View Full Version : SOCNET Bans Gannett Publications
It seems Gannett is flexing their muscle and trying to say SOCNET is in violation of copyright when they post something from one of their publications on the SOCNET Forum even if proper credit is given.
I'll bet there will be quite a few people dropping their subscriptions after this one.
Here is a list of publications they have banned members from posting articles, links or mentioning the name of the publication.
Gannett Government Media Corporation
Army Times
Navy Times
Air Force Times
Marine Corps Times
Defense News
Federal Times
Armed Forces Journal
Training & Simulation Journal
C4ISR Journal
6883 Commercial Drive, Springfield, VA 22159 * 703-658-8488
* formerly known as Army Times Publishing Company
Note: List as posted by SOCNET.com http://www.socnet.com/showthread.php?t=97996
Team Sergeant
10-11-2010, 20:39
Damn funny you should mention that..... guess who owns SpecialForcesTimes.com & SpecialOperationsTimes.com ????
Professionalsoldiers.com of course.:D
TS
This really doesn't make any sense to me. I would think that the more their stories are referenced; the more publicity they would receive; which would lead to more common knowledge of their product; which would lead to more subscriptions with a higher readership, hence, more profits.
What's wrong with that?
The Reaper
10-12-2010, 12:24
I foresee lawsuits coming for those who quote printed media.
They are running out of alternatives.
TR
This really doesn't make any sense to me. I would think that the more their stories are referenced; the more publicity they would receive; which would lead to more common knowledge of their product; which would lead to more subscriptions with a higher readership, hence, more profits.
What's wrong with that?I think that with the advent of the 24/7 news cycle, quality (in terms of accuracy, good analysis, and clarity of writing) has taken a back seat to the "I want it now" sensibility that is destroying the existing business models for all mass media.I foresee lawsuits coming for those who quote printed media.
They are running out of alternatives.
TRMOO, the media outlets made the mistake of giving away content for free in the belief that they'd be able to charge readers later on.
If lawsuits do come (as I think they will) they hasten the end of journalism as we know it. While I'm very critical of journalists, I'd rather not see them being replaced by bloggers and every yahoo with a cell phone.
Like the ones Jesse Ventura always Quotes on his conspiracy show "a reliable Internet Reporter told us....."
I thought it was great when he ran out of the Opie and Anthony show because they called him on his BS.
craigepo
10-12-2010, 17:12
Congress enacted the "fair use" statute regarding defense of copyright suits, but this law is relatively vague. Here is the fair use statute:
"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.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."
17 U.S.C. Section 107
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
I have not studied the facts of the SOCNET issue, but I doubt SOCNET is selling the work as their own. I would assume that the guys there are using the articles to comment upon, as contemplated in the fair use law.
I tell friends all the time that "you can get sued for anything, the issue is whether you will lose". I'm sure I'm missing some facts, but posting an article for discussion on a forum does not sound very evil, especially if the author/source is given proper attribution.
It is becoming an epidemic.
The are lawyers that specialize in going after copyright "infringements",,
For a fee...
:munchin
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/oct/06/seven-more-defendants-settle-righthaven-copyright-/
Seven more defendants settle Righthaven copyright lawsuits, By Steve Green (contact), Wednesday, Oct. 6, 2010 | 2:05 a.m.
The cash register continues to ring at Las Vegas copyright enforcement company Righthaven LLC, which has reached settlements with at least seven more defendants it had sued over unauthorized online postings of Las Vegas Review-Journal stories.
The seven settlements disclosed in recent days — combined with previously-reported settlements — bring to 43 the number of Righthaven copyright infringement lawsuits where settlements have been disclosed.
Righthaven has since March filed 144 lawsuits over Review-Journal material in federal court in Las Vegas.
Besides the cases that have been settled, others are being litigated, others have resulted in defaults against defendants for not answering the lawsuits and others sit stagnant with the defendants unserved with the lawsuits.
The 43 settlements do not include cases with multiple defendants in which some defendants have settled while the case remains open against the other defendants.
It’s believed Righthaven is settling its infringement cases for thousands of dollars but for less than five figures. It’s unknown if the company is profitable or whether the settlements cover its staff salaries, court filing fees, copyright fees and other expenses.
The privately-held company is owned by Las Vegas attorney Steven Gibson, managing partner of the Las Vegas office of the Detroit law firm Dickinson Wright PLLC; and an entity associated with Review-Journal owner Stephens Media LLC.
The latest settlements were reached with Righthaven defendants:
• Americans For Democratic Action and its codefendants
• Assured Lender Services and codefendants
• Josephine Franklin
• Stephen Meenehan
• Omnia Alliance LLC and codefendants
• Paula Bliss
• Verticalscope USA and codefendants
While settlements may bring in some cash, several other cases are hotly contested and defense attorneys and defendants defending themselves are keeping Righthaven attorneys busy researching and writing legal briefs and making court appearances.
For instance, Righthaven will have to deal with this argument presented recently by Henderson attorney Jason Wiley of the law firm Woods Erickson Whitaker & Maurice LLP:
“Plaintiff cannot, in any way, allege that it suffered damages based upon the conduct of the (copyright) assignor, the Las Vegas Review-Journal,” Wiley wrote in a filing in the case of San Clemente, Calif., businessman Jeffrey L. Nelson, accused of posting a Review-Journal story on his website.
“Quite simply, the material at issue in the litigation was provided to online viewers at no cost. Thus, even if each and every allegation in plaintiff’s complaint is true, there is no way plaintiff was damaged,” he wrote in urging the court to decline jurisdiction in the matter.
“Plaintiff is on a copyright witch hunt as a result of obtaining/being assigned the copyrights to articles published in the Las Vegas Review-Journal,” he wrote. “Online viewers of the (Review-Journal) website do not have to pay subscription fees, they do not have to pay to access the website, and they do not need to log in or provide any personal information to access the very same articles that appear in the print version of the newspaper.
“The decision that newspapers made over a decade ago upon the advent of online content to provide their content for free has plagued newspapers and led to a decline in subscriptions and newspaper profitability. While defendants empathize with the newspapers’ plight, it was a decision that was freely accepted by said newspapers and those persons that managed the periodicals,” he wrote.
Two other Las Vegas attorneys, James Olson and Michael Stoberski of the firm Olson, Cannon, Gormley & Desruisseaux, in the meantime, are pressing their argument that a Righthaven case against the Center for Intercultural Organizing in Portland, Ore., benefiting immigrants there, should be dismissed because the center has nothing to do with Nevada — meaning the Nevada court may not have jurisdiction.
This is an issue important for Righthaven and its out-of-state defendants and one that has been addressed before.
One of the Las Vegas federal judges hearing Righthaven cases, Chief U.S. District Judge for Nevada Roger Hunt, on Sept. 2 rejected the argument of the Dr. Shezad Malik Law Firm P.C. in Texas that the Nevada court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case since Malik doesn’t do business in Nevada.
Citing precedent established by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Hunt agreed with Righthaven that as an alleged willful copyright infringer of material belonging to a Nevada company, Malik had “purposely availed” itself to jurisdiction in Nevada.
But now the Olson, Cannon, Gormley & Desruisseaux attorneys — along with Lewis and Roca LLP attorneys in another case — are challenging Hunt’s ruling.
The Olson, Cannon attorneys say precedent in the 9th Circuit is that willful copyright infringement is just one of three prongs to be tested to determine if a court has jurisdiction over a defendant.
The other prongs are that the lawsuit must be related to the defendant’s activities in the plaintiff’s forum, meaning its home state or federal court district; and that “the exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable.”
“The purposeful availment element prong is only one of three that must be satisfied to establish jurisdiction,” the Olson, Cannon attorneys said in a Sept. 27 filing. “A review of the Malik order shows that the court failed to address the remaining factors.”
A similar argument was made by Lewis and Roca attorneys in the case of Righthaven defendant MajorWager.Com.
“The personal jurisdiction analysis turns on the specific facts of each case,” they wrote in a Sept. 13 filing. “Judge Hunt’s order in Malik did not include any substantial analysis of the personal jurisdiction issue.”
The Olson, Cannon attorneys in the Center for Intercultural Organizing case earlier dropped an argument that Righthaven didn’t have standing to sue because it didn’t own the copyright at the time of the alleged infringement.
In their latest filing, they summed up the complaint against their client like this:
“As this court is aware from the media attention garnered by the numerous complaints filed in this jurisdiction, plaintiff was solely established to operate under a business model in which it trolls the Internet to locate articles it believes originated from the Las Vegas Review-Journal website without the express consent of the copyright holder. In most cases, the complaints are filed against people or organizations who do not profit in any way from posting such articles and that are already offered for free on the Las Vegas Review-Journal website. Rather than issue any type of cease and desist letters, plaintiffs immediately file suit and attempt to extract settlement from defendants.”
Righthaven and the Review-Journal, however, say the lawsuits are necessary to stop online infringement of Review-Journal material.
It is becoming an epidemic.
The are lawyers that specialize in going after copyright "infringements",,
For a fee...
:munchin
If they are so concerned, they should make their site a pay site with the express statement that none of the material contained may be used without permission. This is just another case of a greedy lawyer looking to make a name for himself. One of these case will wind up at the Supreme Court eventually.
This is just another case of a greedy lawyer looking to make a name for himself.
One of these case will wind up at the Supreme Court eventually.
Isn't that the dream of every lawyer??
Isn't that the dream of every lawyer??
It would seem you are correct.
If they are so concerned, they should make their site a pay site with the express statement that none of the material contained may be used without permission. This is just another case of a greedy lawyer looking to make a name for himself. One of these case will wind up at the Supreme Court eventually.
It seems they want the best of both worlds. They want there site to be free to get Max viewing for their sponsors. But they don't want anyone using anything on their site.
Could we see this fall into the same category as stealing music thru the Internet.