Don't You Dare Link Us Or We'll Sue
Dean
Okay: is this stupid or what? A newspaper is threatening legal action against a blogger for linking them.
Anyone who knows much about "fair use" and copyright law knows that this is silly. Yes, sometimes some bloggers go over the line, but you can't sue someone for quoting an article and you certainly can't sue for providing a link to it.
Well, you can, but you won't get anywhere.
Related Posts (on one page):
- From the Mailbag
- Coleman To The Rescue
- Don't You Dare Link Us Or We'll Sue
The use of expensive copyright lawsuits as a form of intimidation seems to be quite common. :(
I'm not going to pay them so that I can link to them and have them threaten to sue me. Although if it results in an Insta-lanche, it could be worth it I suppose.
Hmmm...
But I am sure that if he makes himself and BatesLine persona e-non grata to the Tulsa World ownership, they have the right to demand that he goes through hoops to use their stuff, rather than letting him off the smooth and easy way that they probably would have done under other circumstances.
We all have the right to do this, and we all have the right to do that. But so too does the other guy, and all the other guys. If your right to do this or that conflicts with his rights, you got yourself a conflict, which means here come the lawyers.
It's a shag-ass world out there. But if you're smart, and you don't want to make the lawyers richer than they already are, try to stay out of courtrooms.
And if you can't do that, just out of cussed principle, then learn to quote and paraphrase the Tulsa World, rather than violating their copyright.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
I guess the media cocoon of cluelessness extends to the outback territories as well:)
Hank Barnes
That is beyond all reason, and I'm amazed that their lawyers let that sentence stand.
It's pretty clear someone hasn't educated the World folks about the intricacies of copyright and fair use.
I find it somewhat ironic that they aren't publishing a story about this censorship effort, considering all the negative publicity they're getting. It's "news," right? (/sarcasm)
Yes, absolutely so. But that is the beauty of the blogosphere: it's really hard to get away with that here. Why? Because if someone does it to you, you immediately publish it, and lots and lots of people come to your defense.
Suing an empty pocket in a foreign jurisdiction over a trivial point of law is rarely worth it.
In short: "go ahead, make our day!"
Heh.
That's crap. academic journal publishers have closed access to pdfs all the time. Beyond that, what if someone paid for Bates to have access, and he clipped the material from the pdfs. What then? He'd still be under fair use and they'd still look like asses.
More here
I am so pleased to see this post about the "Tulsa World" on your site. The "World" certainly deserves all the negative attention that can be brought to bear on them. The family that owns the paper has had a great deal of influence over local politics, particularly since the demise of the only other major newspaper in town, the "Tulsa Tribune" several years ago.
Right now we are having to endure a campaign on the part of the "World" and several big money interests to recall a couple of city counselors who have dared to defy the powers that be by actually doing the job they were elected for, rather than manipulating events in the city to further line the pockets of those powers that be.
For a long time the city counsel in Tulsa has been pretty much bought and paid for, and was doing a lot of things at the bidding of a wealthy few which were often to the detriment of the average citizen and the future of the city.
We (the little guy average citizen) have finally gotten a majority of representation (5 out of 9) on the counsel that care about the people they represent and what is best for Tulsa.
Now, are they claiming that you can't download items for personal, noncommercial use unless you have permission? Doesn't that mean you can't even open their pages in a browser without permission?
The whole thing is pretty ridiculous, and the problem is that a few individuals have run the city of Tulsa from behind the scenes for many years. With the advent of blogging and a new conservative talk radio station in town (KFAQ), they can no longer control what gets out into the public arena, and are meeting public resistance to pursuing their personal goals, which are often to the detriment of the rest of the city.
It may not sound nice, and I would agree that it is not nice. But there right do do this, I am certain, will be held indisputable in a court of law.
Any of you who push Michael D Bates and BateLine into testing the copyright cited above, ought, in fairness, to likewise assume the burden of his legal bills in taking the newspaper to court over this issue. Or, as is more likely, in goading the newspaper into taking him to court.
Or do you want to see a rich newspaper bankrupt a probably not so rich blogger while trying to pretend this case turns him into another John Peter Zenger, and pretending equally that we are living in the year 1735?
Mr Bates, if you are reading this: Don't be the world's biggest sucker. Stop linking to Tulsa World stuff if they don't want you there; stay out of expensive courtrooms if you are a man of inexpensive means; and unless you are stupid (and you sound like you are intelligent) then stop imagining there is any kind of justice other than the kind you can buy and pay for.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
I remind you all again. The Tulsa World exclusively owns copyright of its own webpage, including whether any particular person is entitled to link their webpage or any of the information therein for any reasons whatsoever.
I think you are incredibly misinformed about this, especially the "linking" issue. You completely neglect the entire issue of fair use, which is GUARANTEED by the copyright act (section 117).