Why does Posner hate the Drudge Retort?

IMHO it's time for the old bean to hang up his hat and GTFO MY INTERNETS!!!

I would have assumed that a user visiting a linked story would actually be beneficial for the host of the linked-to site...as long as traffic doesn't end up overwhelming their server(s).

Isn't the rate for advertisements based on how many visits the website gets?

Seems to me that these companies would want links to their stories everywhere, especially since the internets is quickly replacing the newspaper as the preferred medium for reading the news - nothing will stop that, short of the internets simply disappearing.

I agree, Zarathustra. It is beneficial to the visited link. This judge is being absurd.

Legal issues aside, I think you have a better chance of banning all email than banning linking.

"I agree, Zarathustra. It is beneficial to the visited link. This judge is being absurd."

Is is no where near as beneficial as requiring the reader to buy a copy of the magazine or newspaper to read the article. I think that's the point, it would give the publishers a profit again. Ain't going to happen I think.

True Danni, and you are probably right about the motive. But I spent many years in publishing and it is dying out as a paper product. Electronic is the wave and will dominate.

it's not that difficult to get permission and authors are often quick to respond to requests - the only problem i've ever had was with memri for a video and it has since disappeared from the net. i feel some of their stuff is manufactured, but you didn't hear that from me...

where's rcade on this story?

talking to his lawyers.

And also included in his decree...

8) Horses must ALWAYS be placed BEFORE the cart.
9) Failure to close the barn door before the horse gets out is strictly forbidden.

Posner's blog is full of hypothetical ruminations on law and society, and when I read this, I doubted that he actually pushed for such a system. Sure enough, his blog only says the following:

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.

yes! my evil plot to destroy the RETORT is in full swing!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Um, has anyone pointed out to this fool that he doesn't seem to understand how the Internet works?

Is this judge nuts or what?

Re: #15 - you're going to make Joe cry.

No.

Is this judge nuts or what?

he's a "conservative", so yeah, he's nuckin' futs.

good luck in enforcing this!

where's rcade on this story?

Speechless that a judge with Posner's credentials thinks we need more draconian copyright law to ban "paraphrasing" without permission. How can I possibly discuss how bad his idea without (a) linking to it, (b) quoting it, or (c) paraphrasing it? He's in favor of a world in which nobody can talk about what anybody else has written without their permission.

Well, maybe not speechless.

Speechless that a judge with Posner's credentials thinks we need more draconian copyright law to ban "paraphrasing" without permission. How can I possibly discuss how bad his idea without (a) linking to it, (b) quoting it, or (c) paraphrasing it?

#20 | POSTED BY RCADE

Excellent point RCADE.

It's all about control of information. Those in power wish to remain in power and "draconian" laws enable them to do this very thing.

The internet is made of tubes.

It's odd that a libertarian like Posner would take this view. But then, property rights are supreme in the libertarian/propertarian ideology.

It's odd that a libertarian like Posner would take this view. But then, property rights are supreme in the libertarian/propertarian ideology.

#23 | Posted by nullifidian

How could you possibly find it odd that a Libertarian would support property rights in this case intellectual property rights?

This makes perfect sense to me.

Someone does all the hard work research, interviews, writing, etc. and then some shumck comes along and steals their property to make a profit for themselves that seems hardly fair to me.

"How could you possibly find it odd that a Libertarian would support property rights in this case intellectual property rights?"

Because libertarians frequently argue that intellectual property rights are a form of protectionism.

I am going to invent a word and write it down and no one had better ever use it without my permission! Shit I can't think of one right now but when I do you better not ever copy it and use it without asking me.

Because libertarians frequently argue that intellectual property rights are a form of protectionism.

#25 | Posted by nullifidian

Of course its protectionism.

Protection of individual rights whether they are civil rights or property rights which is a civil right is one of the few legitimate purposes of government.

hmmmm let's see...First we declare that it is OK to Deliberately Lie on a network news channel in order to distort the news to make things seem like whatever we want...Then we will make it illegal to link to any actual news stories so no one can prove we are lying...yeah that's it!

God I am a Genius.

-Rupert Murdoch

Probably a better method of compensation needs to be invented for authors who have their articles, columns, etc. linked on the internet. Advertisers pay by the click, who couln't a similar system be invented for articles linked, etc. The person doing the linking wouldn't pay the fee, instead some of the advertising revenues from the sites where the links are posted would go to the article that is creating the traffic for the site.
I don't know the answer really but a "market" for articles, etc. which draw people to a site would reward writers, otherwise, it seems to me, that eventually the best talent won't be able to earn a living writing.

Protection of individual rights whether they are civil rights or property rights which is a civil right is one of the few legitimate purposes of government.

----------

No. Protecting the right of people to patent an idea is not liberty, it is fascism.

A real libertarian would protect that right of the public domain.

Another pseudo libertarian fascist fraud.

"No. Protecting the right of people to patent an idea is not liberty, it is fascism.

A real libertarian would protect that right of the public domain.

Another pseudo libertarian fascist fraud."

Exactly. Calling themselves "libertarian" in the original sense of the word is like Stalin calling himself a "democrat". They don't give a shit about liberty, only property.

No. Protecting the right of people to patent an idea is not liberty, it is fascism.

A real libertarian would protect that right of the public domain.

Another pseudo libertarian fascist fraud.

#30 | Posted by Shawn

Dude shut the hell up you lost all credibility when you suggested Keith Olberman isn't part of the corporate media and that Amy Goodman is in some way a legitimate journalist.

Dude shut the hell up you lost all credibility when you suggested Keith Olberman isn't part of the corporate media and that Amy Goodman is in some way a legitimate journalist.

#32 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN

Well there's a classic ad hominem argument. You certainly aren't a good representative of right-libertarianism. If I was a right-libertarian I would tell you to STFU.

Exactly. Calling themselves "libertarian" in the original sense of the word is like Stalin calling himself a "democrat". They don't give a shit about liberty, only property.

#31 | Posted by nullifidian

Please enlighten us with your definition of original sense of Libertarianism.

Liberty and civil rights including property rights are inseparable.

"Please enlighten us with your definition of original sense of Libertarianism."

Sure. The word "libertarian" was invented by leftwing anarchists (Bakunin, Goldman, etc.) as an alternative self-description at a time when using the word "anarchist" was inviting a police raid. Those original libertarians were anti-capitalist and anti-state. Their vision of "liberty" was more than just freedom from the state, but freedom from the boss as well. Those pussies that call themselves "libertarians" in the U.S., on the other hand, just love bosses, as long as the boss isn't the government.

Well there's a classic ad hominem argument. You certainly aren't a good representative of right-libertarianism. If I was a right-libertarian I would tell you to STFU.

#33 | Posted by nullifidian

I certainly have some great teachers from both the left and right here on the old retort to learn ad hominem arguments from.

If I were a right-libertarian that might offend me.

I tend to fall into the Minarchism wing of the party, but we have a pretty big tent in Libertarianism from left to right.

Dude shut the hell up you lost all credibility when you suggested Keith Olberman isn't part of the corporate media and that Amy Goodman is in some way a legitimate journalist.

-----------

You are an imbecile.

Go away.

And a lying misquoting cocksucker too.

I haven't seen anyone offer a reasoned reaction to Posner's actual argument other than "that's stupid" or "that shocks me because it's different from what I'm used to." He said that requiring consent from authors before linking "might be necessary to keep free riding on content financed by online newspapers from so impairing the incentive to create costly news-gathering operations." He's not proposing it because he likes individual authors, merely offering it as a solution to the problem that will develop when individuals have no way to make money in media and the only news organizations left are AP and Reuters.

I haven't seen anyone offer a reasoned reaction to Posner's actual argument other than "that's stupid" or "that shocks me because it's different from what I'm used to."

I don't understand why Posner believes linking should be banned. I've read things linked to here from sources I've never even heard of and have gone to those sites on my own afterwards. That's just free publicity and I don't know why anyone would have a problem with it.

Now, copying and pasting an entire article (the doc sarvis technique) I can totally appreciate copyright owners being upset about.

And a lying misquoting cocksucker too.
#38 | Posted by Shawn

You mean you didn't suggest that Olberman isn't part of the corporate media? Well let's take a look.

There are no real liberals in government nor media. Not one.
#11 | Posted by Shawn at 2009-07-02 12:16 AM

You mean your assman, Olberman, isn't liberal enough for you?
#13 | Posted by Beachbuzz at 2009-07-02 12:21 AM |

Blow me.
There are no liberals in the corporate media.
#32 | Posted by Shawn at 2009-07-02 03:22 AM

As we can see from your posts you did suggest that Olberman is not part of the corporate media.

You saying their are no liberals in government is also a massive lie. Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, John Conyers, Sheldon Whitehouse, the self professed socialists Bernie Sanders, "The Liberal Lion" Ted Kennedy the list goes on.

Glass houses, pot and kettle any of these things ring a bell?

"I don't understand why Posner believes linking should be banned. I've read things linked to here from sources I've never even heard of and have gone to those sites on my own afterwards. That's just free publicity and I don't know why anyone would have a problem with it."

I think you are missing his point. He isn't saying "linking should be banned." He's saying "if we want people to be able to make money and remain competitive in the media industry, perhaps we should require consent before linking." The point is that newspapers spend tons of money producing their online content, and then someone else with their own website can link to it and make their own ad revenue, to no benefit of the original newspaper. He argues that it could get to the point where only the media giants can afford such a money-losing scheme and independent journalism will go by the wayside.

No, these are not liberals. They are corporate democrats. i.e. fascist. Perhaps not quite as fascist as you asshole buddy rush, but still fascist trash.

The entire political system is based on corporate dollars. You cannot hold public office about local school board without being bought and paid for. Period.

Fascist statism. Period.

There no non-corporate bought people in government nor media. Not one.

The more I ponder the more obvious it becomes that you are just another marketing cocksucker. A paid whore. One in a long line of corporate paid for scum who try to get people to believe that fascism is good.

Not interested.

I'm done with you brownshirt clown.

"I think you are missing his point. He isn't saying "linking should be banned." He's saying "if we want people to be able to make money and remain competitive in the media industry, perhaps we should require consent before linking." The point is that newspapers spend tons of money producing their online content, and then someone else with their own website can link to it and make their own ad revenue, to no benefit of the original newspaper. He argues that it could get to the point where only the media giants can afford such a money-losing scheme and independent journalism will go by the wayside."
Posted by Joe

I don't agree here.

Firstly, newspapers would have to spend alot of money on the bureaucracy necessary to approve this linking on a case by case basis.

Secondly, if all that is done is a link and a short excerpt, then people will follow the link to the originating site and no ad revenue is lost.

"if all that is done is a link and a short excerpt, then people will follow the link to the originating site and no ad revenue is lost."

You can't be serious. How many people here at the retort actually click through the links to get to the original article? Maybe half?

"newspapers would have to spend alot of money on the bureaucracy necessary to approve this linking on a case by case basis."

Not necessarily. It could be a simple matter of paying a fee online. I doubt setting that up would cost very much.

You can't be serious. How many people here at the retort actually click through the links to get to the original article? Maybe half?
#46 | Posted by JOE

If you want to complain about how many people jump into a thread without reading the article first (I'm guilty some of the time), I think that's an ancillary point.

But then, if the excerpt is a paragraph or less, I don't see where the newspapers revenue is diminished. Its when we start posting ENTIRE articles that I think revenue is affected.

"If you want to complain about how many people jump into a thread without reading the article first (I'm guilty some of the time), I think that's an ancillary point."

No it isn't. It directly refutes your argument that "people will follow the link to the originating site and no ad revenue is lost."

No it isn't. It directly refutes your argument that "people will follow the link to the originating site and no ad revenue is lost."
#49 | Posted by JOE

Again, I disagree, because its not like the person would've gone to the site were it not for the link in the first place.

I don't know how you'd be able to demonstrate otherwise.

"its not like the person would've gone to the site were it not for the link in the first place."

Many people come to the drudge retort, go straight to the comments section, read a snippet of a news article and write their comments. That results in zero ad revenue to the original producer of the content. No demonstration is required, this is basic logic here.

Many people come to the drudge retort, go straight to the comments section, read a snippet of a news article and write their comments. That results in zero ad revenue to the original producer of the content. No demonstration is required, this is basic logic here.
#51 | Posted by JOE

Basic logic? You use unprovable assumptions, the most obvious being that you can't show that absent the link that a person would have gone to the site of their own volition. That's what the claim of lost revenue is based on.

"You can't show that absent the link that a person would have gone to the site of their own volition."

You've already admitted that people come to the retort and don't read the articles, yet still comment on the content they were able to read without clicking through and producing revenue for the original creator. Nothing more needs to be said.

"Nothing more needs to be said."

I don't buy that for a second.

I don't think it makes any difference if a person comments on a story they didn't read unless you can show that they would have read it were it not for the excerpt and link in question.

In other words, unless you can show that you actually lost a customer that you would have otherwise, the newspapers' got nothing.

"I don't think it makes any difference if a person comments on a story they didn't read unless you can show that they would have read it were it not for the excerpt and link in question."

So, if people who link to news stories all shut down their sites because they didn't want to pay for linking, the sites that produced the original news content would not see an increase in traffic? Is that honestly your position?

So, if people who link to news stories all shut down their sites because they didn't want to pay for linking, the sites that produced the original news content would not see an increase in traffic? Is that honestly your position?
#55 | Posted by JOE

Yes, and for two reasons. Firstly, many people discover sites that they wouldn't have known about otherwise were it not for the links. Secondly, because some sites aren't visited until a person knows there is something there that he is specifically interested in. That's the benefit of linking.

Mind you, I only endorse a link and a brief excerpt. Beyond that I begin to agree with you.

I'd argue that you lose more viewers when your content can be viewed elsewhere than when it cannot. No way of proving that, though.

I'd argue that you lose more viewers when your content can be viewed elsewhere than when it cannot. No way of proving that, though.
#57 | Posted by JOE

Think the grateful dead for a moment. They allowed people to tape their shows and trade them freely for 40 years. All it did was increase their fan base and inspire kids to spend hundreds of dollars a year on tickets and other GDM licensed merchandise.

And I think about the sites I used to visit when I came out of my media/technology blackout years in 99... I could count them on one hand. I have an unmanageable favorites folder precisely because of links and excerpts found on other pages. And I'm the kind of idiot who clinks on ad links he has no interest in precisely because he knows it generates revenue for the site owner.

I don't think the grateful dead is comparable to most major bands, much less the news media. Every dead show was unique, so a tape of one show didn't replace seeing a live show since the next show would be completely different. In this case the links are giving you the gist of the content without much variation.

"In this case the links are giving you the gist of the content without much variation."

Doesn't your position have more to do with the excerpts being too long than with the links?

I don't have as much of a problem with having a standard for controlling the way an excerpt is employed than I do with the actual link needing to be paid for.