Las Vegas Review Journal suing people who post articles online

They're trying to send a message - if you allow posters to copy-and-paste our work, it's going to be much, much more trouble to you than it's worth. Whatever money they collect might not even cover their costs. I'm sure they're happier with whatever they get, but - again - I'd imagine the message is more important.

The only surprise IMO is that some media company hasn't done it sooner.

 

So help me to understand. Use the start of this thread as an example. The work is copied and pasted. But there is a link to the original story. Is that OK or not?

 

Stephen's Media says it's not OK, that anything that copies every word of a story is a copyright violation.

I'd say it's just bad manners - you should just post a link.

 

Hmmm. Well, not the way I always understood it. If you give credit, post a link, I don't see what the problem is. Learn something new every day.

 

What has Stephens done to prevent this? They could disable the text from being copied (there are workarounds for that, but most people don't know how to do it) you know.

Now are they in good faith protecting their media or are they just out to grab a quick buck?

 

If you've already posted the entire article, what's the point of posting a link? There's no real reason for anyone to follow the link if they've read the whole article, right?

I don't think copyright law places any burden on a rights-holder to take steps to protect their work. It's possible to encrypt DVDs for instance, but if you're selling pirated DVDs, it's still a copyright violation, even if the author did not encrypt the original DVDs you copied from.

 

Sometimes I like to click on the link and see more. Like the reader comments or other information that sheds light on a particular article. Sometimes I don't. What I don't like is always having to click a link just to peruse an article I may or may not want to read in its entirety.

 

Well, Stephens Media would argue that when you paste the entire article, you've essentially stolen the content that people come to their site for. And the law is probably more on their side than yours.

If, for instance, you were to copy an entire copy of Moneyball and put it on the site, I'm sure you'd agree that would be copyright infringement, right? In this case, you're pasting an entire article - the whole work - and in doing so depriving the author and rights-holder the readership they want.

 

First of all, I have never copied-and-pasted an article.

I agree that you, Stephen's Media, the attorneys for their side and the law all agree that it is copyright infringement. If credit is given and a link is given, I do not agree with that being copyright infringement. It doesn't mean I will do it. I just disagree with it. I also disagree with the law that says gays can't marry. Thank goodness I can't get sued over disagreeing with a law.

 

lol, just to be clear, I certainly wasn't accusing you of anything, just writing casually.

 

And for the record, I posted a segment, not the entire article.

 

I know. I still don't see what the big deal is. If the article is there, a new reader is being exposed to the work of a Stephens Media journalist, whether I click on the link or not. Everyone one is happy. No one is short-changed or cheated. The work is reaching a larger audience than normal. Sounds like a win-win to me.