Las Vegas Review Journal suing people who post articles online

We don't get paid for people being exposed to our work. We get paid when they are exposed to our advertisers.

 

That's it, right there.

Imagine making the same argument after photocopying Stephen King's newest novel and giving your friends as many copies as they wanted. Would King get more exposure? Sure, but what he and his publisher want is more people paying for his books.

 

I hear the points you both are making. However, if there is just a link, I am most likely not going to click it. If there is a portion of a story, there is a good chance that my interest will be piqued enough to click the link. And when that happens, there is (gasp!) a new reader exposed to your advertisers. One that would have never been exposed otherwise. I fail to see how that is a bad thing for the paper.

 

The exact same argument could be used to defend copying books or DVDs - i.e. you're perhaps cultivating a consumer who would buy your product in the future - but has been rejected by courts pretty much universally.

 

No, I don't believe that it's the same argument. Copying a book or DVD and giving it away makes perfect sense to me as an example of copyright infringement. This, to me, does not.

It's kind of like a review of a book or movie. Enough information must be given (clips of the movie) in order for a person to either want to or not want to go purchase the item. A simple link is not going to make a person want to click it. Posting part of the article gives the reader the opportunity to decide if they want to click it. If they don't want to, nothing has been stolen. If they do, you have more exposure for your advertisers than you did before.

 

Posting PART of the article is fine.

Posting the entire article is what we've been discussing.

If you just post three graphs and a link, that's fine.

 

OK then, back to the original question I posed to you. The post that started this thread as an example. It was mentioned that it is only part of an article. But you mentioned that it would be considered a violation. I'm confused.

 

Ah, when you said you were using the post at the start of the thread as an example, I thought you meant the situation that Stephens was suing over.

Just to be clear: Stephens is suing in instances where the entire article is copied. Always the entire article. That's what we're talking about.

 

And I was always in my mind thinking of the post that started the thread. I never could get my head around why it was such a bad thing. 8)

 

If you post one or two grafs and then the link, most Internet types think it'll fall under fair use.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

I'm shocked there's even a problem with what Stephens is doing. We should zealously protect our copyrights.

 

It's a joke run by a scumbag lawyer. He doesn't have the balls to sue the content aggregators or Google. He's interested only in going after mom-and-pop web operations because he's nothing but a schoolyard bully.

 

Why would anyone care about a Stephens Media journalist? Do you really think people will go out and find all the content that journalist has to offer just from post on a message board? I know Jeff Jarvis and those who think like him are all about links and curation, but that doesn't pay the bills. You either charge subscriptions or wrap your content in advertising. Maybe a virtual tip jar can work, but I wouldn't count on it.