Share a News Story With Coworkers, Pay a Fine

An anonymous reader sends us to InfoWorld for news that Knowledge Networks, an analyst firm, has settled a copyright complaint, agreeing to pay the Software and Information Industry Association $300,000 for sharing copyrighted news articles internally with employees.

Re:Huh?

[MontyApollo]

A normal person would not have been fined that much. It was a corporation using the copyrighted material in the process of conducting business. I'm not sure they were even fined or if this is just a number they agreed to pay.

They could have just sent links to the original articles and saved all the hassle.

Re:Article Text

[Frymaster]

On /. there is no such thing as a true "anonymous" post.

how about with:
the cloak [the-cloak.com]
tor [eff.org]

Re:Think again.

[pthor1231]

Can you tell me how I'm supposed to pass an electronic copy of an article or whole newspaper to my co-worker, without making a copy?

Simple, send him/her a link to the source of the article. Co-worker sees the article, original content provider gets their ad money.

Re:Article Text

[ajs]

... must now pay the fine of $300,000 immediately, or be subjected to further lawsuits.

You're taking this out of context. This suit was over a company using a publishing service's news reports internally to conduct their business (marketing research) without licensing the copyrighted material. This is just dumb, and they deserved the fine (presumably assessed with respect to how much it would have cost to license the news for internal use, plus legal fees).

Simply re-publishing a single article from InfoWorld on Slashdot isn't even remotely comparable.

Re:Article Text

[FreakWent]

If the argument has legs, it 'stands up'; in court, to scrutiny, or what have you. An argument with legs is either logically valid or at least convincing to an audience.

A preposterous argument is ridiculous; clearly absurd, and the motives, intelligence or sanity of the person proposing the argument should be examined.

Now the idea that damage due to copyright infringement is only possible if it is done for financial gain does 'have legs', at least in the sense that it would convince many people. However, the idea is not preposterous.

The best I can give you is that "The idea that criminal charges due to copyright infringement is only possible if it is done for financial gain, or if the copyright work is commercially traded is misinformed".

I hope this clarifies the matter.

Re:Article Text

[infaustus]

I was under the impression that most tor exit node IPs were b& from slashdot...

Re:Article Text

[dosquatch]

IANAL, yours, mine or otherwise. My language is meant for communication with other human beings, not to be taken as courtroom legalese. I understand that nowhere in copyright law do the words "personal use" exist as such.

I also wish to state that most of my direct exposure to copyright law has been in educational settings, and for educational purposes. I understand that educational use gets some additional sway in what is acceptable. Nonetheless, a quick Google search brings me this:

paragraph 8 (by my count): Your instructor is limited under copyright law to make one copy for his personal use and to place one copy on library reserve. [...] Every student is allowed under copyright law to make one copy of a magazine article for personal use. [northern.edu]

Like I said, quick Google search, but I've seen this elsewhere. I have no desire to dig through the actual statutes to cite chapter and verse where this comes from in the Act, but I trust it's there.

Re:Article Text

[BalanceOfJudgement]

paragraph 8 (by my count): Your instructor is limited under copyright law to make one copy for his personal use and to place one copy on library reserve. [...] Every student is allowed under copyright law to make one copy of a magazine article for personal use. [northern.edu]

Like I said, quick Google search, but I've seen this elsewhere. I have no desire to dig through the actual statutes to cite chapter and verse where this comes from in the Act, but I trust it's there.

17 U.S.C. 107 [cornell.edu] states that under fair use, multiple copies can be made for educational purposes. It does not address the means, suggesting the means are irrelevant (that is, it doesn't matter if the professor transcribes them by hand or uses the University's copy service).