It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Newspaper Chain's New Business Plan: Copyright Suits

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 07:59 AM

Originally posted by darkmaninperth

If not me, then whom?

The artist

I'm sure the owners of old time music halls never thought that their business model would die the same way that recording labels business models are dying.

It is simply evolution. You either adapt or die out.

No, it's piracy and it should be clamped down on.

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 08:26 AM

Originally posted by john_bmth
The artist

How about society. Society are ones to have laws changed or repealed. It looks like cannabis may be legalised in California.

No, it's piracy and it should be clamped down on.


Why should it? Are film studios losing money? This shows that box office takings are up since 1996.

'Piracy' increases brand awareness.

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 08:33 AM
1) The law is on the artist's side
2) The artist should be the decider of whether to charge for their art or not

It is not for you to decide, it is not for "society" to decide, it is for the artist to decide. You don't like then don't buy. If you choose to steal, I'm not going to stop you but please spare me the cognitive rationalizations. How about if I choose to arbitrarily decide whether you get paid for your work or not?

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 09:26 AM
reply to post by john_bmth

Yeah, too bad the artist doesn't get the chance to decide if they are signed with a big record company. They actually most times lose all rights to everything, including their own voice!

I am all for an independant artist deciding whether or not to sell cds and such and pursue piracy claims. Seems like in every case where they go with an inexpensive per song model or generate revenue solely from performances and merchandising, they garner a lot more respect and loyalty from their fan base.

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 09:52 AM
Once again the truth and reality of the 'copyright' issue crops up again. Is copyright meant to protect one's work or to deny others from sourcing and using it freely to gain better perspectives and progress?

If Socrates or Plato, or Aristotle had copyrighted their works, would we have the intellectual progress we are now enlightened with?

What next? The Bible, Koran and all other religious texts be copyrighted as well, each and everyone to pay for qoutes used? Pay to who and how much?

May the greedy capitalistic entreprenuer who hit on the idea to buy up copyrighted works and than seek to profit from it be bankrupted when all mankind awakens...

Edit to add:- There is a false commercialized presumption that made mankind believe should financial returns not be be given, then creative works will never be published or created.

This is a lie and false. Thoughout history of humanity, there are 2 kinds of capable humans who will create creative and unique works.

One kind is based upon the Narcassism philosophy. Their ego needs to be nourished, and thus the willingness to crack their cranium and come up with astounding works, even for free. It is their ego to be adulated that payment comes from.

Another kind are those of noble hearts who only wish to share their knowledge and creativeness with others for free. Progress and evolution is their payment in return.

But as times progress and fed with the greed culture, it becomes a right to be paid for such works, twisting and regressing only humanity.

Perform a test. Stop paying for creative works and see what happens. Chances are, creative works will still be created.

Only those who seek to profit from such creativeness will be the ones to suffer - our greedy masters, who had even DARED to attempt to make us pay for the air we breathe using the now widely known climategate scandal. Wake up, my fellow brothers and sisters.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by SeekerofTruth101]

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Nyhee
I think the site owner is disheartened tonight by the cold reception of that truce, but it is still on the plate, I think.

I had a late evening after a busy day, and didn't even see the email until after midnight (my time)... so there has not be any "reception" at this point.

However, we're in a tough spot as any email I send will most certainly be posted in public (as he's done in the past), and any public commentary on pending litigation strategy is exceptionally poor judgement.

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 10:27 AM
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

How have you managed to link philosophy and religious texts to the entertainment industry? Spare me the babble, you can justify it in your own head all you want, bottom line is it's the artist's decision, not yours wrapped up in some psuedo-humanitarian claptrap.

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 11:22 AM
I think this is truly underhanded and despicable behavior.

I understand his intentions, making money for himself and the media outlets, but come on! This is blatant abuse of the copyright act.


Copyright Law of the United States of America
and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code
Chapter 1
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. 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.

Edit: Added link

[edit on 7/23/10 by thov420]

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 11:49 AM
reply to post by darkmaninperth

Sorry, ATS is having to deal with this! Sounds like another attempt to shut down free speech. So exactly what is it legal to do on a website such as this or what is the best way to avoid causing ATS more headaches? Can we copy the articles themselves? Or is it better to post the link? Or better to just post your opinion and have others go to the actual link to view it for themselves.

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Crakeur
we would like the members to refrain from using this forum to badmouth the folks suing us.

Ok. These ....... ........ are nothing but .... .... that should be ....... ... .... ... ...... and .... ... ....... .... .. ...

Also, i hope this ...... guy .... ...... and .... ........

That's all i have to say about that.

Sorry, i just had to express my infuriation while at the same time obeying your wishes. I feel better now.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by elcapitano75]

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 12:39 PM

Originally posted by 1curious1
Can we copy the articles themselves?

Our long-standing policy, based on our insistence that our members respect the work of others, has not changed. Members who want to use external content, such as a news story, should post a small relevant snippet from the content, then post a link.

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 12:49 PM
Looks like another attempt to take away our freedom of speech,these people are probably working for the NWO. SCUMBAG'S!

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:14 PM
I fully sympathise with ATS on its good job it had done in helping to spread awareness, and instead of being thanked for it, there are greedy souls out there that seek to gain substantial profits through the legal avenue to fill their empty worthless and meaningless lives.

But there is a solution to all these miscarriage of justice.

I for one, hereby in writing, fully authorise ATS to reveal my IP address to the authorities if I had used any of their sources. It was me who was responsible, and not ATS, for it was in my post that linked such information, and let them sue me.

I don't have much, and anything that is a value to the greedy souls is my circa 2004 Pentium 4 computer worth $20. If that is what they want to bankrupt me using legal means and spending hundreds of thousands to fight the case in an objective court system, then by all means, be my guest, for I have nothing. I work and do not own a biz and live by rentals. I may lose, but still, if the judge and jury are awakened, I may still win. The loss is on their side.

If it is the authoratative PTB that seeks to condemn me as a terrorist, then by all means. Track me down and send me for torture. Haul me to court or kill me outright. It is only my life and no one else.

This is a stand WE, the PEOPLE must make to regain our freedom. Just as TPTB put fear into us, so too must we react in kind. Just as TPTB sought to intimidate us, so to must we do the same. Ultimately, they will lose, for they are the minority, while we are the majority.

How much trillions do they have to lose before taking on EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US? How much time do TPTB have to torture and murder us all before they neglect their own duties to the State and lose their credibility for power?

Initially, some will be sacrificed by TPTB and greed filled animals. I will not turn from such fate and instead opt to let me be the first, for I have nothing. In the end, when the futility of their cause is realized, for WE, the PEOPLE are the many, they will be booted out.

A coward dies many times, but the brave dies only once, and we all will die ultimately one die too, so why not for a good cause that will further the progress and evolution of humanity by awakening others to a better shared future of enlightenment for progress and evolution?

My only request, and not a demand, to ATS is that it must know what to do with its profits earned from advertising revenue - to help create more awareness so that NO human will be left behind in ignorance or manipulation.

Cheers,...and Peace.

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:14 PM
Easy Solution.

1.Boycot and actively protest against the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

2.Protest and Demonize any other news outfit associated with Righthaven and it's CEO.

3.Dig up as much dirt on the CEO of Righthaven as you can and spread it everywhere.

4.Have fun mocking these people in every way you can.

Something this stupid could include a blogger just "linking" a site in a normal blog post. In which case the News organizations he represents would get far less traffic than they do now. I'm not sure what this idiot is thinking, but he sure isn't thinking about his clients.

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:21 PM

Originally posted by Crakeur

The idea that these guys are using software to troll the internet, seeking out links to their own site and then suing anyone who is attempting to drive traffic back to their site is odd, given that linking from a site with higher traffic should result in an increase in traffic on their site. This is made all the more odd when you actually go to their site and see that they offer you tips on posting links to facebook. I guess Facebook's users posting links and snippets is cool but ours isn't.

This is, in a sense, an attempt at stifling freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

This is exactly what is happening.

The basis of this lawsuit would result in massive ramifications for just about every single site on the internet. Facebook, Digg, Myspace, etc. Don't sweat it ATS.

If money is an issue to fight this suit then lets start a donation and get rockin'.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by aravoth]

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:22 PM

Originally posted by darkmaninperth

Newspaper Chain's New Business Plan: Copyright Suits

Bill Irvine of Phoenix says he is fighting infringement allegations targeting, the site he controls under The Above Network. The site is accused of infringing a Review-Journal article on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Read More
(visit the link for the full news article)

Related News Links:

I wonder how they are going to get over the FAIR USE act?

Maybe ATS should have one of their legal eagles write a page about "legal use / fair use)

Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test.

Now, I myself run a small news site and I have a "fair use" notice on it.

The problem with people who run websites is that they are too easy to find when there is a TON of ways to have your site online while it is completely secured and it's IP address points to a location 10s of miles away from its "real" location...

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:22 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:28 PM
reply to post by john_bmth

Can you be sued for "loaning" out a CD? Recording a song off the radio? Are you allowed to play music from your MP3 collection at a barbecue full of people who have never heard that music before?

When you drive a car should you have to turn you volume down and roll your windows up so that you are not infringing someones copyright by allowing the whole neighborhood to hear a song without purchasing it?

My office could be sued because it only buys one newspaper, but 16 people read it.

Why buy music if you can only listen to it on headphones? Why buy a newspaper if you can't give your buddy the sports section? Are we not allowed to loan out a book anymore?

The arguments behind Intellectual Property do not hold water in the real world.

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:29 PM
reply to post by john_bmth

Actually i think it was perfectly relevant to bring up philosophy, since philosophy has a lot to do with these issues, to a lot of us. But i agree with you that, in as far as, if you don't like it, don't buy it. I no longer give a cent to any art from any organization that was or is "sue-happy", ever since they started suing individuals. But hey most people don't really care. So on it goes, at some point we will sue our economy right out of existence.

©2010 elcapitano75

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:33 PM
For years, John, Bob and Jimmy have met at the local coffeee shop in the morning to discuss the morning newspaper and visit each other. They took turns buying the newspaper and coffee for each other and on this day it was Jimmy's turn. He arrived a little before 7 AM followed by Bob, and as usual, John was the last one there. But this day turned out to be different than any other. A gentleman entered the shop, sat down at the counter and ordered a cup of coffee. He looked around briefly and then walked toward Jimmy's table as he reached into his pocket. He identified himself as William Breckersby, newly appointed CPE (Copyright Protection Enforcement) officer. He explained to them that they were no longer allowed to discuss the newspaper together since only one of them had purchased the paper. If they would like to continue their daily discussions they would all need to purchase the newspaper which would entitle them the rights to discuss copyrighted material among themselves, and only themselves.

Is this what's next?

Originally posted by Druidae
Just in case anyone wanted to contact these clowns to let them know how we feel about their B.S. lawsuits. For you unemployed folk, I may have found a new hobby for you. How many porn sites and free trials can you subscribe someone to in a day?

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in