Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 6th Sep 2010 16:30 UTC
Legal We've all heard of patent trolls who buy up patents without using them to make any products. Their only goal is to seek out possible infringers and sue them, making money via the justice system. It was only a matter of time, but we've now got something new: copyright trolls.
Thread beginning with comment 439625
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Read the bottom of this site...
by JonathanBThompson on Tue 7th Sep 2010 07:31 UTC
JonathanBThompson
Member since:
2006-05-26

"Reproduction of OSNews stories is permitted only with explicit authorization from OSNews. Reproductions must be properly credited."

Thom, you are a fscking hypocrite for posting this "story" at all.

I do not support the infinite (or even lifetime) span copyright or patent, even though I've created stuff of great commercial value in both of those realms of IP. It's interesting to note, just for the sake of going on the record, that most of the IP I've created that's of known commercial value has been of the type of "work-for-hire" which is what the majority of the world population that creates anything of any real value tends to do: create it in the employ of someone else. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this whatsoever on any side of the discussion, and such rights are bought and sold on a regular basis, as business tends to do that, even with OSS.

And yet, here you are, charging that someone defending their rights to control how their IP is copied, the IP that they make their living off of, is somehow "copyright trolling" when it clearly exceeds the realm of "fair use" which, admittedly, is a bit fuzzy, but not so fuzzy when you simply take the entirely of a work and reproduce it for gain without express permission. Wait, you actually write crap for a site that expects that anything copied in whole must FIRST have explicit authorization to do so?

I find it very odd: IIRC (perhaps not, you've written so much contradictory crap for so long) you defend OSS copyright owners the right to sue commercial/proprietary developers for using the code of someone against their express wishes as stated in the license that goes with the copyright notice: well, the funny thing of it all is, there's no legal or moral difference between the owner of this copyright (oh, BTW, quite often OSS code is "work-for-hire" and not owned by a specific author, either!) on code and that of articles. Often, proprietary developers that may use existing OSS code do it for gain: how is a politician using an entire article, against the express rights and permissions granted, any different? Currency comes in many forms, and a sufficient understanding of how politics work shows that it is, indeed, for personal gain, usually directly or indirectly for money, and always for power: you can't even argue the typical filesharing argument "But they don't gain anything from it!" in such a case.

Unless you are truly that magnanimous as to create for the whole world (but I have to ask: what percentage of the world gives a crap?) to use your creations without anything beyond you expecting proper attribution, if you keep spouting off this crap, I pray that you can't keep gainfully employed off of anything where you're somehow involved in creating IP precisely because others do unto you as you'd do unto them, as that'd be poetic justice and karma all rolled into one.

Reply Score: -3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Have we ever sued anyone for duplicating our stories (happens all the time)?

Have we ever denied anyone to reproduce our stories when asked (happens all the time)?

Do we have a hitman company scouring the web for infringements?

This is NOT about the newspaper defending their IP. This is about a company whose business model is to sue bloggers for infringing upon news stories that they HAVE NOT WRITTEN THEMSELVES. They just go out and buy up copyrights, and sue individuals with that. I find that despicable behaviour, and it illustrates just how fcuked up the system really is.

The fact that you consider our disclaimer on the same level as this company clearly shows you have no idea what you're talking about, or that your unfounded hatred towards me has gotten the better of you.

Of course you could've just asked us how we handle matters like this, but instead, you chose to attack me, once again. Such a shame you went from fascinating guy in the Haiku community to major douche.

Edited 2010-09-07 08:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6