4 ms·

According to the article, the judge decided that news reporting -- what blogs do -- is not transformative but is competitive with the AP. Taking enough of an ex

According to the article, the judge decided that news reporting -- what blogs do -- is not transformative but is competitive with the AP. Taking enough of an excerpt to get the gist of the story -- what reputable blogs do -- is taking "the heart" of the copyrighted work, which is now infringement according to the article. Blogs that add their own criticism and commentary, which rewrite the story in their own words, reduce the incentive to read the original story. The blog acts as a news site and a substitute for the original story, which according to the article strengthens a claim of copyright infringement. The circumstances in which criticism and commentary would justify a fair use defense just got tightened, as did the amount of an article that is considered a sufficiently small portion to be fair use.

anigbrowl 14y ago
According to the article, the judge decided that news reporting -- what blogs do Woah, hold up on that false premise there. reporting consists of gathering information and telling people about it by writing original content. Some blogs do this, but many just recycle incoming news and slap their own brand on top of it. And there are far more editorial blogs that basically consist of some blogger's opinion about the news than there are blogs engaged in actual newsgathering. If you're just quoting extracts of AP stories without doing any research, you're not reporting. And if you're rewriting, you're not infringing, because facts themselves are not copyrightable.
- Tangaroa 14y ago
  According to the article, the judge created a new standard that it is copyright infringement for a one-sentence clipping to be on a website that is a substitute news source in the sense that people go there to read the news. Any news and opinion blog qualifies under this new standard. This ruling changed copyright law and fair use. Adding your own original content, if it leads people to read your blog rather than click through to the AP article, enhances the claim of copyright infringement because your blog is now competing with the AP as a substitute source for news. Your original content no longer enhances your fair use defense, as it did before this ruling, but now enhances the copyright holder's claim of infringement. RTFA! We're not talking about what Meltwater did. We're not talking about blogs that mindlessly copy and paste content. We're not talking about what used to be considered fair use before this new ruling that changed the law. We're talking about the new standard laid down by Judge Denise Cote that would make copyright infingers of every ordinary blogger who played by the rules of what the rules were last week. That new standard is that if people might view your blog as a place to read the news, you are guilty of copyright infringement if you quote as much as a single sentence of another person's news article. RTFA!
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    I did read the article, and think your interpretation of what is says is quite wrong. I also read the opinion, in which discussion of the issue starts around page 28. It does not support your argument at all. That new standard is that if people might view your blog as a place to read the news, you are guilty of copyright infringement if you quote as much as a single sentence of another person's news article. LOL no. This is so far off the marks that I think any attempt at explaining it is going to be waste of time. If you seriously disagree, I invite you to cite to the opinion in making your argument. For example, on the 'transformative nature of the work' test (p.32) the court had this to say: Neither the purpose nor use of the Meltwater News Reports,nor its excerpts from the Registered Articles in the NewsReports, is transformative. Meltwater uses its computer programs to automatically capture and republish designated segments of text from news articles, without adding any commentary or insight in its News Reports. Meltwater copies AP content in order to make money directly from the undiluted use of the copyrighted material; this is the central feature of its business model and not an incidental consequence of the use to which it puts the copyrighted material. Thus, it is not surprising that Meltwater’s own marketing materials convey an intent to serve as a substitute for AP’s news service. This directly contradicts your claim that adding your own original content enhances the claim of copyright infringement. In fact, the exact opposite is true.

anigbrowl 14y ago

According to the article, the judge decided that news reporting -- what blogs do Woah, hold up on that false premise there. reporting consists of gathering information and telling people about it by writing original content. Some blogs do this, but many just recycle incoming news and slap their own brand on top of it. And there are far more editorial blogs that basically consist of some blogger's opinion about the news than there are blogs engaged in actual newsgathering. If you're just quoting extracts of AP stories without doing any research, you're not reporting. And if you're rewriting, you're not infringing, because facts themselves are not copyrightable.

Tangaroa 14y ago
According to the article, the judge created a new standard that it is copyright infringement for a one-sentence clipping to be on a website that is a substitute news source in the sense that people go there to read the news. Any news and opinion blog qualifies under this new standard. This ruling changed copyright law and fair use. Adding your own original content, if it leads people to read your blog rather than click through to the AP article, enhances the claim of copyright infringement because your blog is now competing with the AP as a substitute source for news. Your original content no longer enhances your fair use defense, as it did before this ruling, but now enhances the copyright holder's claim of infringement. RTFA! We're not talking about what Meltwater did. We're not talking about blogs that mindlessly copy and paste content. We're not talking about what used to be considered fair use before this new ruling that changed the law. We're talking about the new standard laid down by Judge Denise Cote that would make copyright infingers of every ordinary blogger who played by the rules of what the rules were last week. That new standard is that if people might view your blog as a place to read the news, you are guilty of copyright infringement if you quote as much as a single sentence of another person's news article. RTFA!
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  I did read the article, and think your interpretation of what is says is quite wrong. I also read the opinion, in which discussion of the issue starts around page 28. It does not support your argument at all. That new standard is that if people might view your blog as a place to read the news, you are guilty of copyright infringement if you quote as much as a single sentence of another person's news article. LOL no. This is so far off the marks that I think any attempt at explaining it is going to be waste of time. If you seriously disagree, I invite you to cite to the opinion in making your argument. For example, on the 'transformative nature of the work' test (p.32) the court had this to say: Neither the purpose nor use of the Meltwater News Reports,nor its excerpts from the Registered Articles in the NewsReports, is transformative. Meltwater uses its computer programs to automatically capture and republish designated segments of text from news articles, without adding any commentary or insight in its News Reports. Meltwater copies AP content in order to make money directly from the undiluted use of the copyrighted material; this is the central feature of its business model and not an incidental consequence of the use to which it puts the copyrighted material. Thus, it is not surprising that Meltwater’s own marketing materials convey an intent to serve as a substitute for AP’s news service. This directly contradicts your claim that adding your own original content enhances the claim of copyright infringement. In fact, the exact opposite is true.