pass the laws that he 'thinks' are needed. Other than that, he's just like any other Joe Citizen as far as the legislative process is concerned.

    Judges have no role whatsoever in enacting laws.

  • by DeadDecoy ( 877617 ) on Sunday June 28, 2009 @02:28PM (#28505767)
    If no one clicks a link, does the site still get slashdotted?
  • Re:He's wrong (Score:3, Informative)

    by QuoteMstr ( 55051 ) <dan.colascione@gmail.com> on Sunday June 28, 2009 @02:33PM (#28505813)

    They are careful to make sure that whatever they report is factually accurate, yes. The techniques of modern propaganda are far more sophisticated than telling provably false lies. The biggest problem with the mainstream news is that they selectively omit information that doesn't suit a rather statist agenda.

    It's important to remember that news sources don't consciously censor information. The establishment (I much prefer that word to "statist", because I'm a statist) bias in reporting is a structural issue. It's not a conspiracy or propaganda in the traditional meaning of these words.

    Noam Chomsky examined these structural issues in his Propaganda Model [wikipedia.org] of news reporting.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday June 28, 2009 @03:18PM (#28506191)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by eugene2k ( 1213062 ) on Sunday June 28, 2009 @03:20PM (#28506205) Homepage
    Slashdotters really should go and read the original. What the judge recommends doing is to allow news papers to survive is to bar websites from reposting the full news story (paraphrased or not) found in the newspapers. So slashdot is safe, since it only provides a summary of the news story, and so is the internet, since only linking to news articles found in newspapers is discussed.
  • by Zygfryd ( 856098 ) on Sunday June 28, 2009 @03:24PM (#28506235)

    If they keep this shit up the USA is gonna be left all alone as some "insanity island" while everyone else gets with the program and moves to the 21st century.

    Except, you know, the same (or similar) corporate forces behind the intellectual property push in the US are hard at work in the EU and in international organizations such as WIPO and WTO.
    ACTA is being worked on by the US, EU, Japan, Australia, NZ, Korea, Mexico, Canada and Germany, among others.

  • Re:Posner (Score:3, Informative)

    by sjames ( 1099 ) on Sunday June 28, 2009 @04:53PM (#28506875) Homepage Journal

    Making it illegal to redistribute copyrighted content as in making verbatim copies of a text might make sense...

    That's already illegal. It has been for a very long time.

  • by icebraining ( 1313345 ) on Sunday June 28, 2009 @04:59PM (#28506921) Homepage

    We already have that! The Google News bot will only link to the news page if it isn't in the robots.txt file. The problem is that Newspapers don't want Google news to link to specific pages, but the want the "normal" Google to link to their main page, and Google said they can't have both.

  • by davester666 ( 731373 ) on Sunday June 28, 2009 @05:08PM (#28506993) Journal

    "Except you forget that this sort of asshattery (love that word) will not persist due to the internet friendly US Supreme Court.

    Linking is not a copyright violation because it does not contain any part the content. A brief summary is specifically allowed by US Copyright law."

    That's just it. The guy wrote that the law SHOULD be changed to explicitly deny this usage, without the copyright holders permission.

  • by TheoMurpse ( 729043 ) on Sunday June 28, 2009 @06:16PM (#28507489) Homepage

    Just to point out for those who don't know, Judge Posner [wikipedia.org] is probably the single most influential living jurist not on the Supreme Court (and will likely end up being more influential long-term than many on the Supreme Court; certainly more influential than Clarence Thomas). He teaches at one of the top six law schools in the country (Chicago), serves in one of the most important circuits in the country (Seventh, which includes Chicago--other important circuits are DC, 2d, and 9th), and is so ridiculously prolific. He's a pioneer of the currently en vogue jurisprudential theory of law and economics [wikipedia.org]. He frequently feeds clerks from his chambers to the Supreme Court as well

    My point is that this man has tremendous influence in the US. He's not an intellectual lightweight. Unfortunately, I can't read what he wrote since the blog entry seems to be down now.

And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones

Working...