Slashdot Log In
Copyright Ruling May Create Memory Hole
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Jun 27, 2001 10:10 AM
from the best-of-all-possible-worlds dept.
from the best-of-all-possible-worlds dept.
dublin writes: "C|Net's News.com reports that the recent US Supreme Court decision granting freelance writers stronger control over distribution of their work (a la RIAA) will result in the removal of large chunks of archived internet content from a large number of sites. The article reports that this will eliminate about 8-10% of the content at large publishers' sites. Will this marginalize freelance writers in favor of staff flacks more interested in the company line than the truth, concentrating even more power in the hands of the media moguls? What are the implications of that much content disappearing down the memory hole without a trace?" I bet a lot of lawyers are recasting boilerplate for future contracts about now, too.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Copyright Ruling May Create Memory Hole
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 105 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
Re:a new twist (Score:3)
This was argued extensively when DejaNews first surfaced. The resolution was that (1) Usenet posts are 'published for distribution' by intent - you wouldn't have put it into Usenet if you didn't want it distributed in a public manner; (2) Usenet distribution takes a number of forms, some of which are time-delayed (for a while there was Usenet distribution by backup tape to sites that didn't have network connectivity, for one extreme example), DejaNews is just another distribution mechanism; (3) You can exempt yourself with the X-No-Archive header; (4) your copyright still holds, you just gave Usenet permission to distribute.
...phil
Memory hole is not necessary (Score:3)
No, there's not going to be a memory hole.
First off, the contracts from the about '94 on (or even earlier) included Internet rights. But many organizations with big databases of older articles charge for access, so it's worth money for them to have these articles. Meanwhile, freelance writers always could use more money.
So what will happen now is that the major database holders will negotiate a settlement with the free lancers, and they have an incentive to do so. If you don't make a deal and your competitors do, researchers who pay several dollars per article to track down old stuff will go to your competitors.
Re:Greed poisons the well... (Score:3)
Don't be absurd. We generally don't get any more money from Internet distribution contracts.
In my time as a writer I have signed contracts that forbid me to publish my work on Mars (all Earth territories and beyond I think was the phrase): did they pay me extra for my lost Martian readership? Nah...
I haven't got a penny extra, for any variation or extension in an IP contract. Why? I'm not Tom Wolfe, at a guess. I write reviews and features for computer magazines, which is the kind of thing the vast majority of these affected freelances do. It's low paid transient work (although it does have its benefits - working college student hours is one of the more obvious ones)
Beautiful Irony, that.
Just as an aside: Does anyone have any theories as to why the 'gift culture' model doesnt seem to apply at all to the arts world? You'd think freelancers would appreciate the online exposure (it's basically free advertising, which can lead to further work for the print rags, but no one seems to see it that way).
Yeah. It doesn't lead to more work. Danny O'Brien at NTK made a living by parlaying his webzine experience into features and columns for real magazines but he's the only example I can think of, and I know he didn't make as much money as he could have as NTK was so much work. (Plus which, Danny is a good writer and would have probably got that work without NTK).
We spend our copious free time as freelancers ringing people up begging for more work, invoicing and doing accounts. You know, work stuff.
I used to work for Rupert Murdoch (Score:4)
yes, you read that subject right. i used to work as a journalist for K. Rupert Murdoch, of News Corp. fame. i've heard many accusations of bias in large corperate media institutions, but never do i hear a theory for how this actually occurs. do editors lean over the shoulders of writers and tell them to bias the news in corperate news organizations? the answer is no. here's the real skinny:
on everyone's desk at the Fox News Channel, the New York Post and other News Corp. properties is a Pilsbury Doughboy-sized replica of Rupert himself that watches your every move. any time you consider writing about things like the WTO protesters, Ralph Nader, or fluffy bunny rabbits, the Rupert replica will cluck his tounge or shake his head dissaprovingly.
this is why i enjoy being a freelance writer now, because i don't have to labor under the Rupert's watchful gaze.
seriously, does anyone think there's a difference between freelance and full-time journalists? the copy gets worked over by the same editors anyway.
Re:Greed poisons the well... (Score:3)
Seriously what you say makes no sense. Exactly what source of income did they destroy? Oh the websites that pay them exactly nothing for the use of their work.
The reason why the 'gift culture' model doesn't apply to writers is because writers have to actually make a living from what they would be giving away. And freelancers are still free to give away their work (and many will continue to do so) -- companies like the New York Times just can't do it for them against their will.
This is a Good Thing (Score:4)
Re:Library...? (Score:3)
In this case, if there is no paper copy of a publication in a library, and the library relied on the electronic database, the worry is real.
This of course also raises the question on whether paying users of these databases can get a refund, since they don't have access to the content they were promised.
Check out the Publication Rights Clearinghouse (Score:3)
As an occasional freelance journalist (an index of my writing can be found on my homepage [fhwang.net],) I'm a member of this union, and I'm actually quite proud of that.
Not a memory hole. (Score:3)
If the company must pay for the period that is on-line already, why not keep it further.
Since this issue has been around since 1993, the number of post 1993 contracts w/o internet included will be small.
There may be a statute of limitations question on items written before 1994. If it was posted in 1994, the time may have run. It may a publsher company from now posting their pre-1994 pieces, if they have not done so already. Keep in mind, there is one appeals court that said that a photo could not be taken down, but it had to be paid for -- since it had already been published in violation.
Library...? (Score:3)
-S
Their own rules.... (Score:5)
RULING - Online distribution of copyrighted music is illegal.
People - But we thought we owned it since we bought it...
Time Warner - You merely bought the right to use it the way we see fit.
On Journalism:
RULING - Online distribution of copyrighted freelance jounalism is illegal.
Time Warner - But we thought we owned it since we bought it...
People - You merely bought the right to use it the way we see fit.
HAHAHAHAHahahahahahaha............
bm :)-~
Re:Memory hole is not necessary (Score:4)
I doubt that maintaining an internet database generates all that much money, so they might have to crank their rates up a lot to be able to pay each freelancer a few bucks. And if you set the rates too high, most people just stay away...
To cover everything in some publications, you have to contact hundreds of freelancers. Even if you've got their phone #'s, this still takes quite a lot of time. And then there are the ones that retired or died -- tracking down people that have moved several times since they last sent you an article can be difficult and expensive, finding the heirs if the guy died is even harder.
It's possible that now that cash is in sight, the freelancers & their heirs will form an organization or hire an agency to represent them, to give the database makers one place (or a small number of agencies) to deal with, and to establish standard rates that are not so high as to kill the business. But freelancers being rather independent, you aren't going to see 100% of them joining...
meanwhile at slashdot ... (Score:4)
Stimulus: Hey, Mathworld [mathworld.com] is down! CRC Press [crcpress.com] is claiming ownership over the internet version of the work!
Response: Greedy corporate bastards! Think they can take away our free content!
Stimulus: Hey, the Supreme Court ruled that freelance authors have rights over the internet versions of their works!
Response: Greedy author bastards! Think they can take away our free content!
Sigh.
Hard copies in decline (Score:3)
Actually, Nicholson Baker has been raising a cry over this very issue [j-walk.com]; it seems that, in many cases, the libraries aren't keeping the hard copies. So the loss may be real.
-- MarkusQ
Freelancers Publishing Model (Score:3)
1. unique works by hard-to-find specialists
2. notable authors
3. fill gaps in their internal staff.
For the first two categories, you get what you pay for. If a publisher wants to produce specialty works in-house, then the publisher must significantly beef up their internal staff. This is nothing new. If you license something, you play by the rules, just like GNU.
For the gap-fillers, the standard contracts are virtually always to the benefit of the publisher
In conclusion, the author of this article is hyping the situation. The ruling only confirms freelancers rights and licensing rights, while not significantly changing works-for-hire or the honest web publishing business models.