Comments on: First, kill the lawyers – before they kill the news

By: Mediactive » A Brazen Proposal to Re-Monopolize Newspaper Stories

Mediactive » A Brazen Proposal to Re-Monopolize Newspaper Stories — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 20:24:40 +0000

[...] as lobbying, it’s awfully close. (UPDATE: My friend Jeff Jarvis discussed this issue in his blog post, where Schultz responded in the comments and drew this response from [...]

By: Tobler Law

Tobler Law — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:59:39 +0000

Thanks for the post! Nothing like killing the free flow of information that keeps this country on top of the world.

By: William R. Christoph can help you

William R. Christoph can help you — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:24:49 +0000

I think lawyers are great because all they want to do is help you. Lawyers aren’t trying to help the people you are against in the court they are trying to help you. There are a lot of lawyers to choose from but I think the best lawyers are William R. Christoph because they can help you. They are the best lawyers I have ever seen.

By: A Closer Look At The Marburgers’ Plan To Save Newspapers Via Copyright Law

A Closer Look At The Marburgers’ Plan To Save Newspapers Via Copyright Law — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:48:44 +0000

[...] policy that limits free speech! The story itself got lots of attention when Jeff Jarvis called attention to the fact that Schultz happens to be married to U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown, leading to a counter [...]

By: City Site Guide » Social Security Disability FAQ

City Site Guide » Social Security Disability FAQ — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:04:45 +0000

[...] have an Attorney represent you in your Social Security Disability case. Statistics have shown that claimants represented by Attorneys have been much more successful than people without representation. You should [...]

By: Social Security Disability FAQ « Globe Nova Times

Social Security Disability FAQ « Globe Nova Times — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:20:37 +0000

By: Business Reviews » Blog Archive » Social Security Disability FAQ

Business Reviews » Blog Archive » Social Security Disability FAQ — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:14:24 +0000

By: Social Security Disability FAQ « The Good Life In Your City

Social Security Disability FAQ « The Good Life In Your City — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:13:47 +0000

By: Lost at the Plain Dealer

Lost at the Plain Dealer — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 05:50:44 +0000

[...] of time — suggested is 24 hours — after publication. Jeff Jarvis, at BuzzMachine, responded in full [...]

By: How (and why) to replace the AP « BuzzMachine

How (and why) to replace the AP « BuzzMachine — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:16:18 +0000

[...] lately about how news should operate in the ecosystem in the internet – threats to try to extend copyright, the ominously named and ambiguously written Hamburg Declaration, the ACAP [...]

By: A Jimmy-D-Free Thursday Link Dump | Orange and Brown Blogs

A Jimmy-D-Free Thursday Link Dump | Orange and Brown Blogs — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:05:16 +0000

[...] work within the new reality (hint: do more with less) rather than trying to legislate a time warp. Jeff Jarvis and Paid Content jump on the weirdness. Then Google, hilariously, tells them exactly how to pull [...]

By: Photomaniacal » Blog Archive » How not to defend newspapers | Dan Kennedy

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 06:03:57 +0000

[...] expressed the view that Schultz should not have responded to criticism from new-media advocate and Guardian contributor Jeff Jarvis (whom he could not bring himself [...]

By: Återseenden: Jeff Jarvis och Richard Posner « Indy

Återseenden: Jeff Jarvis och Richard Posner « Indy — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:53:59 +0000

[...] Här skriver han om ett lagförslag (som det har bloggats om här också) och där dyker en annan bekant upp, nämligen domare Richard Posner. Exakt samme Posner som räknade på risken med att bygga en partikelaccelerator på Long Island. [...]

By: GrindEFX

GrindEFX — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 01:08:19 +0000

@ Robert

GrindEFX act as a hub for music business news and articles. 90% of of what we post is written by our authors. The other 10% is articles we find from elsewhere on the web, such as the article you linked to.

When we do post articles from other websites, it is our practice that we send a trackback to the original source so that readers know where it came from.

In this case there has been an oversight and a trackback link was not provided. If you look at the bottom of the article Billboard are credited, and this is usually where the link to the original source would be.

I apologise a trackback was not sent. But i argue that it is stealing as we gave credit to the original author and in no way implied it was our work.

To avoid things like this in the future i have already told my staff to resist posting content from other sources.

Again i am sorry for not providing a trackback, this was an error. But we take our website very seriously and are not out to “steal” anybodys work.

We have people post our articles on their websites everyday, and i dont have a problem with it as long as we’re credited. It’s extra promotion. For example Mike Masnick recently wrote about an article i wrote on our website on TechDirt.com, this doubled our traffic for that day and i’m sure gave us at least one or two new readers.

I hope this clears things up a bit.

Have a good weekend.

By: News Aggregators: Parasites or Saviors? | Digital Media Buzz

News Aggregators: Parasites or Saviors? | Digital Media Buzz — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:30:27 +0000

[...] Jeff Jarvis, author, blogger and director of the interactive journalism program at City University of New York’s Graduate School of Journalism wrote a scathing column deriding the opinions of both Posner and the Marburgers, and suggested that Schultz register as a lobbyist. [...]

By: More support for changing copyright law to help newspapers | cars burner

More support for changing copyright law to help newspapers | cars burner — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:36:45 +0000

[...] existing copyright laws to help newspapers profit from the content they produce has attracted some very vocal opposition in its short life, but it’s also gaining some fairly influential supporters. Jason Klein, [...]

By: Lost at the Plain Dealer « Law Dork, 2.0

Lost at the Plain Dealer « Law Dork, 2.0 — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 02:34:06 +0000

[...] of time — suggested is 24 hours — after publication. Jeff Jarvis, at BuzzMachine, responded in full [...]

By: BLACKHEART Cleveland » Ignore the PD’s death throes, Cleveland – your new newspaper is already on the way

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 23:48:03 +0000

[...] and incoming. And they quite purposefully used a Pulitzer prize winning wife of a US Senator to kick it off, pimp it, and push it [...]

By: Idea that would help save newspapers makes bloggers howl: Connie Schultz:: 21stnews

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:47:25 +0000

[...] Read Jeff Jarvis’s Buzz Machine Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]

By: Should linking be illegal? « Therearenosunglasses’s Weblog

Should linking be illegal? « Therearenosunglasses’s Weblog — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:00:24 +0000

[...] Fortunately, Posner this time can’t transform his desires into a judicial decree – his proposal would have to enacted in the form of an amendment to the copyright law. Unfortunately, such an idea is already making the rounds. Not to go all Kevin Bacon here, but Cleveland Plain Dealer columnist Connie Schultz, who supports it, is married to Democratic senator Sherrod Brown, which led Jeff Jarvis to demand that Schultz register as a federal lobbyist. [...]

By: Politics makes…. « BuzzMachine

Politics makes…. « BuzzMachine — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:40:47 +0000

[...] through Congress to protect her industry, company, and job, Plain Dealer columnist Connie Schultz got all huffy with me when I suggested that she should register as a lobbyist because she was trying to [...]

By: “Leistungsschutz”: Linkverbot! » netzwertig.com

“Leistungsschutz”: Linkverbot! » netzwertig.com — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 06:42:26 +0000

[...] Richter Richard Posner, auf dessen hanebüchenen Vorschlag Medienguru Jeff Jarvis mit einem bitterbösen Posting auf seiner Buzzmachine reagiert hat: Was Richard Posner nämlich vorschlägt, den Schutz von (Zeitungs-) News durch das [...]

By: statism watch » Blog Archive » Should linking be illegal?

statism watch » Blog Archive » Should linking be illegal? — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:42:46 +0000

By: Walter Abbott

Walter Abbott — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:05:05 +0000

@ John, 7/1/09, 4:38

Excellent!

From the ruling:

Pitney held that the information found in the AP news was not copyrightable as “the information respecting current events contained in the literary production is not the creation of a writer but is a report of matters that ordinarily are publici juris; it is the history of the day.”

Sounds logical to me. Here is a link to the case.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=248&invol=215

By: Rowan Price

Rowan Price — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:27:31 +0000

The example Rob provided of “people rewriting it and making money from it” [referring to Billboard staff's work], is an example of theft. It’s not theft of facts, which is impossible — as Jeff points out, but of proprietary content. Even if more than just the title were rewritten, GrindEFX would still be guilty of theft in this case. They don’t discuss, paraphrase facts, or react. They add no value.

As others have alluded to, though, that kind of theft-by-duplication is the weak straw man on which this proposal is propped up. Laws already exist for that.

It’s silencing the discussion of news stories, and the republication of facts, that is so blatantly unconstitutional.

Based on my reading of their proposal http://bit.ly/save-news-trash-rights, the Marburger cabal appears charmingly naive as to the basics of Internet technology and business, so I don’t necessarily ascribe them sinister motives or matrimonial subterfuge (…though I’m awful curious if they really think Google News publishes links to their news headlines as a public service?)

Even if it’s well-intended though, this proposal is toxic to our civil liberties (as well as to newspaper earnings). For the sake of our rights, and for the viability of journalism, let’s hope this fiasco of a proposal is put to rest quickly.