Latest Copyright FlameFest

[Nick Arnett]

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