"when actually copyright is simple common law: 'I made it, therefore I own it'."
This is a perfect demonstration that ootb doesn't actually understand the basics of copyright. When you get right down to it, people don't actually own what they've copyrighted. They own the copyright itself, which grants them special privileges in exchange for eventual release to the public domain and as the Constitution says "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". The timeframe for releasing works to the public domain has been unfairly lengthened to ridiculous levels by politicians since its inception, however.
So it's not as simplistically wrong as "I made it, I own it" at all.
Depending on what range of years is used, I'm either a late Gen-X or an early Gen-Y. Either way, my bank account can attest to the fact that book publishers are receiving plenty of my money.
I think the myth that the current generation doesn't read is nothing more than a gut reaction of the previous for having the audacity to have differing values. It's nothing more than the "kids these days" syndrome that occurs with every generation. I daresay we'll be just as guilty of it ourselves on some level.
I know a little bit of the history behind the agreement between Gaiman and McFarlane. It was essentially a handshake agreement, which is why the issues of copyright ownership, royalties, and the like have been in the courts for so long.
Not even close, but keep trying. You don't make any sense either...you bemoan someone's attitude as creating the "ownership structure we are stuck in now" when your notion of what constitutes ownership and theft leaves no room for fair use or the public domain. It also demonstrates a tremendous lack of common sense. As Sir Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."
Additionally, I'm not sure if you're trying to imply that you're a lawyer, but if so, you should definitely start spelling it correctly.
Whether the person is profiting is only one of the factors a court uses to determine fair use, and hardly the only thing that matters.
There is no hard line that determines what is and what is not fair use. There are generalities that can be used to determine if something would most likely be considered fair use based on common sense and court rulings.
I have long wondered why WSJ stories are accessible on-line during the initial search but then locked when you share them with others (e.g., via social media channels). It's unbelievable actually.
It's actually more evidence that Murdoch is trying to spread FUD about Google. The WSJ checks the referrer header, and if it comes from Google, you get to see the full article. If the link didn't come from Google, you don't.
Murdoch knows full well that Google provides a valuable service to his organizations, he just doesn't want to have to admit it.
You're making it sound like Google News provides nothing to the news sites, which obviously isn't true. If it were, every news site would simply modify their robots.txt file and be done with it. Google News sends visitors to the news sites - what they don't like is that Google makes money on providing a service making fair use of their material.
Your "solution" of stopping the aggregators simply wouldn't work, regardless. The newspapers all complain about Google, knowing full well they can block it easily. It's posturing, plain and simple - they don't want to lose the audience Google sends their way. So they raise the threat of a paywall, to see if they can get Google to cough up some money for them.
The newspapers aren't interested in solving their problems - they're interested in finding someone to blame, and trying to make them pay. Paywalls have been tried before, and for the most part have failed miserably. And without the ability to share links, social networks won't touch the sites. Micropayments are another dead-end - nobody wants to break out their credit card to read a news story.
It's not the aggregator's fault the news sites are losing money - they're just being used as scapegoats. The real problem is the news sites themselves, who have developed a massive sense of entitlement to any use of their content. They think if they can just "take back the news", everything will be fine, except what they're proposing is essentially a suicide pact.
Why are you arguing about the morality of stealing copy written material?
Because stealing and infringement aren't synonyms.
We're not talking about someone stealing bread and water so they can live in this case either.
Exactly correct - those are physical items. If you take someone's bread and water, they no longer have those items. It doesn't work that way with so called "intellectual property". Infringement is unlawful copying, not stealing.
Yes, and could imagine the uproar if every book in a bookstore suddenly had a label slapped on it to that effect? every time you picked up a book, someone tapped you on the shoulder and reminded you that you can read it at the library for free?
Except that in order for any of this to come about, someone has to install the extension - it's a user choice to install and use it, and since it's accessing public domain material, I'm not really sure where you're seeing a lawsuit.
Hey genius, most musicians that copyright their music do it with their own production companies.
While I'm sure you meant 'genius' sarcastically, you haven't contradicted what I've said.
This does not mean that you buy a record and you can copy it and give anyone who wants a copy. Whether you like it or not the law is still the law. Just ask the lady in Minnesota who got nailed yesterday.
Ok...you're apparently reading things I didn't write. In any case, your original comment had nothing to do with the article. You did, however, manage to present an example that illustrates the point quite nicely. The use of 'Imagine' in the Stein's propaganda film was ruled fair use; it doesn't matter if Ono supported the films viewpoint or not. The use of the song was allowable, and there is no moral right as to how music is used.