Fair Use, Attribution and the Quote

Way back when, in the days before the Internet, television and even radio, people got their news from newspapers. And if old movies set in these older times are to be believed, families and friends would sometimes sit around and read the news aloud to one another, and then, perhaps, discuss it.

This, folks, was the proto-blog.

Think about it. Many blog posts that surround a news story begin with a quote from or summary about the source material, including a link to the original, and then offer their own analysis or insight into the facts. Some blogs report the news, sure—but because there are very few blogs that can support a full-time research staff, most of what they can offer is a quick update on the news of the day, complete with a link back to the source material, and a bit of commentary or opinion. With a few exceptions, blogs are not trying to replace traditional reporting, nor is it likely that they ever will. There’s really no replacement for a traditional newsroom. At least not yet.

Unfortunately, that’s not an opinion traditional media shares these days. From Rupert Murdoch’s accusations against Google (which, by the way, re-directs users who happen upon a Wall Street Journal article to the Wall Street Journal Web site) to the Associated Press’s takedown request issued against the Drudge Retort for “copyright infringement” even though correct attribution was provided in the questionable passages, it’s becoming obvious that traditional media’s discomfort with on-line content providers stems from misunderstanding the nature and language of the Internet. It’s not about stealing; it’s about sharing, via short quotes and hyperlinks that direct both Web traffic and attention to the full story.

But sharing seems to be what the Associated Press, News Corp., and others are trying to fight. Now there’s speculation amongst bloggers I know that even citing an article’s headline may soon be met with hefty fines, and the Associated Press is already charging large sums for small quotes (even if they’re in the public domain), in conjunction with widespread efforts to find any un-paid-for quotes from the outlet’s articles. Attribution or not, the stance is clear: fair use, which has been a part of U.S. copyright law since 1976 and understood the way we define it today since 1841, doesn’t matter. Fair is fair—but only at $2.50 a word.

I love newspapers and traditional reporting and every time that closure rumors begin to circulate, it makes me sad. And I’m as aware as the next person that providing their content for free for so long is part of the reason they got into trouble in the first place. But there has to be a way for major news providers to monetize their sites without coming down on the very people who read their content and think it’s worth sharing. Mark Cuban has several solutions that don’t use the words “copyright violation” or “lawsuit” even once.

Because if blogs that quote and discuss the news are going to get accused of copyright violations, who’s to say that people who quote and discuss the news at home or work or when out with friends won’t eventually have to pay the fines as well? Trying to prevent plagiarism and protect copyrights is a noble effort. Trying to halt conversation is not.

Facebook – Fun or Fraud?

On July 16, 2009, David Gelles from Financial Times reported that for “the first time a government has found Facebook in direct violation of its laws, and comes as the world’s largest social network with 250m users, is pushing its users to share more of their information with everyone on the Web.”  Personally I think this is a bit scary.  Even though I jumped on the Facebook bandwagon in 2004, I have a hard time accepting the fact that I am being shared with 250 million people.  To me this is absurd—but if you were to monitor my social media activity, you would question the above statement because I find myself logging into Facebook every time I re-open a Web browser.  It has become as habitual for me as checking my e-mail.

In my defense, this past weekend I was more concerned with Facebook than I had been previously.  Last week, both Jill and my friend Dave brought to my attention something suspicious when they logged on to their accounts.  Under “Suggestions,” Jill and Dave had an icon named Chrissy Buckley.  This concerned me because we were already friends, and I do not have multiple accounts.

I did some research, Googled myself, looked up my profile privacy settings—everything seemed to be fine and very secure.  Long story short, somebody had cloned my account.  This means someone or something had copied my account and privacy settings and set up an identical Facebook page.  After a few days, back and forth with what seemed like a machine automated e-mailer named “Will,” I was finally able to get this cloned account deleted.

This ordeal got me thinking: how secure am I when I log in to my account?  Who’s to say my privacy settings are even working? I felt violated.  I felt as though someone had taken a piece of me and taunted and teased me.  In a way, isn’t it a form of identity theft?  If I found out who did this, could I press charges? Unfortunately, the answer is probably not.  I do, however, think that Facebook needs to reform its privacy settings now that this tool is available to 250 million people.  It’s just a thought.

Canada’s Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart said it right when she stated: “Facebook has to be more transparent about telling people what they do with their personal information, how long they keep it, and who is able to use it.”  Isn’t that already a standard practice when it comes to collecting and utilizing personal information such as credit cards, birthdays and other such important details?

I’m not sure what to do or how to solve this problem; however, I do think that Facebook could come up with a system that checks on new accounts. Maybe it is the idealist in me that thinks employing actual humans to monitor the activity could fix the problem of offensive and cloned accounts.  Not only would you be setting up some sort of justice system within a social networking program, but you would also be providing more jobs for people to fill.  It seems like a win-win situation.  What do you think?