Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Bar “linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted materials”?

Heads are still shaking over what would appear to be a non-satirical proposal from Judge Richard Posner:

…Expanding copyright law to bar online access to copyrighted materials without the copyright holder’s consent, or to bar linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted materials without the copyright holder’s consent, might be necessary to keep free riding on content financed by online newspapers from so impairing the incentive to create costly news-gathering operations that news services like Reuters and the Associated Press would become the only professional, nongovernmental sources of news and opinion.

More: Jeff Jarvis notices other dubious ideas on enforceable “exclusivity” floating about. And more thoughts from Carolyn Elefant at Legal Blog Watch and David Post @ Volokh.

Filed under: , ,

3 Comments

  • Is it clear that Judge Posner (no relation) is actually proposing such an expansion of copyright? Not having seen his full original text, I can’t tell whether he is actually making such a proposal or merely pointing out that such an expansion would be necessary for the existing business model to survive, without taking any position on whether the game is worth the candle.

  • […] him that copyright begins at the moment the work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Bar “linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted materials?” […]

  • The technology is simple to only serve pages to guests who have logged in. There’s no need to have a law for something that can be enforced with a small bit of technology.

    I used to pay for a NYTimes subscription online before they started giving EVERYTHING away for free. I still pay for a Dow Jones subscription so I can see the entire WSJ (95% of it is free) along with Barrons, etc.

    Nobody forced the newspapers to start giving away their content. And it probably was a strategic mistake!

    • By Robert