Las Vegas Review Journal suing people who post articles online

Um, I only mentioned Stephens Media because they are the company that started the topic of the thread. Had nothing to do with me liking a particular company's journalist.

 

Why would anyone care about what some journalist at any paper does, unless it's a few dozen big names at most?

 

Geez, Stitch. Did you read the entire thread and the exchange that went back and forth? What you're asking has nothing to do with the conversation that appeared above.

 

You don't think it's a big deal because you don't work in the industry. Who cares if you have a larger audience if by doing so, you make less money. I'm wondering if you think it's a problem that newspaper websites give away their content for the most part.

Now posting snippets isn't bad, but Stephens Media isn't going after those people.

 

Um, Stitch, we cleared that part up a long time ago. I never asked for journalists to give their work away for free. Interpret the conversation anyway you'd like. But you are not taking into account everything that was said yesterday.

 

From my understanding of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act:

Websites with message boards and other user-uploaded content are protected by law from litigation for copyright violations -- but they are supposed to respond to requests for content to be taken down.

It's when the website owners/operators themselves upload the content that they're legally culpable.

 

Stephens Media isn't the only company doing this.

Other media outlets have signed up with the law firm, just Stephens was the first.

 

I'm fine with it.

I get pretty chapped when fan sites just take the photos and stories that my newspaper chain pays money to send me places to take - and they're just sitting there stealing them.

Bloggers do this time and again - including AP, Getty, etc. photos.

How can those photo agencies charge clients for use of their photos when thousands of what someone called "Mom and Pop" operations just rip them off for free? It's okay, because they're doing it from their dining-room table?

When I demand they remove them, many of them go viral on me, the exchange gets testy and then they post it for their six readers to see. Like, "How dare I".

"It's on the internet", and therefore free, they delude themselves into thinking.

Blows my mind every time.

 

LVRJ is suing a candidate it endorsed for violating copyrights. She was posting stories on her campaign site.

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=190520

 

The Angle campaign won't pay the LVRJ a cent. They probably both cooked this whole kerfluffle up themselves to make sure the paper looked fair to others in its pursuit of this project in order to get away with pimping Angle all it can. That explanation about protecting reporters' jobs is a pile of crap - it'll mean nothing by the next round of cuts.

 

Judge to Righthaven: Fuck you.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/fair-use-defense/

 

It doesn't sound like that ruling has much to do with whether the copyright was violated; the main issue is that Righthaven is trying to gin up the business of suing people and collecting as a middleman instead of actually being the aggrieved party. Also the fair-use portion was based on the article being posted by a site user for non-commercial purposes; on a blog or aggregator that sells ads (i.e. American Content or Bleacher Report) I imagine those parameters could change the ruling.