I think I’ll mosey on over to that podunk rag’s website, and see if the paragraph he added to the blogger’s original article was a defense of this apparently not-to-be-fucked-with “lawman”. I smell a small-town newspaper/redneck sheriff buddy-buddy relationship in the wind…

Unfortunately I’m seeing this exact argument more and more frequently here and on gizmodo. :-(  Never ever found a way to get through a single point to anyone who has ever made this sort of argument.  They seem to be the only ones not open to learning from their peers.  *sighs*

There is NO DISCREPANCY.

Boing Boing has always been pro-freedom and openness AND supportive of artists and content creators.  Those are not contradictory stances, but actually complimentary ones.  Content creators cannot create in a vaccum and in fact openness is crucial to the creation process.  Most everything wonderful that man has ever created has been created on top of previous ideas, knowledge, techniques, influences, inspirations, and could not have been created otherwise.  Art and creation is a naturally collaborative and responsive endeavor.

Those that would seek to lock everything down are actually hindering creation and collaboration, and are stealing from the commons for self benefit.

This blogger’s article could be freely read by anyone.  Any user could make a personal copy of their article to read later on any device.  They could print out a copy to share with a friend.  They could reasonably quote this article, or use the information contained to write their own new articles creating a derivative work.  These are all pro-freedon and individual rights activities.  They are to be encouraged.

What they cannot and should not do is copy it wholesale, claim it as their own, and make money off of distributing the copies.

Do you see the difference and where the line was crossed?

Filesharing is all covered under the former, personal copies for personal use.  Same as taping a song off the radio or taping your favorite show to watch later or reading a book from the library or borrowing a book from a friend, etc.

That is not what this was, this was copying not by an individual, but by a newspaper, who stole the piece and printed it as their own with no attribution, and who makes money off of the distribution of papers.  That is why the blogger was due fair compensation.

It isn’t like he was going after some grandma for $50,000 for printing off his article so she could read it at the dinner table.  That is equivalent to what the big media barons would have us believe is acceptable, they are the true thieves, not those sharing freely.  Only one group is stealing and ending up with tons of money at the expense of consumers and artists.

Are you implying that you comments here make you as bad as the newspaper guy?

the blogger did the right thing, had the newspaper guy acted politely as most people would, this would be a non issue and we would never have seen this video.  *BECAUSE* the newspaper guy is an a-hat and has obviously done this quite often, he was shown to be an a-hole by his own actions and behavior.  the video wasn’t edited, the blogger didn’t make him look bad, he did that all on his own.

Take a look at the video again. At 3:21, after the blogger says “…and I would like payment for it.” you will see him do what is called a ‘tongue jut’.

That is the classic sign of someone who thinks he just got away with something. It follows logically from his aggressive actions earlier (doing what he could to look larger, stepping into the blogger’s personal space) as a ‘fight’ reaction to a fearful situation. We can’t know what he was expecting that was ‘worse’ than being told he would have to pay; perhaps he has experienced this situation before or had heard of someone who got raked over the coals for this kind of a screw-up. Whatever the case, inside he was dancing.

Personally, I think the blogger screwed up slightly. The demand should have been ‘payment for it and an inclusion in the next edition to the effect that ‘Article XXX printed in the Month, Date, Year edition failed to note that it was written by X.Y. Zee.’

But if he’s happy with his $500 and youtube video that’s his business.

(And, since the Podunk Times Intelligencer probably isn’t know for its in-house legal eagles, it is pretty likely that the wronged party could get a lawyer to kick your ass on contingency while you would have to pay for your own…)

I just think it’s funny that the publisher didn’t even try to haggle over the guy’s rates.

“If registration is made within three months after publica­tion of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney’s fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.”

So. And.

This is all evidenced by his body language and facial expressions up until the moment he realizes there is a camera, and further supported by the “get your ass out of my building” at the end, with the “bull shit” memo on the check.   The guy was furious that he’d been caught and placed into a situation he could not easily extricate himself without making amends first. 

The editor clearly knew he was doing something illegal at worst, entirely unethical at best, but he assumed none of his readers would ever notice.   Woops!

That, my friend, is not an apology.  That is a dismissal.  That is “You are irrelevant and so is your blog and I will steal from it again.  What are you going to do about it, you young punk?”

“Downloading a copy of Little Mermaid that you were never going to buy doesn’t cost anyone any money”

Well, neither does reprinting a freely available article. It doesn’t make the paper’s actions any less wrong. The argument that you were never going to buy it, but are going to enjoy something anyway isn’t a good one here. It is a good argument against overblown industry statements of the “losses” generated by piracy, but not here. If it is okay to take and use something that isn’t yours, I think that arguing it is turning a profit off of that act that is what makes it wrong just doesn’t hold water. It shouldn’t matter if it was a local newspaper or a high school newspaper. These actions were wrong.

I think that just simply stating that they had no right to use the article and thus the blogger had a rightful expectation to be paid is the way to go.

http://theava.com/