« We get email: 'Cease and Desist from Copyright Infringement' — from Andrew C. Carington, Esq., Associate General Counsel for Media General | Home | Glue Dots »
January 31, 2008
Media General v bookofjoe — How it all began
I know you haven't been able to get anything done since this morning's opening salvo in what will come to be known as the bookofjoe Media General Cease and Desist War of 2008 (and perhaps beyond, who knows?).
Catchy name, what?
No doubt you've been waiting for the promised other shoe to drop.
Wait no longer, friends: the time has come to show what I've got.
Below, my first email, received last Thursday, January 24, 2008, from Matthew Rosenberg, Central Viriginia Content Coordinator for Media General.
....................
I wrote back as follows:
....................
Here's a live version of the link just above, so you can see what Matthew saw.
He responded:
....................
And that's where things stood until yesterday afternoon, when Andrew C. Carington, Esq. arrived on the scene.
In the next episode of this tempest in a teapot, I will reveal to the world the contents of Mr. Carington's letter, attached to paralegal Cameron W. Keys's email.
Stay tuned.
January 31, 2008 at 10:01 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5dea53ef00e550012efe8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Media General v bookofjoe — How it all began:
Comments
I've always been uncomfortable with how you post the whole text of articles. That does not seem to fall under the categories of Fair Use that I am aware of. From the 1976 Copyright Act:
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.
Your site is clearly non-commercial, so you get a pass on (1). I don't know what (2) means. You lose on (3), and I think (4) leans against you as well. Overall, I think you should err on the site of prudence and respect, and reprint only the first couple of paragraphs. As far as Media General's approach goes, their initial approach was among the most reasonable and gracious messages of this type I have ever seen.
Regarding the comment by "anatares" (sic), I don't think it's his or your place to decide what's good for Media General's business. Forcing a favor on someone is no favor at all.
Posted by: K | Feb 14, 2008 11:58:05 AM
My standard ethical approach is to treat others as I would want to be treated.
The reporter makes a good point. Why would anyone pay his salary (in the form of looking at ads on his website) if they can get his work for free on Joe's site?
If I were Joe, I would do what is done on http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ They just print the first couple of paragraphs of the article and then include a link to the original to those who want to read more.
If I were Joe, I would also change the behavior of links on his site so they open up a new tab rather than take me away to the other site.
I hope things are resolved to my ethical satisfaction. If Joe's policy doesn't change, then I will have to stop visiting his site so as not to violate my own principles.
Posted by: David Weston | Jan 31, 2008 1:24:09 PM
"Hurting people who are trying to do good work"
He doesn't take himself too seriously, does he?
Posted by: Mark | Jan 31, 2008 11:41:15 AM
Two obvious arguments favor Dr Joe Stint:
1. Fair Use.
Fair Use is permitted within current copyright law. I do not know the current state of copyright law decisions on internet publications, but I think that -- in the internet context -- quoting an article in full and providing the URL to the original publication and posting comments about the text qualify as Fair Use. (But I would want the written opinion of a practicing copyright lawyer who was familiar with the current state of the Fair Use doctrine vis-a-vis the internet before I bet money on this argument.)
2. Visibility.
Mr Rosenberg's argument is that the Daily Progress is losing money because Book of Joe reproduces the article in full; that is, readers do not visit his site because they read his stuff at Book of Joe.
2.1. Burden of Proof.
Mr Rosenberg made the assertion. He has the Burden of Proof. I bet he cannot substantiate that assertion with evidence. He might be able to persuade an elderly, computer-illerate judge but this story will not get past twelve jurors if any of them have experience browsing the internet.
2.2. Not the way people use the internet.
I did not know Media General existed before this. Because Book of Joe gives a link, Media General has more visibility on the internet, not less.
Think of a mall layout. Does Macy's complain because the anchor at the other end is its competitor, Sears? No. Macy's knows its numbers. Any increase in foot traffic at the mall benefits Macy's because some of them will visit Macy's and some of those will buy.
Same with the internet. The more sites that link to a site the greater the traffic and the greater the income from advertising. (No data to back that up, unfortunately.)
Mr Matthew's implication that Daily Progress loses traffic because Book of Joe provides the article in full is contrary to the way people use the internet. His thinking reflects a paper (newspaper) mentality -- I bought the morning paper so I don't need to buy the afternoon paper.
So Joe . . . do you really want to wage war against Media General?
Promise Mr Matthews that you will never quote any of his articles again; that you will never link to any of his sites again; and that you will spread the word among your fellow bloggers to do likewise so that the Daily Progress does not suffer any further copyright infringement.
My money says the decrease in traffic will cause his ad business to dry up in 6 months.
Oh, yeah. Almost forgot. I have a law degree and a bar card. But this is not legal advice, and you should not construe it to be legal advice nor act upon it. Before taking any further steps, consult a licensed, practicing copyright attorney.
Posted by: anatares | Jan 31, 2008 11:17:26 AM
