Latest Copyright FlameFest

[Earl Young]

Why would anyone have ever assumed that the "true intent" of mass media was to 
inform?  Have they ever hidden their interest in profitability?  Is this a 
conspiracy that has been exposed?

No.  The folks do work and expect to be paid for it.  It has nothing to do with 
the First Amendment (which most argue was written to protect people from the 
government).

The internet - and whatever else develops - has driven down the cost of 
distribution.  Companies will tend not to distribute - at whatever cost - 
material that isn't profitable.  Libraries, publishers, authors, and readers - 
among others - thus have a stake in making sure that a viable and vigorous 
commercial market exists.  This is not a defense of monopoly action, and 
certainly not an assertion that business people are our friends.  They're in it 
for the money for the most part.  So what?  Who among us works for free?

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Latest Copyright FlameFest
Author:  narnett at verity.com at INTERNET
Date:    1/27/97 5:55 AM


At 03:51 PM 1/24/97 -0800, AJ Wright wrote: 
>...but perhaps this problem
>can be solved by expanding the notion of "fair use" to include more real-life 
>behavior...perhaps by requiring intellectual property owners to show real 
>damage or at least an intent to do such harm...hmmm....naaah, it'll never 
>happen....
     
That's already the law, essentially.  The primary test of copyright 
infringement is the effect that the copy has on the market value of the 
work.  Intent only affects the damages that might be awarded, not the 
finding of infringement.  The problem is that when a newspaper posts 
articles on its Web site without charging for them, then someone 
redistributes it via the same channel (the Internet; if one is willing to 
assume that everyone with access to their Web site also has e-mail), it 
becomes harder to argument that the redistribution diminishes the work's 
value.  They might argue that seeing the associated advertising is the 
"price" of the work -- this is an enemy of free speech.
     
It is totally inappropriate for Web publishers to try to use copyright law 
to try to keep peoples' eyes on their advertising. The true intent of 
today's mass media is being exposed in this situation -- it shows that their 
primary purpose is not to inform.  Thus, they will try to use copyright law 
to protect "owning the channel," when the Internet is making information 
distribution so cheap that they can't possibly do so.  That's not the intent 
of copyright law and should be fought vigorously.  Once they remove the 
price tag from the information, they shouldn't expect to lean on copyright 
for protection.
     
As for potential flame wars, in discussing these issues, the only sin is to 
talk as though they are black-and-white.
     
Nick
     
--------------------------------------- 
Verity Inc.
Connecting People with Information
     
Product Manager, Categorization and Visualization 
408-542-2164; home office 408-369-1233; fax 408-541-1600 
http://www.verity.com