EDITORIAL NOTE- Apparently, Reuters has decided that sites do not have the right to use any portion of their "news articles" without them giving prior permission. My understanding is that they will go after sites using even a paragraph or a portion of their content. To me, this is an attempt to completely eliminate "fair use" of news material by them, since the doctrine of "fair use" does not require prior authorization, and if a use is indeed "fair use" can be done even against the original providers protestations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"By Sean Michael Kerner

At a time of heightened awareness of corporate intellectual property, news service Reuters announced said it will use Fast Search & Transfer's (FAST) software to track copyright violations of its content. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Specifically, Oslo, Norway-based FAST will deploy its Search Derivative Application (SDA) for Reuters. The application will identify and log the use of Reuters content used online and in print media. In addition it will generate custom reports, flagging any potential violations.

"It is important to know as much as we can about how Reuters' copyrighted news content is being used by our subscribers, as well as the general public," Paul Hansford, global head of content quality at Reuters said in a statement. "We are looking forward to seeing how the implementation of FAST ESP will help us track copyright infringements and protect our corporate identity."

Reuters was already a FAST customer, using FAST ESP (Enterprise Search Platform) to power the Reuters News Distribution Service (NDS), a customized real-time news alert service. FAST spokesman Peter Gorman told internetnews.com that initial rollout will begin next month, with full implementation by summer.

The issue of copyright infringement on the Internet has long been an issue for content providers. News aggregation sites, RSS P2P networks and blogs seem to churn an almost endless supply of content and not all of it is copyright free."
PLEASE READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT:
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3330381
==================================snip=========================================
Reuters is not the only news source who are getting really antagonistic about
use of "their" stories. Reuters has said even using a "paragraph" or "portion" of their articles without their express permission is going to be enough to set them off.

I recently talked about the "Hey Ya Charley Brown" video, getting a cease and desist letter.

What is happening in this country is the whole country is going copyright lawsuit happy. Yesterday, I personally posted lots of articles about things like Yoga Copyright Lawsuits and many other suits.

In my opinion, the suits are going farther and farther afield, with the apparent aim of eliminating any "fair use" of materials. Clearly, the guidelines which apparently Reuters intends to implement, go after legal fair use, and are trying to criminalize simple quotations of articles in a limited manner, with the aim of critical comment on that material, and this is just the kind of thing tha the fair use doctrine is meant to protect.

If you look at this link :http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/copypol2.htm
you get a fairly good idea of what fair use is, and how one decides if a certain usage may qualify.

And, here's more on fair use :
From a British site, http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/16.68html
"US COPYRIGHT OFFICE CIRCULAR ON FAIR USE (1993)

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to
reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or
phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections
107 through 120 of the copyright act (title 17, U.S. Code). One of the more
important limitations is the doctrine of "fair use." Although fair use was
not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed
through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This
doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the
reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining
whether or not a particular use is fair:
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether

such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit
educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in
relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or
value of the copyrighted work.

The distinction between "fair use" and infringement may be unclear and not
easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that
may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the
copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

The 1961 _Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of
the U.S. Copyright Law_ cites examples of activities that courts have
regarded as fair use: "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for
purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a
scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the
author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work
parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news
report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of
a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a
work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or
judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in
a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being
reported."

Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it
does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in
the work.

The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner
before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this
permission.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material
should be avoided unless the doctrine of "fair use" would clearly apply to
the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use
may be considered "fair" nor advise on possible copyright violations. If
there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

***Last update 6/10/93 (raa)***

-------------------- %<>== --------------------------

Another useful document is the following:

(DRAFT VERSION) COPYRIGHT LAW AND MULTIMEDIA DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION

Section 106 of the Copyrights Act (P.L. 94-553) describes the exclusive
rights of copyright owners.

"[T]he owner of copyright...has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize
any of the following:

1. To reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

2. To prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

3. To distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the
public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or
lending;

4. In the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works,
pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the
copyrighted work publicly; and

5. In the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works,
pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the
individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display
the copyrighted work publicly."

The fair use provision of the Copyrights Act is found in Section 107 which is
reproduced below.

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the fair use of a
copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes
such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple
copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement
of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any
particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work."

The legislative history which speaks to the fair use provision acknowledges:

"The judicial doctrine of fair use, one of the most important and well
established limitations on the exclusive right of copyright owners, would be
given express statutory recognition for the first time in section 107. The
claim that a defendant's acts constituted a fair use rather than an
infringement has been raised as a defense in innumerable copyright actions
over the years, and there is ample case law recognizing the existence of the
doctrine and applying it."

It should be noted that at this point, the legislative history reiterates the
four points listed above from section 107. Fair use must meet all four criteria
to be a protected activity.

"Although the courts have considered and ruled upon the fair use doctrine over
and over again, no real definition of the concept has ever emerged. Indeed,
since the doctrine is an equitable rule of reason, no generally applicable
definition is possible, and each case raising the question must be decided on
its own facts. On the other hand, the courts have evolved a set of criteria
which, though in no case definitive or determinative, provide some gauge for
balancing the equities. These criteria have been stated in various ways, but
essentially they can all be reduced to the four standards which have been
adopted in section 107...."

There are no definitive standards or guidelines governing the use of
copyrighted materials in the preparation of multimedia courseware for
instruction, or classroom presentations utilizing multimedia. However, while
developing these products, faculty should be governed by the same criteria
which are prescribed for the use of copyrighted print materials. In essence,
the use of copyrighted print materials is governed by three criteria:

Spontaneity: The "fair use" of copyrighted materials in an educational
setting should be at the "instance and inspiration of the individual
teacher...." Further, the "inspiration and decision to use the work and the
moment of its use for maximum teaching effectiveness" must be so close
together in time "that it would be unreasonable to expect a timely reply to
a request for permission." In other words, the decision to use the material
must be the instructor's and not dictated by management or administration
and it must be a spontaneous decision.

Brevity: With regard to print media, the guidelines are specific even to the
point of specifying the maximum length of an excerpt from poetry or prose.
Though these limits do not apply to non-print media, they clearly indicate
that the intent is for a small portion of the original to be copied under
fair use, and not a substantial portion of the work.

Cumulative Effect: "...copying of...material is for only one course in the
school in which the copies are made." The guidelines for copying of print
media, states "[n]ot more than one short poem, article, story, essay or two
excepts from the same author, nor more than three from the same collective
work or periodical volume during one class term" is permitted. Even though
the media may be different, faculty can best avoid copyright infringement by
following the spirit of these guidelines when dealing with other forms of
media in a multimedia presentation. For instance, using 8 minutes from a 10
minute video tape (in a multimedia presentation) would appear to violate the
fair use guidelines by diminishing the "potential market" and value of the
copyrighted work.

Instructors should be aware that when relying on the fair use provision, the
use of copyrighted materials must meet all three tests (spontaneity,
brevity, and cumulative effect). Instructors are encouraged to procure
copyright releases for materials which they anticipate using for longer than
one term.

Finally, the guidelines (developed by the Ad Hoc Committee on Copyright
Revision, the Author-Publisher Group, and the Association of American
Publishers) also indicate that

1. "Copying shall not be used to create or to replace or substitute for
anthologies, compilations, or collective works..."

2. Copying is not allowed from consumable works such as "workbooks,
exercises, standardized tests and test booklets and answer sheets...."

3. "Copying shall not substitute for the purchase of books, publisher's
reprints or periodicals...(and shall not) be repeated with respect to the
same item by the same teacher from term to term."

It should be noted that clip art, clip video, and clip audio are marketed
and available for use in developing multimedia materials. These forms of
"clip media" are licensed to the purchaser (individual, school, or faculty
member) for use in multimedia presentations. In many cases, clip media can
be used to substitute in a presentation for copyrighted materials that might
violate the fair use provision."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
And...here's Reuters "Copyright Notice" from their site...
http://www.about.reuters.com/copyright.asp
"COPYRIGHT

© Reuters 2004. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

© Reuters 2004"
------------------------------SNIP-----------------------------------------
As an editor and writer, this new direction of content providers trying to eliminate ANY fair use of their materials, is VERY disturbing, and as I have said, Reuters is NOT the only source which is getting upset about use of their content. In fact, a few of the best sources of news relative to our issues are assuming this kind of stance, which is very problematic.

I look forward to your input.

Respectfully,
~CodeWarrior

Gee since "Fair Use" includes "the fair use of a
copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes
such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple
copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement
of copyright. ", I say keep the articles coming here. This is obviously a place where copyrighted works are used for "criticism, comment and news reporting", and is quite clearly "fair use". If Reuters wants to test that in a court of law, they should not only EXPECT to lose (I think the law is pretty obvious here), but will be expected to pay for the Defendants lawyer fees.

Go ahead, make my day.

I think the EFF should deliberately post paragraphs and portions of Reuters stories at their website - in the context of comment or criticism, to invite a lawsuit. Maybe even to tweak them, they should have a special "We criticize Reuters" section of their website. We need to nip this sort of thing in the bud. Surely a court would strike this down. The precedents are overwhelming.

I sent a formal letter to the editors at Reuters minutes ago requesting their official statement of position on this matter, and pointing out that their stance appears to totally ignore the fair use doctrine.

Theoretically, would a "mission statement" on this site's home page or a statement included with each post indicating that all information published
here is limited to noncommercial criticism, comment, news reporting, community teaching, scholarship, and research, provide a sound argument to for fair use of anyone's copyrighted work?

Could a similar strategy be adapted for all information shared on the P-2-P networks?

Twoby2 -
The staff of this site is obviously going to have to come up with an official position on this matter, and I will be talking with Leflaw about this issue.

As artists , musicians, journalists, and writers, we do honor the rights of those people who create unique works, and try to respect copyright rights, however; the United States Copyright Office itself, recognizes the fair use doctrine, and what seems to be evolving at Reuters and other "news content providers" on its face, until I have concrete information otherwise, seems to be an attempt to say that fair use does not exist. This is a blatant misrepresentation to me, if this is the impression they are trying to make.

But, again, I have contacted them and asked they give me a legal clarification of what their stance on this matter is.

Twoby2, that is a good suggestion, and we will be considering our options on how best to address these various copyright issues.

Thanks.
~Code

This is indeed a troubling trend, but there is hope that some recent legal action could stop it dead in its tracks.

With regard to copyrights, there is no longer any requirement to file or apply for a copyright. Congress passed a law in the late 1990s that removed the requirement for registering - this means that EVERYTHING covered by copyright law is automatically given copyright protection, whether or not the copyright owner desires it.

A lawsuit has just been filed asking the court to restore the requirement to register to get copyright protection. This would require the owner of a work to take proactive action to register his/her work to receive copyright protection; if a work is not registered within a certain grace period, such work will automatically pass into the public domain.

Do you suppose The Register would seek to register every online article it posted? Probably not, but who knows these days.

My fondest hope for this new legal action should it succeed is that it would require the owners of music to register said music for copyright protection. Can you imagine the huge number of songs that currently enjoy automatic protection that would have to be registered? One could only hope the task is so daunting that some significant number of songs would pass into the public domain. It would certainly keep the RIAA and member companies busy for a while.

One cannot LEGALLY file an action under the DMCA without proof of copyright registration of the work alleged to have been infringed.

I'm so irritated. The only way to fight this is to behave in accord with our prior activities, do not be scared little bitches, and wait for the fight.

I think it should be challanged in court. it costs money sure and could even ruin the party who goes up against it. it's a hard thing for anyone to decide to do. and each one needs to weigh the costs to themselves and family. the public debate fueled by a good court case, weather it's won or lost, will certinly help the cause if the right one challanges.

If everything is locked down society and the internet marketplace will change. I don't think it will be as profitable as a marketplace as it is now.

It is really getting frustrating for me personally. I have been contacting other sites today, as well as the EFF, to try to mobilize a unified response to this, because I can tell you what will probably happen in April or May. Sites all over the net will get Cease and Desist / Takedown orders to remove ALL Reuters content from their sites...and for sites with quotes from Reuters articles or quotes from other articles using Reuters as a source, this is going to be a burdensome task.

Reuters benefits from traffic and visitors, and other sites directing traffic to them helps them, not hurts them!

This is what I always do.

a) Write a new, yet descriptive headline
b) Whatever the story, question it and be severely critical. Let the posters argue the other side.
c) I always try to use as little as possible of the original (if it's someone else's story).
d) Always link to the original article.

So far, there is no copyright on facts. No one can prevent an examination of the facts, or lack thereof, in a news article.

Having worked in traditional media, I can also say that Reuters (or anyone else that takes this hard-line position) is actually inviting lack of attribution.

I personally have a List of Those Who Shall Not Be Named. I rarely violate this list, but often modify it.

Those on the list are simply never recognized as being in existence except in vague references, much like the RIAA treats the independent music community.

Ever been to the Reuters site? Visit it daily? I thought not. Watch them disappear from existence with carefully crafted phrases like:

"According to a story which appeared in the Washington Post..."

"News wire services report that..."

"Yahoo! news is carrying a story today that suggests..."

When it comes right down to it, the media cannot be counted on to present the truth, as they have consistently illustrated for the past 5 years in regards to the Internet and music.

As long as they run RIAA press releases as fact, continue to echo the industry rhetoric and perpetuate the belief that the only "legal" and "legitimate" sources for music are those which have bowed to the RIAA, someone must point out the inconsistencies.

If Reuters can't stand the scrutiny, then we can choose to ignore it as a credible source. In fact, we could make an effort to actually find the same story somewhere that is not attributed to the service and route interested readers to alternate sources.

We make no claim to be a news organization. We are merely a filter, attempting to collect the information that is pertinent to our issues. Looking back through the archives, one can easily see that the "news" does not last forever on the Internet. Far too many of the early stories, just a few years old, have disappeared into cyber-ethereal vapor.

So if Reuters wants to disappear, that's fine with me.

I agree that's the responsible thing to do, but apparently, just even quoting any part of their content, they are asserting is copyright infringement UNLESS you get specific , prior authorization from Reuters to use it/ quote it. Even a paragraph, even a portion of a news article.

They don't care if you give a link or not, and they are going after RSS feeds as well.

As I've said, this is proof positive that the elites in this country -- indeed, in the entire world -- have this attitude that "fair use" is nothing more than a mere privilege that's been so misused and abused (to hear them put it) that it should be revoked outright. This whole mindset of placing the defense of "things" over the rights of man shows how little freedom is regarded by these elites. But that's little surprise, given Reuters' foreign ownership. (A little aside: I once heard something to the effect that a member of the Saudi royal family had a financial stake in or owned part of Reuters.) But the way copyright law has been rigged over the last few years sort of gives us a window as to, at the time of this country's early years, what if early U.S. copyright law had been drafted by Alexander Hamilton instead of Thomas Jefferson. After all, Hamilton didn't think the public could be trusted with anything, and believed only the elites should control everything. He'd've likely felt right at home with this crew (Reuters, not us).

There should, I.M.H.O., be a new term for the likes of Reuters: "copyright fundamentalists." This kind of fundamentalism is every bit as dangerous (in its own way, of course) as the type of fundamentalist mentality associated with the likes of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It seems only to be a matter of which of these poisonous manifestations will destroy us first, and when.

But this trend, while highly dangerous, is nothing new: some months ago the big media elites were lobbying to have VIDEO FOOTAGE OF NEWS EVENTS likewise fall under the fundamentalist copyright laws that have been shoved down everybody's throats over the last few years.

I agree W-B....I think that this notion of not such thing as fair use will spread if Reuters asserts this right and everyone just bends over.

I have heard from downhillbattle.org, and they find this concerning as do I.
We are waiting to get the EFF response on this. Webcasters Alliance is also supportive as well.

This is so detrimental to the boycott site as well as other similar sites where the whole site is based largely on news items of the day. I'm suspecting that this is just another route they are taking to destroy our ability to communicate with one an other and , God forbid, actually think, criticise, form opionions and perhaps maybe even be moved to DO something about certain things.

This is VERY DANGEROUS!!! ~pepe!~

There's another aspect to Reuters' scheme that is disturbing: namely, what seems to be an attempt to defang those groups which have been documenting "media bias" of all types over the years. After all, if you can't (or are forbidden by law to) cite certain quotes or passages, then it goes from being conclusive proof to mere circumstantial evidence (i.e. "we-said--they-said"), and thus would make it much easier for the big media elites to dismiss any and all media watchdog groups (whether left or right) as "extremist fringe kooks" (or something like that), thus, in turn, making it easier for these big media elites to pretty much get away with murder.

I had suspected things like this coming, but not nearly this soon. Everytime I hear about something like this, though, I'm tempted to say something to the effect of "We still have fair use in this country?" It looks like what Lessig, I believe, predicted, is coming true. Prediction: Look for right-holders to target public libraries within 1-2 years.

I think what they would love to see is the internet as an "information hyway" DIE altogether, and for it to be used solely as a revenue generator. news and info dead....commerialism alive and well. ~pepe~

pepe, I can't remember where I heard it and it might just be a rumor, but according to the rumor, when the internet was first made available to the public, one of things a corporation sent a memo worrying about was that, the public might, horror of horrors, use the internet to distribute information.
Perhaps Reuters acting this way is because we're beginning to have an effect.

former..the internet started out as Arpanet, a military project that was meant to be a widely distributed network that couldn't be knocked out by conventional weapons or even a single nuke during war....because they needed additional computer scientists in the academic communities, various universities were allowed access to participate on developing the network...and hey, once you let college kids get involved...it's katey bar the door...the colleges got civilians involved and the rest is history.

Yeah, the internet has come a long way from what it was first designed for. And yes, I imagine there are lots of things that get done via the net, a lot of things the governments don't want happening anymore, obviously, and yet, look how THEY are using it, as in rounding up what they consider to be the bad guys.(mp3 police indeed) In that aspect, the net is backfiring. Some two way street eh? They just want to control the whole street ~pepe~

Fair Use: the factors to be considered shall include

3. the amount of the article used

4. the effect upon the market or value of the work

According to this section "fair use" is arguable

On the other hand, i think these sites are too uptight about their articles getting around; if we investigated we'd probably find out
it promotes their sites and leads to more traffic

just provide a link, then no one will complain

my opinion is this ....
1) There is a considerable history in this country of allowing "fair use" and in fact, the Sony BetaMax decided that taping television shows, even the WHOLE, copyrighted show, without using it in a critique or article, etc., constituted "fair use"
2) Apparently, Reuters is saying that ANY use even of ONE paragraph, is something they are considering copyright infringement, and that flies in the face of not only the Copyright Act provisions regarding Fair Use, but also various court cases.
3) If we post something less than the total article, a "portion" and use it for critical comment or for an example of something, post proper linking and attribution and actually URGE visitors to this site to visit their site and read the whole thing....the increase in traffic to their site is of benefit to them, and I assert, because more people visit their site and are exposed to other articles, and to their site in general, our use of portions of their articles actually INCREASES the value of their work.

We do not charge people for visiting this site and viewing the news.

I can see NO proper or reasonable argument which would say that using limited amounts of their news content in any way constitutes copyright infringement, given our usage, and, if anyone else DOES see a good case of copyright infringemenet, you are certainly free to post this argument here.

Spwee...you don't understand. Reuters and the other news organizations who are adopting similar standards....DO NOT CARE IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK OR NOT...THEY WILL WRITE YOU AND ACCUSE YOU OF "STEALING THEIR MATERIAL" OR SEND YOU A "C & D" / TAKEDOWN NOTICE.

Lemme repeat that, for them, they do NOT care if you provide a link, they say that just using their material by quoting it...is a copyright infringement per se.

We ALWAYS give links as far as I know...in fact, as an editor here, I do not post news articles which either do not provide a link, or which I cannot find a link for.

~Code

well which are you saying Code, a portion of the article is fair
or all of it

certainly a portion of the article may be considered fair use
but ALL OF IT?

maybe we need to start changing our habits cuz i was posting full articles

Hey, everybody . . . calmly unwind your panties. They will not be able to successfully enforce this in court.

Lets start an LLC. Buy a server, set it up a website with non-stop criticism of Reuter?s articles, and let them try and stop us.

Let's "peck a fight!"

well i would say a portion of an article or a simple link is UNDOUBTEDLY 'fair use'

so let them go fuck themselves

sounds like they are a bit fascist

Spwee....the new stance of Reuters is that using even a paragraph, or any portion thereof, of their material, their content, shall be considered copyright infringement and starting in April, they will be using FASTsearch ESP to find ALL websites using any of their material....

A lot of other news organizations are getting very antagonistic to use of their materials as well.

One thing we as editors usually do, is eliminate some of the text of submitted articles, and sometimes, it is frustrating to have to do because sometimes, the whole article is not that long....or, sometimes it is hard to decide where to stop...because it always seems like the next sentence really is important and should be included.

This is why I have contacted a lot of websites, some having nothing to do with our fight, which regularly use Reuter links and clips of their articles.

Downhillbattle.org has responded to me, Webcasters Alliance has responded...and I am waiting for the EFF, and still waiting for a response from Reuters editors.

Raoulduke1...it is possible that there may be a website erected on this issue as a combined effort of various sites...

i hear ya Code

Surmounting an army are we? just kidding

We may have to go underground on this one, you know, set up key words or phrases that relate to different sites.

Example, if I want you to see a great story that reuters put out, the code for "reuters" could be perhaps "rooster", so I'd blab a bit about the story, etc, etc, and then say go "rooster" and everyone could then look up the reuters site story.

Seems crazy, but folks, we may be heading for this. ~pepe~

"3) If we post something less than the total article, a "portion" and use it for critical comment or for an example of something, post proper linking and attribution and actually URGE visitors to this site to visit their site and read the whole thing....the increase in traffic to their site is of benefit to them, and I assert, because more people visit their site and are exposed to other articles, and to their site in general, our use of portions of their articles actually INCREASES the value of their work."

I agree whole heartedly, reporting sections of the news with credits and a link constitutes fair use.

lololol pepe..I needed a smile....

so now, it's getting that not supposed to trade music files, we can't even quote international news items about it...lol....

I need to send out the Enigma machines and secret decoder rings with the settings of the day....

Maybe I should do like DaVinci and type Reuters stuff in reverse, and to read it, you hold a mirror up to the monitor....

LOL...the world gets stranger and stranger....

Gee guys, I was being serious about the rooster thing, for once, but after I re-read my post, I realized it did sound kind of fruitcakey.... Sooooo See? I was right about me the first time! :0)

PS, maybe we'll have to stand on our heads to read from the "mirrored monitors" EEEE GADS!!!!
~pepe~

Would anyone know if there is a law against suing someone when you KNOW what you are suing to stop is legal? I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that if someone obeyed the "Fair Use" requirements and had case law on their side, and got sued anyways, that they should be able to sue back for unlawful litigation. Include Punitive damages, and then maybe Rueter's would GET the message.

Maybe we need several ridiculous copyright lawsuits to wake everybody up to the fact that our existing copyright laws are in serious need of reform.

Justice lags sometimes

Perhaps it's time there was a full and definitive law passed on "Fair Use"

It's current interpretation is far too open to abuse by the copyright nazis it may as well not exist.

Has anyone fought an action under "Fair Use" an won? I would appreciate a link if you have one.

Roto Reuters anyone?
Code, How many languages can you say SCREW YOU Reuters in? All I can think of is one......Quiera que yo malacoche Reuters...

It is extremely sad to see "fair-use" rights eroding daily and any voices of reason being shoved off to the fringes and labeled infrigers, pirates and thieves. It is becoming a world in which all facts are owned by the corporation. Game over.

lol...good one RhythmMethod!

.......SCREW REUTERS!

What IS THEIR problem? Are they trying to wage a competition with the RIAA to see who can be nastier?

We never resolve these kinds of things by compromise or mutual understanding anymore. It's lawsuits, or threats of lawsuits. And if you can't afford a lawyer, you're basically screwed.

All I know is that the profession of law is getting a lot more prestigious, and a lot more wealthy.

:-:~ Phantom

What I think some of these big news organizations are ultimately going for, is demanding sites that carry any of their content, to pony up money to use even a few quotes. I think it may be an attempt to force people to subscribe to their newsfeed or some such nonsense.

Let 'em issue all the illegal C&D's they want. Fair use is the law, their wish-list isn't.

i think your right Code about Reuters wanting a fee.. if not mistaken newspapers have to pay a fee to report anyting from the Wire services.. we could just pay the fee and that way we can list the whole article or just start our own service.. I like the last one better

I think corporate america (and those darn overseas companies too) are just getting way too greedy. What irks me is that they claim they are losing money and can't give their employees any raise in pay because of all this so called infringements .....but yet they can spend millions on litigation. How much better it would be to think of your workers first before litigating something that is our rights to begin with. The corporate society wants people to pay for everything. Even things that were once free in this country. They literally want to take the "free" out of freedom!

I've also contacted a leading media watchdog group over this brouhaha. It'll be interesting to see what transpires from that end.

THE DMCA NULLIFIES THIS PROVISION OF FAIR USE:
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or
value of the copyrighted work.
AND ALSO THIS ONE
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether

such use is of commercial

we no longer actually have fair use rights since the passing of the DMCA

Which proves my point about "fair use" having been all but downgraded into a privilege subject to revocation upon whim. And also about the DMCA being a cancer which, I fear, has passed way beyond the "terminal / inoperable" stage, having metastasized into (read: infected) every orifice of our society and culture.

Again, it's a matter of which will sink us first -- the DMCA, or Islamofascism?

gdZiemann asked "Ever been to the Reuters site? Visit it daily?" Actually the answer to that is YES, I do (or at least did) visit it daily. I do not trust the U.S. media to present fair and balanced reports on events any longer. So I get most of my news from BBC, Reuters, AP newswire and Al jazeera through RSS feeds. Mainly because of the outstanding reputations these organizations have. Guess I'll have to turn off my Reuters feed now. I won't be getting my news from them anymore.

No kidding, kyodylee.

:-:~ Phantom

More and more since the start of the RIAA lawsuits to pave the way we are seeing the same approach being tried in one form or another to limit the public access to information and distrubition of data. Corportations it seems dislikes the idea of free tranmission of data without a share of money being put into thier coffers.

This seems to be the current wave of the future. Having opened a Pandoria's box of legal entanglements it is possible that a new fair use law may be attempted. Be assured that in the present day and age with legal opinions being what they are there will be nothing good for the consumer and the public in it.

It is a sad state of affairs to see this. The day of for the people and by the people now seems to be for the corporation and by the corporation. It seems no one else has enough money to buck the tend. Goodbye to democracy, it has been sold on the alter of the politician.

I am an American and I am free. I will NOT be told that I can't discuss the news with others by any media corporation. On the net and on these boards we are discussing the news, we are NOT "publishing" it. There is NO fucking infringement involved. Don't give in to their Nazi-esque control tactics. If an article has relevence to our issues, POST IT! They can send C & D all they want. Perhaps we need to be the test case for something like this. I am positive the EFF and even the ACLU/others will stand up and help fund us in court for our 1st amendment rights to freely discuss the important issues.

If we ran ads on this site and were trying to make money from it, that would be different. But to say that we can't quote from a news source in our daily chats is fucking bullshit!

If THIS is what the world is comming to, then I DO think we need to start polishing our guns.

Freedom of speech outweighs copyright abuse and tyranny.

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!

kyodylee -

Ufortunately, so much of our news from other sites, even CNN comes from the Reuters source.

independentm -

Your right... if we were all in the same room, we'd be speaking to one an other face to face and verbally reading the news stories to eachother, so how can that be wrong? So again, this is nuts! ~pepe~

Newsflash!!!

There has never ever been such a thing as unbiased or unpoliticized reporting. Not possible for humans. For example please Google "Yellow Journalism" "Hearst" "Spanish American War" . For the philospophical underpinnings of this non-objectivity, se

Philosophy : phenomenology, perception, observer

And the BBC unbiased? Al Jazeera? Gimme a break.

Also there is no such thing as American Compnaies or Oversees companies.

Its all one thing.

Are we at the end of nations?

you hit the nail on the head leflaw!

I think so too leflaw. Nations mean less and less, the Mega Corp means more and more.

This is a little off topic from the general discussion, but it still has to do with fair use. I thought I read somewhere that making a backup copy for personal use, (in case your copy got damaged or destroyed) of a CD or other media was legal. But now I'm not sure. I'm writing a research paper about copyright for my english class, and I need to know if it is or not. Thanks in advance.

Good point leflaw.....end of nations, now corporations and all in one. Perhaps a new world order?

Also.... you're 100% correct leflaw, there hasn't been and will probably never be completely "unbiased" reporting. That correlation is sort of eerie... but you might be right.

leflaw, I never said the BBC or Al Jazeera were unbiased. I said that they have excellent reputations, which they do. I also said that the U.S. news media were not fair and balanced, which they aren't. We here in the U.S. are bombarded with the slant/spin whatever you want to call it that the current administration puts forth. In order to get a more balanced picture you need to obtain at least some of your news from foreign sources. Do they have their own biases. Of course they do. But it helps to balance out what get get from the U.S. media and see events in a larger context.

Here's the verbatim response from Reuters to my letter to them...
"Discussion Thread
Response (Webmaster (SP)) 03/26/2004 06:31 PM
Thanks for contacting Reuters. The purpose of the solution built with FAST technology is specifically to monitor Copyright violation. The tool has been designed to identify where a party goes beyond fair use of our stories - where they copy a full story and post it without license or they derive a story from our content without sourcing it.

Infringements of our copyright does not include where bloggers quote from and link back to our original story, or where sites display our headlines and link back to reuters.com. We are very comfortable with these practices.

Regards
Reuters Corporate Webmaster
www.reuters.com
Customer 03/25/2004 02:32 PM
I recently saw that Reuters will be using the FAST service to search the net for alleged copyright violations/infringements, and in fact, one article I read said that Reuters is going to consider use of even a "paragraph" or "portion" of an article, used without prior permission from Reuters, as copyright infringement.

This seems not only as draconian, but completely ignores the fair use doctrine recognized by the US Copyright of 1976 and the DMCA of 1998. http://stellar-one.com/copyrightgenealogy/fair_use_and_DMCA.htm.

For websites that provide news content and editorial observations, use of a very limited portion of a news article released by Reuters, would appear to fall within the prongs of the criteria of "fair use".

But, I write to clarify what the specific policy and guidelines Reuters intends to use with regard to this issue, specifically,
what Reuters considers as "fair use", since you must be aware that true and qualifying "fair use" does NOT require prior authorization from the copyright owner for the ability to use limited amounts of material for critical,editorial, or news related usage.

I will rely on the information you provide, as being the official stand of Reuters with regard to this matter, and the representation they are making with regard to their stand.

Thank you for your response in advance.

Question Reference #040325-000156
Contact Information: codewarrior_wins@yahoo.com
Date Created: 03/25/2004 02:32 PM
Last Updated: 03/26/2004 06:31 PM
Status: RCOM - CLOSED "