Comments on: Do Article Tools Promote Copyright Infringement?

By: Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey — Mon, 04 May 2009 16:55:41 +0000

I agree with you complete that article tools need to be better structured and explained. I think the study shows that well and I agree that some publishers have been a bit schizophrenic here with their "share this" but "don't infringe" messages.I think part of this stems from publishers being schizophrenic by themselves though. I write articles and do reporting for a journalism commission and am watching as papers and other publishers flounder while trying to find the best approach for their content and I think many are trying to have it both ways, opening up content to the masses while tightening enforcement. Needless to say, that's going to cause problems. On that note, I'm going to be very interested in your follow up white papers and will report on them gladly when they are released.Regarding the nit, thank you for the clarification, I'm going to edit it in just a minute…

By: Mike ODonnell

Mike ODonnell — Sun, 03 May 2009 16:19:47 +0000

Jonathan, it's good to see you expanding the dialogue on this issue. I think you start off asking the wrong question, but ultimately reach the right conclusion. There is no question that article tools promote infringement. All you have to do is view the videos of the test participants as they use article tools and hear their responses to questions posed by the interviewer, to conclude that they do. All you have to do is see the large number of sites that have posted articles using the publisher's 'Print-Friendly' tool — and are running ads on those articles with no links back to the publisher — to see that the print tool is used to cross the line between personal use and commercial use. The question that needs to be asked is, "Should article tools be modified to minimize infringement and increase traffic and revenue for publishers?" You seem to reach the conclusion that the answer is yes. That is the conclusion reached by our study. You say, "standard article tools as a means of protecting content or limiting use is a poor choice." You also say, "it makes sense to apply them and channel that energy through a system you have some control over." Our study concluded that article tools are a GREAT way to minimize piracy (protect content) and ENABLE personal uses and commercial uses in a way that gives publishers more control. Sure, we think iCopyright's article tools accomplish that, but publishers can take steps on their own to correct the flaws.The Big Picture is what publishers should do to change the way their article tools are currently implemented. Article Tools have caused publishers to become schizophrenic. They "tell" readers, "please take our content, use it, share it." Then when users do so, publishers and sites like yours (Plagiarism Today) tell them its bad and they should stop "taking" content. Publishers have caused the very problem they feel victimized by. Article Tools need to be put into context for users and strike the right balance between sharing and taking; and between personal uses and commercial uses. Most users do not know the difference.Another small nit, but an important nuance, you say our study takes issue with the "share" link that lets users Digg content or post headlines on other social networking sites. Our study specifically excludes the "share" tool. In our view, there is nothing wrong with how "share" functions. It does not promote piracy per se, but when used in context with other article tools that do promote piracy, it helps reinforce the notion that publishers want users to "take" their content and do with it what they wish. Stay tuned for our follow up white paper on best practices.

By: Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey — Sun, 03 May 2009 10:46:43 +0000

While I would agree with you that printing is likely covered under the same implied license and/or fair use as caching and other activities that are part of the Web, there is a fine line between printing one copy to read on the train ride home and printing hundreds to pass out to your whole office. Copyright is a separation of degrees a lot of times. I think the study was more interested in targeting the latter kind of use than the former, but I won't pretend to be able to read their minds.

By: Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey — Sun, 03 May 2009 10:41:59 +0000

I've seen some of it myself, but I am really unsure about the depths to which it goes. It's easy to see how, for example, someone could misunderstand a "print" button as a "print as many copies as you like" button but I don't see how a "Share on Digg" button could be a "Post the whole content on your blog" button. Maybe some people are just trying to read the creator's mind and find their intentions and are getting the wrong idea.Then again, I think some people are working backwards from their own intentions.

By: unkonwn

unkonwn — Sat, 02 May 2009 19:49:09 +0000

whoever says that printing an article is illegal is a dumbass. because not everyone has the patience or brain juice to read large sums of text on the monitor screen and find it much easier to print to read the document. besides when printing directly from the browser the printer will site the source of the article on the bottom of the page.

By: cybele

cybele — Fri, 01 May 2009 21:51:01 +0000

I would say that as a Flickr user and reader of the help forums there, I've observed wide misunderstandings about the "blog this" button. Users who see it on other people's photos think that it means that the photo is free for use without any recognition of the copyright or CC license. I'm not at all surprised that people misunderstand sharing/clipping tools.