Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Richard Posner: Expand Copyright Protections to Save Newspapers!
Judge Richard Posner, pondering (Posnering?) the troubled current state of what was one of the most profitable industries of the 20th century, attempts to think outside the bun:
Expanding copyright law to bar online access to copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's consent, or to bar linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's consent, might be necessary to keep free riding on content financed by online newspapers from so impairing the incentive to create costly news-gathering operations that news services like Reuters and the Associated Press would become the only professional, nongovernmental sources of news and opinion.
I'm with Jeff Jarvis: Good God. The scary thing here is not necessarily that we will see some new federal law requiring that the L.A. Times give expressed written consent every time I link to one of its pieces, but rather that some damn fool freedom-reducing scheme like this is likely to be introduced at the federal level in the not-too-distant future, given the economic and political clout of these very large, very troubled, and very connected organizations. And the fact that a respected judge is so breezy about jigging the nation's laws to prop up a single struggling industry reminds us afresh how ingrained is the bias toward seeing the government as a cost-and consquence-free solution to anything perceived as a problem.
Xeones|6.26.09 @ 2:02PM|#
or to bar linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted
materials without the copyright holder's
consent
Shut the fuck up, Dick Posner.
|6.26.09 @ 2:05PM|#
This article shows why people no matter how well meaning or smart should ever be given any kind of unchecked responsibility. Posner is a brilliant and all around great guy who is right about 90% of the time. Sadly, he is totally out of his tree on this one.
Fluffy|6.26.09 @ 2:09PM|#
The argument is stupid, but you know what's really offensive?
The lies in it.
The newspapers aren't really mad that Google News offers people
links to them. What they're actually mad about is that
Google News offers links to everyone else.
They're mad that if I search Google News for "Micheal Jackson dead"
I have about 2000 copies of the same fucking article to choose
from, and they're pissed that there's only a 1 in 2000 chance that
I'll click theirs.
The copyright holders of all that content aren't losing out because
others are stealing their content. They're losing out because
someone else made it very easy to see that the overwhelming
majority of news content produced in the US is redundant and just
repeats content that can be found in thousands of other
places.
MNG|6.26.09 @ 2:13PM|#
Who is that guy in the pic, Captain Copyright or something? He looks like he was drawn right from Watchmen.
|6.26.09 @ 2:16PM|#
bar linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted
materials
Paraphrasing???
Okay, go ahead and pass a law. Now prove anyone has done any of the
things that is now against the law. There's gonna be a lot of
people going to court.
Oh wait, this is one of those "selective" laws, isn't it? Only to
be trotted out when necessary to screw someone that isn't inside
the circle of trust(read:campaign contributors).
|6.26.09 @ 2:19PM|#
"The copyright holders of all that content aren't losing out
because others are stealing their content. They're losing out
because someone else made it very easy to see that the overwhelming
majority of news content produced in the US is redundant and just
repeats content that can be found in thousands of other
places."
I have never thought of it that way. That is a great point.
|6.26.09 @ 2:34PM|#
Expanding copyright law to bar online access to
copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's consent, or to
bar linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted
materials without the copyright holder's consent,
Can't you do that right now, based on how you set up your
website.
I mean, if you don't want online access to your Good Stuff, either
don't put it online or put it behind a subscription wall.
As for paraphrasing - Good Ghod, Posner. Between this and your
asinine non-incorporation opinion on the 2A, you have moved off of
the RC List of Judges to Have Much Respect For.
|6.26.09 @ 2:34PM|#
"paraphrasing copyrighted materials without the copyright
holder's consent"
So if you read that Michael Jackson is dead, you can't tell
anyone?
|6.26.09 @ 2:35PM|#
Well, that was a hash. This place needs EZ formatting buttons,
or at least a preview function.
Expanding copyright law to bar online access
to copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's consent, or
to bar linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted
materials without the copyright holder's consent,
Can't you do that right now, based on how you set up your
website.
I mean, if you don't want online access to your Good Stuff, either
don't put it online or put it behind a subscription wall.
As for paraphrasing - Good Ghod, Posner. Between this and your
asinine non-incorporation opinion on the 2A, you have moved off of
the RC List of Judges to Have Much Respect For.
ChrisO|6.26.09 @ 2:47PM|#
Newspapers would flourish even more if they forced everyone to use a 9,600bps modem.
|6.26.09 @ 2:50PM|#
At least Posner is honest about copyright being corporate
welfare. Oh, is it time to increase benefits? Let's crank up
copyright again.
Content businesses are like GM and Chrysler. They put out a
mediocre, fungible, but fair product. When the brand fails to sell
like it did when the company was putting out better product, the
government comes in to save the day. We now have the government
running GM and/or Chrysler and we have a government tribunal that
determines copyright royalties (plus jurists like Posner who
advocate ramping up copyright).
Why are Americans incapable of allowing terrible companies to go
under? Why does nobody care that tomorrow's car company isn't going
to win by selling trucks designed in the 1970s? The answer? We just
love to bail out shitty management and poor performance.
ellipsis|6.26.09 @ 2:58PM|#
How is expanding copyright law going to save the New York Times? They steal from everybody else anyway.
|6.26.09 @ 3:00PM|#
We just love to bail out shitty management and poor
performance.
But isn't that true of all levels of welfare?
No one pays for their mistakes except the people who don't make
them.
harpoon|6.26.09 @ 3:03PM|#
Considering ad rates correspond to the number of page hits, barring linking would actually drive down revenue based on the current business model.
Granite26|6.26.09 @ 3:04PM|#
I'm not arguing FOR this solution, but it seems
obvious to me that large newsgathering organizations are losing
advertising dollars because commentators and readers share the
content but do not reimburse for lost advertising revenues.
Given that newspapers are becoming unprofitable, I think it is
reasonable for people to be concerned that the profit motive for
the source of pundit's information is going away.
By reading a pundit's commentary on a quoted news story, you are
consuming both the newspaper's effort (sending a reporter to the
scene to gather facts) and the pundit's effort (writing the
commentary.) The pundit gets paid for your usage through the
advertising you are exposed to while on his site. The newspaper
(and by far the source of most of the effort) is not
reimbursed.
This is clearly an unsustainable model, and it is not unreasonable
or unfair for newspapers to search for a way to protect their
profits.
|6.26.09 @ 3:11PM|#
This is clearly an unsustainable model, and it is not
unreasonable or unfair for newspapers to search for a way to
protect their profits.
God forbid that they find a new business model. Much better to
implement an utterly ridiculous legal regime instead.
|6.26.09 @ 3:16PM|#
services like Reuters and the Associated Press would become
the only professional, nongovernmental sources of news and
opinion.
If newspaper reporters were currently doing something beyond
repeating the comments of government spokespeople, I would be
worried about this. I'd reckon that Radley Balko does more to dig
deep and discomfit the powerful than any newspaper reporter in the
country.
|6.26.09 @ 3:17PM|#
"God forbid that they find a new business model. Much better to
implement an utterly ridiculous legal regime instead."
The Wall Street Journal is doing fine.
|6.26.09 @ 3:20PM|#
Before the newspapers cry poor and beg for a handout, they need
to try all available options. Clearly they haven't tried printing
good old fashioned T&A. A welfare mother can't claim she is too
proud to work at a crappy job. Newspapers shouldn't be too proud to
do what it takes to survive.
As for my "GM/Chrysler" theory, car marketing is already 98% sex
and 2% "oh, and there's a car too". Record labels rarely include
actual music any more, preferring a 100% T&A regime. Why not
tell newspapers to get with the program?
Peter|6.26.09 @ 3:27PM|#
God forbid that they find a new business model. Much better
to implement an utterly ridiculous legal regime instead.
Actually I believe this was one of the 11-15 Commandments that
Moses dropped on the way down the mountain.
The 13th Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Change Business Model Whenst
Thou Is Able To Abuse Thyst System To Screw Over Consumers
Instead.
Rich|6.26.09 @ 3:28PM|#
Please -- this is simply Judge Posner's way of encouraging
people to _think_for_themselves_.
Just kidding!
There's nothing new under the sun, anyway, so sue me.
|6.26.09 @ 3:32PM|#
If you don't want to be linked to, don't put it online.
If you don't want it in the library, don't put it in print.
No, he thinks the Detroit Free Press should be the only guy in town
who has access to AP and NYT articles. That way people will have no
choice but to buy the Free Press for daily access to national and
international news.
It is not as if your local rag actually has reporters in Teheran
and London, they just passed data back and forth via the wire
services and charged the populace for assembling it into a paper.
Everybody got their auto news from the Detroit AP feed and traded
the local news from Tokyo or Seattle scene for it.
Newspapers are middlemen, and as soon as it is economically,
politically or technologically possible to cut out the middleman,
out he goes.
The dead tree media is going the way of Mom and Pop grocery stores.
Thank goodness we don't have to buy our food there anymore.
|6.26.09 @ 3:37PM|#
If newspapers don't want people linking their copyrighted
material, or using it in some other way, they can try fucking
putting a copyright notice at the top of the article saying what
are the prohibited uses.
Or, you know, avoid putting it on Teh Intertubes with no
restrictions to access. That's like parking a Lexus in a high-crime
neighborhood, engine running with keys in the ignition and then
being shocked, SHOCKED, that someone stole the bugger.
|6.26.09 @ 3:41PM|#
I'm not arguing FOR this solution, but it seems obvious to
me that large newsgathering organizations are losing advertising
dollars because commentators and readers share the content but do
not reimburse for lost advertising revenues.
Newspapers are losing money because Craigslist scooped up about
half of their ad revenue, and then the papers put their content
online for free, giving people an incentive to not subscribe to the
dead tree edition.
This change to one's business model is gonna drive a lot of the
papers out of business. Tough. Adapt or fold.
Chad|6.26.09 @ 3:54PM|#
Ahh, it is funny to watch libertarians, yet again, stick their
head in the sand in the face of yet another market failure.
I wonder at what ratio of utter crap to real content on the
internet will libertarians admit there is a problem.
|6.26.09 @ 3:58PM|#
"Ahh, it is funny to watch libertarians, yet again, stick
their head in the sand in the face of yet another market
failure."
This sad behavioral quirk started when libertarians refused to step
in and save the buggy whip industry.
Russ 2000|6.26.09 @ 4:01PM|#
and then the papers put their content online for free,
giving people an incentive to not subscribe to the dead tree
edition.
Which is why I contend that newspapers should be giving the dead
tree edition away. They may have to eliminate home delivery to do
that, they may have to eliminate honor boxes and simply drop off
more papers at fewer sites, but charging 75 cents for a handful of
decent stories a day just won't fly. Heck, I spend very little time
at newspaper web sites because the headlines are all visible and
show how vapid the contents are. That's the real killer - you used
to have to flip through 80 pages and eyeball a dozen ads before you
realized there was nothing worth reading in paper - now it takes a
quick scan of 10 seconds before you realize there's nothing worth
reading in the paper and at best you saw 2 ads.
B|6.26.09 @ 4:07PM|#
Christ, and this guy is someone libertarians look up to? Why and the fuck is it so important to save the print media anyway?
|6.26.09 @ 4:11PM|#
Chad, yet again, confuses the market working with the market
failing.
Chad, try to grasp that newspapers don't exist to provide jobs to
their employees. They exist to make money by delivering content to
the public.
Russ 2000|6.26.09 @ 4:12PM|#
Where was the shakedown when afternoon TV news killed the
afternoon paper? The afternoon papers went away, that's all.
I contend that it isn't the internet killing the newspaper, it's
the 4-hour morning news blocks on most TV stations that's doing it
- the same thing that killed the afternoon editions.
If newspapers are going to try the rent-seeking angle, shouldn't
they first try shaking down the TV stations that do nothing but
rip-n-read from the paper? It's not like blogs invented the
reading-from-the-paper concept. Or will TV stations get an
exemption from a scheme like Posner's?
Chad|6.26.09 @ 4:17PM|#
R C Dean | June 26, 2009, 4:11pm | #
Chad, try to grasp that newspapers don't exist to provide jobs to
their employees. They exist to make money by delivering content to
the public.
And that is rapidly becoming impossible, due to a free-rider market
failure that the current copyright system cannot handle. Even
Posner is admitting that there is market failure. Why can't
you?
KingShamus|6.26.09 @ 4:18PM|#
LAMAR | June 26, 2009, 3:58pm | #
"Ahh, it is funny to watch libertarians, yet again, stick their
head in the sand in the face of yet another market failure."
This sad behavioral quirk started when libertarians refused to step
in and save the buggy whip industry.
-------------------
Exactly.
If town criers existed today, the socialists would demand a federal
bail-out of the news-calling industry, DC-funded scholarships for
out-of-work bellowers and a cap and trade scheme to tax the hell
out of carbon dioxide emmissions produced by the computers using
the internet.
The liberals always scream how progressive they are, but their
plans almost always around protecting the most antiquated and
backwards industries in our economy. It's almost like they don't
live up to their self-chosen labels or something.
Chad|6.26.09 @ 4:45PM|#
KingShamus | June 26, 2009, 4:18pm | #
LAMAR | June 26, 2009, 3:58pm | #
"Ahh, it is funny to watch libertarians, yet again, stick their
head in the sand in the face of yet another market failure."
This sad behavioral quirk started when libertarians refused to step
in and save the buggy whip industry.
I don't even think you guys are smart enough to understand what a
market failure is. Oh well, we can't all be bright.
Elana|6.26.09 @ 4:52PM|#
Can you imagine the copious amounts of money that will be wasted in enforcing this ban -- a ban which probably wont actually profit anyone (especially the newspaper industry) since people haven't stopped reading newspapers because other sites are linking to their online articles.
|6.26.09 @ 4:53PM|#
And that is rapidly becoming impossible, due to a free-rider
market failure that the current copyright system cannot
handle.
Ah, so you don't know what the free rider problem is. Let me
help:
A free rider is someone who consumes more than their share of a
resource, and/or doesn't contribute their share to its cost. There
is a problem when the presence of free riders impedes the
availability of the resource.
I believe the resource at issue here is information. The free
riders, presumably, are those who access the information without
paying for it. However, the economic failure of one particular
means of delivering that information (newspapers) does not show
that information creation and delivery suffers from a free rider
problem. In fact, the enormous explosion in the quantity of
information available and the ease with which it can be accessed
would seem to refute conclusively the claim that we have a free
rider "problem".
Now, if you want to define the resource at issue as newspapers, I
think you have set yourself up a nice little tautology, which
proves exactly as much as any tautology: nothing.
BeesInTheBrain|6.26.09 @ 4:53PM|#
Whats funny is someone has recently started a free newspaper
where I live that gets delivered to our house once a week. No
national news, just local articles, and I actually read the whole
thing.
It's simple,easy and cheap for me to pay for the article and I
will. Make me break out my CC and pay $1.95 for an article then no
way.
On a side note, can I patent the idea of using a third party
application that handles the incremental billing and display of
news articles when a special link is clicked in a web page?
|6.26.09 @ 4:55PM|#
Chad,
Several people have pointed out that the failure of an industry
does not mean the failure of the market. You are the one who (I
thought) confused business failure with market failure. In the
spirit of rhetorical courtesy, I responded to what it appeared that
you meant rather than chastise you for being ignorant. I
also correct people's spelling without ado.
So it causes some consternation when you act like a 20 year old
sociology major who'd suck his professor's dick for a B+ and a bowl
of Mexican farmer weed.
BeesInTheBrain|6.26.09 @ 5:00PM|#
I don't even think you guys are smart enough to understand
what a market failure is. Oh well, we can't all be
bright.
I personally have no doubt that newspapers in one form or another
will survive. Specific newspapers may fail but there will always be
a place for small independent newspapers that report local news.
Maybe not enough to support reporters with 6 figure salaries but
someone will make a living doing it.
LarryA|6.26.09 @ 5:01PM|#
I wonder at what ratio of utter crap to real content on the
internet will libertarians admit there is a problem.
I wonder at what ratio of utter crap to real content in newspapers
will liberals admit there is a problem.
Our local almost-daily prints mostly AP, with a smattering of
superficially covered local news. They keep firing more experienced
reporters and hiring cheaper rookies, and cutting other
staff.
They're competing with a weekly that prints exclusively local news.
The very experienced weekly staff just went to Texas Press
Association and came back with multiple awards, including first for
overall excellence.
My wife (25 years experience) writes most of the weekly's articles
except local sports. This year she won ten awards (eight first
place) in the Press Women of Texas contest and three of the eight
first place entries won awards at the National Federation of Press
Women level.
The weekly's experienced ad rep uses "Advertise with us. You'll
reach more people per dollar and we won't screw up your layout."
arguments to lure advertisers from the daily.
Over the last three years the weekly paper has moved up in
competition categories from small circulation weekly to medium
circulation weekly to medium-large circulation weekly, and has
operated in the black since the second year it was published.
Quality customer service is always a good business model.
|6.26.09 @ 5:25PM|#
Quality customer service is always a good business model.
No, it's a business model that often works, but not always.
Appropriate price for your service is generally a good business
model. There's often a niche for crappy customer service at low
prices.
Unless "quality" just means "getting what you pay for."
Rich|6.26.09 @ 6:10PM|#
John, are you claiming information is worth what people are willing to pay for it?
|6.27.09 @ 12:45AM|#
"The scary thing here is ... that some damn fool
freedom-reducing scheme like this is likely to be introduced at the
federal level in the not-too-distant future, given the economic and
political clout of these very large, very troubled, and very
connected organizations."
And that's the scarier point; not that a judge has come up with a
ridiculous scheme to "save" print media, but that private media
companies have enough clout these days to force something like this
to pass.
News isn't news any longer; it's just rehashed crap passed from
station to station because there aren't enough reporters anymore to
actually go out and get stories.
LarryA|6.27.09 @ 3:16AM|#
Unless "quality" just means "getting what you pay
for."
I was thinking more of providing customers with a product they want
at a price they're willing to pay.
robc|6.27.09 @ 3:51PM|#
Ahh, it is funny to watch libertarians, yet again, stick their head
in the sand in the face of yet another market
failure.
What market failure? The market is WORKING. Businesses failing is a
sign of market success.
g4m3th30ry|6.27.09 @ 7:47PM|#
Yes, business failure in a free market is a feature not a bug.
It's what makes the US the most dynamic system in the world, or at
least has in the past, allowing it to innovate through the use of
creative destruction.
In good economic times, 15% of jobs are lost due to failing
businesses and the like. This is through bankruptcy, acquisition,
technological shifts, and other mechanisms. These jobs are replaced
at a greater clip than they are lost, by the surviving
businesses.
Due to this fast moving society, some people will always fall
behind and some Luddites will always resent the changes.
Those who wish to retard progress by propping up failing industries
are no better than the religious nuts who wish us to live as if it
were the 16th century.
No thanks to both of those groups - I prefer longer life spans,
increased living standards, plentiful food, and the rest of the
things we've gotten as a society through this progress.
Thewlis|6.29.09 @ 11:25PM|#
Given your 4:45pm comment, I'll respond:
"I wonder at what ratio of utter crap to real content on the
internet will libertarians admit there is a problem."
And you seem intent on running an experiment.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245