RSS
Reporting Or Theft?
from the interesting-legal-questions dept
Now here's an interesting legal question. Is it reporting or is it theft when a news organization gets its hands on an early copy of a book and writes articles about the content. That's exactly what happened with the Associated Press and Hilary Clinton's new book. Simon & Schuster is now threatening to sue. The argument for "reporting" says that if you've obtained the book legally, and the story is newsworthy, then it's their obligation to print it. The side arguing "theft" says that it's an intellectual property violation. The article linked to above is an opinion piece and comes with clear biases towards the "theft" side. It rambles on about how the threat to intellectual property is an economic threat to the US - which is a tangent not worth bothering with right now. His argument is basically that the law needs to protect this business model, and the idea that the press might report on a story and harm a business model worries him. Of course, we do have freedom of the press in this country, and (last I checked) we live in a capitalistic society that doesn't guarantee the "right" to a business model, so I have to side with the Associated Press who has the right to print their story. It's not as though they republished the entire book - but just wrote a story about some of the topics in the book. That's journalism. If that, alone, is going to harm the sales of the book, then I doubt that the book is very good anyway. It's a business model issue of producing books that are well written and interesting and worth buying even if you know what they say, and has nothing to do with the "theft" of intellectual property.
4 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- Schrödinger's Download: Whether Or Not An iTunes Music Sale Is A 'Sale' Depends On Who's Suing
- We Don't Have A 'Wild West' Internet Now, But We Will If SOPA Or Similar Is Passed
- One Nation, Under Guard
- Supreme Court Denies Appeal For The Pirate Bay Founders
- White House Says It Can't Comment On Possible Chris Dodd Investigation
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
No Subject Given
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
WSJ glosses the point
I point this out because these elements underscore how finely these matters must be dissected before one can apply a criticism of copyright infringement.
On the other hand, as long as this sloppy reasoning remains the stuff of our journalists and marketers - and not the stuff of our courts's legal decisions - I can live with this fast and loose treatment of facts.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
AP vs Simon & Schuster
-dave
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: AP vs Simon & Schuster
The article doesn't discuss this point at all. If, in fact, there was a contract, this is a different story, and you're right. However, the article in question seems to indicate this is a question of theft of intellectual property.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment