Judge Thinks Linking To Copyrighted Material Should Be Illegal

JBeukema

Rookie
Apr 23, 2009
25,613
1,749
0
everywhere and nowhere
An article at TechCrunch discusses a blog post from Richard Posner, a US Court of Appeals judge, about the struggling newspaper industry. Posner explains why he thinks the newspapers will continue to struggle, and then comes to a rather unusual conclusion: "Expanding copyright law to bar online access to copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's consent, or to bar linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's consent, might be necessary to keep free riding on content financed by online newspapers from so impairing the incentive to create costly news-gathering operations that news services like Reuters and the Associated Press would become the only professional, nongovernmental sources of news and opinion."
Slashdot Technology Story | Judge Thinks Linking To Copyrighted Material Should Be Illegal
 
An article at TechCrunch discusses a blog post from Richard Posner, a US Court of Appeals judge, about the struggling newspaper industry. Posner explains why he thinks the newspapers will continue to struggle, and then comes to a rather unusual conclusion: "Expanding copyright law to bar online access to copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's consent, or to bar linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's consent, might be necessary to keep free riding on content financed by online newspapers from so impairing the incentive to create costly news-gathering operations that news services like Reuters and the Associated Press would become the only professional, nongovernmental sources of news and opinion."
Slashdot Technology Story | Judge Thinks Linking To Copyrighted Material Should Be Illegal

The judge is full of it. The media wouldn't get as much exposure as is does if it weren't for linking to its materials. This is just more of that current trend toward not letting failing industries fail if they can't keep up.

So newspapers are struggling? The guy tht invented the 8 track tape moved. How hard is this?
 
Ah those copyright laws.


They're so complex that it takes a publisher with the wisdom of soloman to really understand them.

They're designed as a system to insure full employment for copyright lawyers.

They're freakin nuts, let me tall ya.

They didn't used to be, but they are now.
 
He needs to stick to judging cases brought before him, instead of wishing he was a legislator.

What the fuck are you babbling about? Its a blog post. He can say whatever the hell he wants on a blog.
He dreams of making law instead of interpreting it. Clearly. You're railing about HIM being able to say whatever he wants, while HE wishes to limit what YOU can say?
 
An article at TechCrunch discusses a blog post from Richard Posner, a US Court of Appeals judge, about the struggling newspaper industry. Posner explains why he thinks the newspapers will continue to struggle, and then comes to a rather unusual conclusion: "Expanding copyright law to bar online access to copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's consent, or to bar linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's consent, might be necessary to keep free riding on content financed by online newspapers from so impairing the incentive to create costly news-gathering operations that news services like Reuters and the Associated Press would become the only professional, nongovernmental sources of news and opinion."
Slashdot Technology Story | Judge Thinks Linking To Copyrighted Material Should Be Illegal

The judge is full of it. The media wouldn't get as much exposure as is does if it weren't for linking to its materials. This is just more of that current trend toward not letting failing industries fail if they can't keep up.

So newspapers are struggling? The guy tht invented the 8 track tape moved. How hard is this?

DAY um. I agree with you. Something is terribly off kilter. :eek:
 
He needs to stick to judging cases brought before him, instead of wishing he was a legislator.

What the fuck are you babbling about? Its a blog post. He can say whatever the hell he wants on a blog.
He dreams of making law instead of interpreting it.

Really? Where exactly did he say HE is going to do that? He is also a law professor, and law professors right about what the law SHOULD be all the time. He is a well known and reputable academic who is allowed to profess whatever the fuck he wants.

Clearly. You're railing about HIM being able to say whatever he wants, while HE wishes to limit what YOU can say?

Not really. He thinks you can say whatever you want as long as its your own words.
 

Forum List

Back
Top