‘Let’s ban talking about anything’
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- “This whole argument is premised on the assumption that we must save newspapers.”
That’s the third sentence in a Valleywag post.
The first two say »»»
The hot new idea among people who think about “journalism,” and the sanctity thereof: let’s ban linking, on the internet! Let’s also ban wheels, in order to save the horse industry. Let’s also ban talking about things!
The story goes on Richard Posner, “professional smart man and US Appeals Court judge who writes 23,000 words per day,” suggested, “banning links (and more!), so internet cannibals don’t keep stealing newspaper content for nothing”.
The story has Posner saying »»»
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.
Oh really?
‘A right, not a privilege’
p2pnet was sued by a guy named Wayne Crookes (right) who also tried to sue the Net. In the process, he virtually shut down Canada’ s print and electronic lamescream media outlets who’s owners and editors were afraid to say anything for fear of ending up on his (s)hit list.
News of his efforts virtually dried up on- and offline, but ultimately, “p2pnet is the winner in what’ll probably turn out to be round one of the battle between Vancouver businessman and ex-Green Party of Canada official Wayne Crookes, and those of us who believe freedom of speech online is a right, not a privilege,” we said shortly after the results of the case were made public.
BC Supreme Court judge Stephen Kelleher ruled in p2pnet’s favour in a landmark case in which Crookes tried to claim merely linking to an article amounts to publication.
“This is a very important precedent for internet law in Canada, confirming that website operators are not responsible for defamatory content on other websites to which they have merely linked,” says [then] Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) director Philippa Lawson.
“It’s also big win for free speech and for the internet as we know it.”
‘… things that happen in the world’
In Valleywag, “You can copyright a news story, but you can’t copyright the news,” writes Hamilton Nolan , going on »»»
“The news” just means “things that happen in the world.” What would it mean, in practice, to make it illegal to paraphrase a copyrighted news story? Summing up, for example, political events, or a sports controversy, or even a fashion trend, could be interpreted as paraphrasing copyrighted material. So let’s ban talking about anything.
And banning links will help us make our references even more obscure, by making it impossible for anyone to refer to source materials! Good idea, Posner. This gross oversimplification makes you look none too freedom-loving!
We all know journalism happens only at newspapers. Better to protect them at all costs than to invest in the murky “future.”
This idea is supported by a newspaper columnist! Connie Schultz, a columnist for the Cleveland Plain-Dealer (who’s married to a senator, btw, nothing to see here), also touts the idea of giving newspapers a 24-hour injunction on news they post, during which time it’s all theirs, and can’t be aggregated by others online.
A 24-hour injunction? Oh really?
But, “The idea that it’s worth crippling the entire free flow of information on the internet in order to add to the bottom line of newspaper companies is prima facie idiotic,” says Nolan, adding:
“I guess you could also help save newspapers by passing a law that everyone has to buy one every day, or by making it illegal for TV news to exist. That doesn’t make those things good ideas.
“If Bill Gates pledged to make it so computers could not be operated properly until the user could prove they had read today’s Cleveland Plain-Dealer that might save a reporter and he is a monster for not doing so, QED.”
(Cheers, Jazz)
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
Valleywag – Let’s Screw Up the Entire Internet to Save Newspapers, July 1, 2009
virtually shut down – Wayne Crookes sues the Internet, April 25, 2007
right, not a privilege – Wayne Crookes vs p2pnet: full decision, October 28, 2008
landmark case – p2pnet wins landmark ‘linking’ defamation case, , October 27, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
July 6th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Some people have trouble discerning the difference between print and the spoken word. Take this comment I’m writing right now. Do you see it as print or spoken? Personally I see it as being exactly the same as talking to everyone as if they were in the same room as me. Telling me I can’t write something is no different than telling me I’m not allowed to talk out loud either. Quite simply there is no better example of freedom and liberty than the internet (for the moment at least), which I suppose is why those with vested corporate interests hate it so much. They don’t believe anything in life should be free and that making money from even the most vague of ideas is their God given right. Basically what they want is the right to censor others without being censored themselves. Talk about sheer idiocy at it’s finest.
July 7th, 2009 at 12:09 am
Just ban copyright, now that’s a great idea.