There’s new meaning to the word “viral.”
Normally the word is used in a positive sense when something is so popular on the web that it is shared with as many people as possible and “hits” go through the roof. In this case, some are saying viral is an infection emanating from a Las Vegas newspaper and its hired hit men.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal has contracted with a company called Righthaven. Righthaven sues web sites that they say are violating the copyright laws by sharing the R-J stories. No warning, no request to take down the material, no shot across the bow—it’s nuclear right out of the box. Virtually every other newspaper across the country asks “offending” web sites to just take down the material, and lawsuits are used only as a last resort.
I know, I’m being sued by Righthaven/R-J. My web site, www.LocalsLoveVegas.com is pretty much a hobby with video and news stories about this crazy city. The site is apolitical and focuses on fun things to do in one of the most enjoyable cities on the planet. I didn’t know there was a problem until a writer from the competing paper in town, Steve Green, wrote an article about my lawsuit in the Las Vegas Sun.
Even though, as the lawsuit against me acknowledges, I gave full credit to the Review-Journal along with the writer of the story, and a link back to the R-J to read the entire story. They are still suing. The lawsuit is asking for me to pay $75,000, court costs, attorney’s fees, and they want my web domain.
Here’s the relevant section of U.S. Copyright Law regarding “fair use:”
The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission…
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.
At last check, there are around 120 websites being sued, including that of Senate candidate Sharron Angle, who has this little race going on with Harry Reid right now. Apparently her campaign web site linked to an R-J story on its site and Righthaven is smelling blood. The attorneys are offering settlements (NORML — the pot smokin’ folks — settled for $2,100) but many of the web sites are fighting this foolishness (yes–again, I’m a bit biased in this case). The Democrat Party in Nevada has also been sued by Righthaven/R-J.
The politics get very dicey in this battle. The R-J is a conservative paper. They have taken a hard line in trying to remove Harry Reid from office in Nevada. In fact, at one point, Reid said he hoped the R-J went out of business. Righthaven has ties that are much more liberal. Steve Gibson, the guy who runs Righthaven, worked with Barack and Michelle Obama at the Sidley Austin LLP law firm in Chicago where Gibson and Michelle worked both worked on copyright and intellectual property law. Independent journalist Fintan Dunne has been uncovering this part of the story. Mutual friends of mine and Gibson’s tell me he’s conservative. I told you the politics are dicey.
Perhaps green is the color of the politics here. Many have speculated that the entire purpose of these lawsuits is to intimidate small web sites for quick cash. A blog site in Boston run by a lady who loves cats apparently posted an R-J story about a fire in Las Vegas that killed some birds. Like me, she was sued for $75k. Charities and non-profits are on the hit list. Speculation is rampant that this is an example of a dying industry trying for a final desperate grasp at survival. The R-J defends its actions by saying they are preserving the integrity of information that they have worked hard to obtain.
Bottom line, this may be a precedent-setting case about how things can be shared on the internet, but it also raises more questions than it answers. As a journalist, I wonder about a world where you credit another outlet with a story well done, and then they turn around and sue you for using their stuff. Don’t laugh–that’s part of what’s happening here.
What about a restaurant that frames a newspaper article about its establishment and posts it near their entrance, is that copyright infringement or fair use? It’s also hard to determine what the financial damages would be for something that is given away for free on the internet. At least when Metallica and the record industry went after those who shared their music, you could quantify the value of a CD. What damage is being done when you share something that anybody can already find for free on the web?
Gibson says other newspapers will be joining the R-J in what some are calling an attack on free speech on the internet. The ‘net is inflamed with stories on this issue and few are showing any love towards the R-J and Righthaven. I have many friends who are writers at the R-J — I would never give their names — but I have not found a single writer at that paper who is in favor of what management is doing.