BTW: Never heard of proxy servers? This post’s IP will tell you what I mean. Namaste.

@lithotomist I tried a Google search and found this http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=gKC&ei=E9W8Stm7DduDtgeitJWLAw&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Vasiliki+Mitrias+Wilmerhale&spell=1

I can talk about my personal experience and press. Journalists invented crookery. Content stealing, plagiarism, bribes, envelopes, conflict of interests were invented by journalists.
I had ads running on TV and national newspapers (USA Today for example) and always got a little edito on the side.
Not speaking of thousands of pics stolen from public domain everyday, photo taken without permission (paparazzi style), Youtube videos reposted on most news blogs and list goes on.

People are arguing on a technical footing about copyright, but
Copyright (at prersent) is technically outdated for this modern age,
So..Copyright and IP arguments on this subject are virtually
pointless!

You should read:
http://venturebeat.com/2009/02/04/posterous-dead-simple-blogging-gets-dead-simple-bookmarklet/
and http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/technology/01link.html?_r=1

Also read my post yesterday http://www.florianseroussi.com/travel/photo-published-in-travelleisure-but-wait-til-you-read-this/ you will see

But then, he fails to display even a basic grasp of IP and copyright law. I do not believe an ‘IP lawyer’, in trying to justify your claim that you’ve not broken the law by illegally republishing a Business Insider property would quote BI’s policy on what you should do if you think anything they’ve published on their site breaches your copyright. This just looks like an attempt in bad faith to mislead.

Florian, you’d do better to listen to the advice offered to you by people like Caitlin, who are right where you are wrong, and it’d be a good idea if you learned just enough humility to climb down and admit you’re wrong. That’s what this has been about all along, and any attempt by you to now say it shouldn’t be about that is just trying to move the goalposts.

If you want something factual, which nobody made up, try looking at the US Copyright Office – http://www.copyright.gov – on copyright basics, or th World Intellectual Property Organisation, on understanding copyright and related rights. You’ve republished someone else’s work, which they have copyright in, without their licence or consent; you may not be sued, and this sort of theft may be common, but it doesn’t mean it’s legal or moral, just like a hit and run driver may not get arrested but that doesn’t make it ok. If you honestly think a blogger, taking someone else’s work and republishing it, is somehow better than the creator of something original, you have a lot of thinking to do.

Interested to know if this means you finally understand both the concept and law of copyright (although I fail to see how you can understand the former and not the latter).

I’m not asking for your opinion on the future of media, the joy of sharing or any other points you’ve raised to dodge the simple question:

Do you understand copyright?

PS: Yes, I’m an anon poster, welcome to the big ugly web, baby.

Questions:
-would Florian have copied+pasted the whole article if he had to pay to view it in the first place? $0.10, $1, $10? Would he have been happy to in effect give his money away? Because that’s what he’s doing to the copyright owners when he copies the whole thing.

I do pay for content. I’m subscribed to over 10 paid subscription for premium content. Would I have paid to post this article? NO clearly.

-does Florian understand the concept of copyright? (I think we know, actually.)

The concept yes, the Law no.

-has Florian embraced openness and sharing – we know he’s good at it, right? – enough to tell us the terms of reference on which he’s asked Bradley Gross to review this? Has he embraced openness and sharing enough to tell us if he’s paying Brad, and on what basis? Or will he suddenly find reasons why such things must remain his, and locked down?

I asked Bradley to give his review on sharing posts via Posterous, Google Reader, RT. Brad is indeed my attorney but he is not actually getting paid for this review, therefor it will be up to him to make the content public. I invited him to publish his review both on my Blog and his simultaneously. You also have emailed Brad to give him your opinion as well as BI’s opinion. My intention is to find out what can or cannot be done in a legal pattern.

I hope it answers your questions. BTW I emailed you and you never replied.

The comments here are childish? Or the carefully decontextualised ones from Twitter? Either way, nobody pays me to write those. But you’d also have to explain which parts are childish. I’d be interested to hear your analysis there.

My “solution” isn’t any of those things you suggested. I’m not actually proposing a solution; this has all been about whether one has – as @Florian suggested, which I quoted in a tweet – “the right to publish ANY public available content giving credit to author”.

When it’s content that’s actually copyrighted, my point is that no, you don’t. That’s all it was. Yes, it’s symptomatic of a problem that publishing organisations have: that it’s difficult to tie content to the place where they monetise it.

To divert briefly, you wonder about copyright in retweeting. Well, Twitter has – if you bother to read its terms and conditions, which of course most people don’t – a clause which allows republication of content that you or I provide within Twitter. That’s what a retweet is: republication. Without it, Twitter couldn’t show your tweets to your followers, which would negate the point.

It becomes different if – as I pointed out, but again Florian couldn’t be bothered actually to engage with the concept; he makes idee fixe seem like a way of life – you were to suck up Twitter’s timeline and try to republish it on your own site. You’d get a call from a lawyer very quick if you did that. Try to work out why.

@Florian: “We are responsible adults with different opinions.” However, adults who are having a debate usually adduce evidence to bolster their point. You’ve yet to demonstrate that it’s *legal* to copy content as you did; the ethics has been dealt with by Mike Butcher. Just saying “But I can!” is like saying “Hey, look, I can stab this guy! Look, the knife goes all the way in!” It. Does. Not. Make. It. Legal.

@Eric “I’ll be honest with you, if Florian hadn’t posted this article I would have never read it.” Me neither – except when I came across it I wanted to find the original, because I knew there would be higher-quality stuff there. And I couldn’t, which annoyed me twice over.

Questions unanswered:
-would Florian have copied+pasted the whole article if he had to pay to view it in the first place? $0.10, $1, $10? Would he have been happy to in effect give his money away? Because that’s what he’s doing to the copyright owners when he copies the whole thing.
-does Florian understand the concept of copyright? (I think we know, actually.)
-has Florian embraced openness and sharing – we know he’s good at it, right? – enough to tell us the terms of reference on which he’s asked Bradley Gross to review this? Has he embraced openness and sharing enough to tell us if he’s paying Brad, and on what basis? Or will he suddenly find reasons why such things must remain his, and locked down?