Dan Kennedy via Guardian; How not to defend newspapers:
"How badly did the Cleveland Plain Dealer's Ted Diadiun screw up in his now-infamous video in which he disparaged bloggers as "pipsqueaks", wrongly claimed that blogs steal content and hailed newspapers as the only legitimate source of journalism?...
Diadiun is the Plain Dealer's "reader representative", a position roughly analogous to those held by New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt and Washington Post ombudsman Andy Alexander. That is, he is the paper's in-house critic, fielding complaints and comments from readers...
Diadiun's downfall began with a colleague's bad idea. On 5 July, he wrote approvingly of a column by Connie Schultz in which she promoted a proposal to change the copyright law. The proposal – similar to one advanced by federal appeals-court judge Richard Posner – would ban bloggers and aggregators from linking to copyrighted content without permission for 24 hours after publication...
He did stick to his guns on the need for news organisations to get paid for their content. On that many of us would agree – though the copyright revision of which he and Schultz are so enamoured is stunningly awful, and possibly a violation of the first amendment."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jul/15/ted-diadiun-plain-dealer-bloggers
Showing posts with label First Amendment issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label First Amendment issues. Show all posts
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Thursday, July 2, 2009
District Court Bans 'Catcher In The Rye' Sequel; Since When Did The US Ban Books?; TechDirt, 7/2/09
Mike Masnick via TechDirt; District Court Bans 'Catcher In The Rye' Sequel; Since When Did The US Ban Books?:
"The rest of the discussion on the four factors fair use test is rather troubling...
Stunningly, the judge even points out that the stories have similar arcs (which isn't surprising), but to claim that because of a similar story arc there's infringement is incredibly troubling for pretty much any writer. After all, people write stories with similar arcs all the time.
Finally, and perhaps most disturbing of all, is her finding on the fourth prong, concerning the impact on the market for the copyrighted work, she actually finds that this weighs against fair use. Again, the logic simply does not add up. The judge admits that it probably would not negatively impact the actual demand for Catcher in the Rye, she actually ignores the fact that the opposite would likely occur. If anything, it will drive more people to go out and buy copies of the original to read (or, more likely in many cases to re-read) to go along with this new book. The judge's reasoning is that this book would harm the market for an actual sequel, but again, that's difficult to square with reality. If JD Salinger announced he was writing a sequel... that would make tremendous news, and it would be quite clear that people would rush to get the "real" sequel. Even if he were to license it (which appears to be the judge's main concern) to someone else to write (which seems insanely unlikely given Salinger's actions to date), people would quickly learn of the "authorized" vs. "unauthorized" versions. It's difficult to see how it would harm the market at all.
This is a very troubling ruling that seems to go against the very basics of copyright law in many, many ways. Hopefully, the ruling does not stand for very long."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090702/0125045432.shtml
"The rest of the discussion on the four factors fair use test is rather troubling...
Stunningly, the judge even points out that the stories have similar arcs (which isn't surprising), but to claim that because of a similar story arc there's infringement is incredibly troubling for pretty much any writer. After all, people write stories with similar arcs all the time.
Finally, and perhaps most disturbing of all, is her finding on the fourth prong, concerning the impact on the market for the copyrighted work, she actually finds that this weighs against fair use. Again, the logic simply does not add up. The judge admits that it probably would not negatively impact the actual demand for Catcher in the Rye, she actually ignores the fact that the opposite would likely occur. If anything, it will drive more people to go out and buy copies of the original to read (or, more likely in many cases to re-read) to go along with this new book. The judge's reasoning is that this book would harm the market for an actual sequel, but again, that's difficult to square with reality. If JD Salinger announced he was writing a sequel... that would make tremendous news, and it would be quite clear that people would rush to get the "real" sequel. Even if he were to license it (which appears to be the judge's main concern) to someone else to write (which seems insanely unlikely given Salinger's actions to date), people would quickly learn of the "authorized" vs. "unauthorized" versions. It's difficult to see how it would harm the market at all.
This is a very troubling ruling that seems to go against the very basics of copyright law in many, many ways. Hopefully, the ruling does not stand for very long."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090702/0125045432.shtml
Friday, June 19, 2009
US publication of book delayed in Salinger dispute; Associated Press, 6/17/09
Larry Neumeister via Associated Press; US publication of book delayed in Salinger dispute:
"U.S. District Judge Deborah Batts temporarily blocked publication of the book, "60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye," until she rules whether the book transforms Salinger's original creation enough that it qualifies to be published as a "fair use" of a copyrighted work.
A ruling was anticipated in the next 10 days. The book was scheduled for U.S. release on Sept. 15 but the court dispute was likely to delay that...
She said she read both novels and agreed with Salinger that the new book was substantially similar to his own, published in 1951. Although there was little legal precedent to find that a character in a book with no drawings or photographs of him could be copyrighted, Batts said she believed Caufield could be.
"It's a portrait by words," she said. "It is difficult in fact to separate Holden Caulfield from the book
The hearing featured spirited arguments over whether Salinger's most famous literary character, Holden Caufield, is himself entitled to copyright protection and whether stopping publication of what some publicity materials referred to as a sequel would amount to a book ban.
[Fredrik] Colting, who lives near Gothenburg, Sweden, said in a court document that he did not "slavishly copy" Salinger when he wrote "60 Years Later," his first novel, under the pseudonym J.D. California.
"I am not a pirate," he wrote. He said he wrote the book as a critical exploration of the relationship between Salinger and his famous fictional character.
He said he used his book to transform "the precocious and authentic Holden into a 76-year-old man fraught with indecision and insecurity." The character, identified as "Mr. C," escapes from a retirement home and experiences similar to those Caulfield went through decades earlier.
He said his dedication of the book to Salinger was ironic.
"While I greatly admire Salinger as a writer, he is not the God-Author the public has created," Colting wrote. He also said it was a mistake that early copies of the book released in Great Britain included words promoting it as a sequel to Salinger's book.
During arguments Wednesday, Salinger lawyer Marcia Beth Paul called Colting's book "pure commercialism." She said 94 percent of the book was told in Caufield's voice and only 6 percent in Salinger's voice.
"This is a book about Holden Caulfield," Paul said. "It's a sequel, plain and simple."
She said it was wrong of the defendants to claim that blocking publication of the book because it infringes copyrights would be the same as banning a book. Salinger's book has frequently turned up on book ban lists.
"Make no mistake about it," Rosenthal charged in response. "This is banning the book."
He added: "To enjoin the book before a full exploration of the book is a prior restraint that raises very serious First Amendment questions.""
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jBf9ALIEy3wQYsMPHAEVM370POkgD98SMA901
"U.S. District Judge Deborah Batts temporarily blocked publication of the book, "60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye," until she rules whether the book transforms Salinger's original creation enough that it qualifies to be published as a "fair use" of a copyrighted work.
A ruling was anticipated in the next 10 days. The book was scheduled for U.S. release on Sept. 15 but the court dispute was likely to delay that...
She said she read both novels and agreed with Salinger that the new book was substantially similar to his own, published in 1951. Although there was little legal precedent to find that a character in a book with no drawings or photographs of him could be copyrighted, Batts said she believed Caufield could be.
"It's a portrait by words," she said. "It is difficult in fact to separate Holden Caulfield from the book
The hearing featured spirited arguments over whether Salinger's most famous literary character, Holden Caufield, is himself entitled to copyright protection and whether stopping publication of what some publicity materials referred to as a sequel would amount to a book ban.
[Fredrik] Colting, who lives near Gothenburg, Sweden, said in a court document that he did not "slavishly copy" Salinger when he wrote "60 Years Later," his first novel, under the pseudonym J.D. California.
"I am not a pirate," he wrote. He said he wrote the book as a critical exploration of the relationship between Salinger and his famous fictional character.
He said he used his book to transform "the precocious and authentic Holden into a 76-year-old man fraught with indecision and insecurity." The character, identified as "Mr. C," escapes from a retirement home and experiences similar to those Caulfield went through decades earlier.
He said his dedication of the book to Salinger was ironic.
"While I greatly admire Salinger as a writer, he is not the God-Author the public has created," Colting wrote. He also said it was a mistake that early copies of the book released in Great Britain included words promoting it as a sequel to Salinger's book.
During arguments Wednesday, Salinger lawyer Marcia Beth Paul called Colting's book "pure commercialism." She said 94 percent of the book was told in Caufield's voice and only 6 percent in Salinger's voice.
"This is a book about Holden Caulfield," Paul said. "It's a sequel, plain and simple."
She said it was wrong of the defendants to claim that blocking publication of the book because it infringes copyrights would be the same as banning a book. Salinger's book has frequently turned up on book ban lists.
"Make no mistake about it," Rosenthal charged in response. "This is banning the book."
He added: "To enjoin the book before a full exploration of the book is a prior restraint that raises very serious First Amendment questions.""
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jBf9ALIEy3wQYsMPHAEVM370POkgD98SMA901
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)