×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

German Publishers Want Monopoly On Sentences

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the oh-the-possibilities dept.

The Media 158

Glyn Moody writes "You think copyright can't get any more draconian? Think again. In Germany, newspaper publishers are lobbying for 'a new exclusive right conferring the power to monopolize speech e.g. by assigning a right to re-use a particular wording in the headline of a news article anywhere else without the permission of the rights holder. According to the drafts circulating on the Internet, permission shall be obtainable exclusively by closing an agreement with a new collecting society which will be founded after the drafts have matured into law. Depending on the particulars, new levies might come up for each and every user of a PC, at least if the computer is used in a company for commercial purposes.' Think that will never work because someone will always break the news cartel? Don't worry, they've got that covered too. They want to 'amend cartel law in order to enable a global "pooling" of all exclusive rights of all newspaper publishers in Germany in order to block any attempt to defect from the paywall cartel by a single competitor.' And rest assured, if anything like this passes in Germany, publishers everywhere will be using the copyright ratchet to obtain 'parity.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

158 comments

So what (3, Insightful)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 3 years ago | (#32624536)

Dying creatures thrash about as they go to meet their doom.

News at 11 (please don't sue me gemany)

Re:So what (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32624770)

The new Hitlers are more involved with technology than the old.

Re:So what (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32625676)

It's more likely you can chalk this one up to Jews rather than Hitlers.

Re:So what (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32625078)

Dying creatures thrash about as they go to meet their doom.

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to the public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
-Life-Line by Robert A. Heinlein (1939)

/Anonymously because I don't need the karma.

Re:So what (3, Funny)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | more than 3 years ago | (#32625184)

/Anonymously because I don't need the karma.

You arrogant presumptuous cunt.

Re:So what (5, Funny)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | more than 3 years ago | (#32625208)

sigh, sorry my stupid little brother saw i was still logged in and decided to insult people using my account

Re:So what (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32625832)

You sure it wasn't the cat or dog walking on the keyboard? Or maybe the will of god or a random bitflipping incident by cosmic rays?

Re:So what (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 3 years ago | (#32626438)

sigh, sorry my stupid little brother saw i was still logged in and decided to insult people using my account

OK - I was just about to call you an arrogant, presumptuous cunt. :-D

Re:So what (2, Insightful)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 3 years ago | (#32625158)

The problem is that in general laws don't get removed once they're in place. This means that if these guys get a whole bunch of insane laws on the books before they die off the laws will almost certainly hang around for decades to come.

Re:So what (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32625452)

Rather like the Battle of the Bulge? /Didn't mean to mention the war.

Re:So what (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 3 years ago | (#32626286)

It matters when the dying creatures are 50 ton dinosaurs having their death-throes in your living room - and the ability to vote. The only solution is eternal vigilance and nipping these proposals in the bud.

all this nitrogenous waste occurred before? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32624540)

it would seen so, as much of what is happening now is described word for word, day by day in several of the manuals. it's the context (religion, fear etc...) in which it's presented that throws us. see you on the other side of it?

the corepirate nazi illuminati (a 'religion' unto themselves) is always hunting that patch of red on almost everyones' neck. if they cannot find yours (greed, fear ego etc...) then you can go starve. that's their (explosive) platform now.

never a better time for all of us to consult with/trust in our creators. the lights are coming up rapidly all over now. see you there?

greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of our dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one, & the terminal damage to our atmosphere (see also: manufactured 'weather', hot etc...). see you on the other side of it? the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be your guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on your brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

"The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."--

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson

no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being. our soul purpose here is to care for one another. failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'. & recently (about 10,000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding & excess by a few, resulted in negative consequences for all.

consult with/trust in your creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." )one does not need to agree whois in charge to grasp the notion that there may be some assistance available to us(

boeing, boeing, gone.

Go away, Baby Boomers. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32624542)

Who would have thought that the offspring of the Greatest Generation would be so fucking clueless. These Baby Boomers can't retire quick enough. The harm they're doing is immense.

Re:Go away, Baby Boomers. (1, Offtopic)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#32624614)

I don't think Germany had the baby boom, and not many people would consider the Nazis the greatest generation

Re:Go away, Baby Boomers. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32624678)

Most of Europe, Germany included, did indeed have a baby boom after World War II, much like America did. Baby booms are quite common after devastating conflicts, regardless of who "won". It's society's way of making up for the loss of life, and to handle the grief associated with such losses. We've seen it happen throughout history, not just due to war, but due to significant natural disasters, as well.

And the Nazis weren't the equivalent of America's Greatest Generation. They were from earlier generations. Most of the American leaders at that time weren't part of the Greatest Generation, either, with many of them being born well before 1900.

The Greatest Generation includes people born after World War I, from 1918 to 1945. These were the people who fought in WWII, but many did so against their will, regardless of nation, as conscripts rather than volunteers. Many disagreed with the stances and actions of their political leaders, but would've faced a bullet in the head were they to resist.

Second Renaissance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32624552)

It's coming and big corporations are not part of it.

Re:Second Renaissance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32624608)

Which will come first, this "Second Renaissance" or the year of Linux on the desktop?

Heck, why not words (4, Funny)

markov_chain (202465) | more than 3 years ago | (#32624560)

Knowing how German works there is clearly lots of room for creativity in word construction (or is that Wortbildungkreativität?) :D

Re:Heck, why not words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32626526)

That would be Wortbildungskreativität. But you were very close :D

The "s" is important because you imply that it is the creativity of the "construction of the word" or v.v.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_grammar#Cases
"Genitive (Wessen?): The possessor of something, or the object of certain other prepositions."

Greetings from the dark side

Sheesh... (0, Offtopic)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#32624568)

What a bunch of Nazis.

Re:Sheesh... (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#32624764)

What a bunch of Nazis.

Well, that [wikipedia.org] didn't take very long.

Re:Sheesh... (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#32624834)

Thanks, I was going for a /. record.

Germany can still easily... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32624590)

disagree with the proposal. If no one else, the pirate party member in the German parliament will surely be a critical voice...

Re:Germany can still easily... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32624714)

there is no pirate party member in the german parliament.

there was one, a former member of the SPD (that's how he got his seat), but after the elections in september 2009 the pirate party didn't get a new seat

They did it with software so why not words? (2, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#32624620)

I really, really hope they do this.

Of course the consequences will be awful but at least the anti-software patent people will have a perfect analogy for their arguments and one that the public (and politicians) can understand.

Re:They did it with software so why not words? (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#32624662)

Are you saying that I'll be able to pay for and 'license' a copy of a German newspaper but never 'own' it?

Flip side (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#32624688)

The flip side, though, is that pro-patent people could also use this to their advantage. Imagine this exchange:

Anti-patent person: Software patents are ridiculous! It would be like trying to claim ownership over a sentence!
Pro-patent person: Well, copyrights on sentences have been granted, so there!

Re:Flip side (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#32624890)

Anti-patent person: Software patents are ridiculous! It would be like trying to claim ownership over a sentence!
Pro-patent person: Well, copyrights on sentences have been granted, so there!

Anti-patent person: Watch how easily I ignore your copyrights! Your copyrights are about as useful and effective as Prohibition or laws against marijuana use. What will you do when more people are breaking your law than obeying it?

Re:Flip side (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#32625098)

"What will you do when more people are breaking your law than obeying it?"

The same thing we do with drug prohibition: expand the police force and increase the power that the police have, and then go ahead and incarcerate millions of people.

Re:Flip side (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32626732)

>What will you do when more people are breaking your law than obeying it?

Oh, that's easy. Hire more lawyers.

"More People Ignoring Copyright Law Than Ever" Headline (c) 2020 Intellectual Property News Network

Re:They did it with software so why not words? (1)

BenoitGirard (927897) | more than 3 years ago | (#32624696)

Yeah! If they keep at it, I can see a massive backlash on the horizon. "Enough is enough with these so called rights! From now on, we use information freely like God intended and that's that!"

Re:They did it with software so why not words? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32625014)

The lawyers would love it. Hell, they already do. It's a license to print money.

Unless we do something to encourage lawyers from doing so, that is. Would be shame if something happened to them; and all that. With today's corruption and blatant disregard for citizens in politics, this seems to turn into the only way left for the people.

Re:They did it with software so why not words? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32625066)

Oh my god, how perfect was that? CAPTCHA for the above post was "massacre".

Re:They did it with software so why not words? (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#32624864)

Of course the consequences will be awful but at least the anti-software patent people will have a perfect analogy for their arguments and one that the public (and politicians) can understand.

I think the "public" can understand it perfectly well already, but they're too busy trying to scratch out a living in a world where corporations are siphoning off an increasing amount of wealth for the economic elite.

Me, I'm waiting for the Intellectual Property War. Right now it's only a skirmish, but I expect increased guerrilla activity in days ahead. Actually, "Intellectual Property Revolution" is probably more like it. You can have my right to fair use when you wrest it from my cold dead hands.

Re:They did it with software so why not words? (2, Funny)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 3 years ago | (#32625210)

the anti-software patent people will have a perfect analogy for their arguments

But they won't be allowed to use it in print, because it will be copyrighted.

A rainbow table of "Headlines"? (4, Interesting)

walmass (67905) | more than 3 years ago | (#32624642)

I wonder what the definition of "newspaper" will be for the purpose of this law--will it be dead-tree only? Otherwise someone should generate all possible combination of words resulting in (perhaps nonsense) sentences of lets say 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 words, and then of course protect them with this law.

Once the list is generated, the now idle servers can be stuffed up the ass of the greedy bastards who want this law.

Re:A rainbow table of "Headlines"? (1)

sanosuke001 (640243) | more than 3 years ago | (#32624682)

That is the best idea I've ever heard.

The only problem is that your rainbow tables will undoubtedly infringe on the already in print newspapers. You'll have to be VERY careful not to include any already created headlines.

Re:A rainbow table of "Headlines"? (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#32624846)

We could get to work on it now and get grandfathered in, at least, assuming that existing headlines are protected against future infringement but aren't subject to retroactive lawsuits.

Re:A rainbow table of "Headlines"? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32624706)

They're specifically looking to monopolize the wordings in online "newspapers", while at the same time trying hard not to extend the scope to anything but their own publications. It's aimed at Google et al. I for one hope that Google will not license the snippets and headlines but instead remove all German newspaper URLs from the index.

Re:A rainbow table of "Headlines"? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#32625454)

I for one hope that Google will not license the snippets and headlines but instead remove all German newspaper URLs from the index.

They don't have to do that either. All they have to do is paraphrase them. Surely Google, with their language tools, can do this in an automated fashion? I see why you would want them to select the nuclear option but I think this way makes more sense.

Re:A rainbow table of "Headlines"? (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#32625754)

The problem is that by paraphrasing they risk infringing on another newspaper that has similar language. Canning german newspapers would probably be simpler to implement, and would make the newspapers realize their folly faster.

Sentences? (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 3 years ago | (#32624690)

I don't speak German or read German newspapers, but from my knowledge of english-language newspapers, Headlines are raely sentences, and often don' make sense..
Often they are written to be a clever play on words. I suspect tht there is a headline writting class in journalism schools.

Anyway since headlines are a very short summary of an event, and a lot of events are similar to past events. (eg man drowns in flodded river) I don't think they could be copyrighted.

Re:Sentences? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32624746)

I don't think they could be copyrighted.

Yes, which is why they want to "fix" copyright law.

Re:Sentences? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32624820)

There is indeed such a class in Dutch journalism schools. It was optional when I went there though.

Re:Sentences? (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 3 years ago | (#32625128)

They can't be copyrighted, that's why they need a new law giving them eternal ownership of them.

Re:Sentences? (2, Interesting)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 3 years ago | (#32625292)

Indeed, headlines are purported to be facts, and they certainly look like facts (man drowns in river, oil spill to break record, etc). Under pretty much all copyright law in the world facts are not copyrightable. The very idea of it is insane. It's the composition that's copyrightable, not the content. You can't copy someone's article word for word, but you can use that article as a source and say the exact same facts.

I can't believe newspapers of all people are dumb enough not to see what this could do to them. It's not going to make any kind of effecitve "headline exchange", people will just use different headlines. They'll start adding things like "New York Times says 'Headless Man Runs Nude Through Central Park'" instead of "Headless Man Runs Nude Through Central Park". That would pass muster, because it is a quote: The NYT did indeed say that (if they said it of course).

Re:Sentences? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32625830)

Anyway since headlines are a very short summary of an event, and a lot of events are similar to past events. (eg man drowns in flodded river) I don't think they could be copyrighted.

This proposal sounds like the RIAA hold on music in the US, really. Samples are under copyright so why not copyright the minimal meaningful sequence of words as well? WIAA (Word Industry Association of America) would like to send you a bill as your baby come up with "mommy" as her first words. There's a copyright for that.

Round up the pirates (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 3 years ago | (#32624748)

I'm coming to the conclusion that some people have such a sociopathic sense of entitlement that they are unfit for living among humans. Anyone who takes steps to use force of law (which ultimately comes from the barrel of a gun) to steal from society without regard is a dirty pirate and should be dealt with as such.

Re:Round up the pirates (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 3 years ago | (#32624954)

You do realize you're riffing on Ayn Rand, right? Not saying that's good or bad, but few people realize that was her principle point.

Re:Round up the pirates (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#32625070)

You do realize you're riffing on Ayn Rand, right? Not saying that's good or bad, but few people realize that was her principle point.

Even fewer people realize the difference between principle and principal.

Anyone who takes steps to use force of law (which (2, Interesting)

D4C5CE (578304) | more than 3 years ago | (#32625174)

...ultimately comes from the barrel of a gun) to steal from society

few people realize that was [Ayn Rand's] principle point

This view seems at least as old as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Qu'est-ce que la propriété?, 1840 (quite a different school of thought than Objectivism for sure).

With respect to Ayn Rand's contributions to be revisited for the present debate, one might rather point at the bureaucrats' stance in Atlas Shrugged:
Not wanting their laws observed but broken to cash in on guilt as it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

One thing's for sure if you could get the followers of both authors to agree:
The proposed bill would be, to rehash Lawrence Lessig's take on the dreaded DMCA, "bad law and bad policy."

Re:Round up the pirates (2, Funny)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 3 years ago | (#32625422)

You do realize you're riffing on Ayn Rand, right? Not saying that's good or bad, but few people realize that was her principle point.

Maybe because it wasn't? Have you read any of her work? Or do you just get the liberal Cliff's notes?

She wasn't about stealing from society by force of law, she was about freedom from being coerced into giving to society. They are very different things (though to a socialist, they are identical). What about this law increases the freedom from being coerced into giving to society?

Frankly, Ayn Rand would be appalled at the proposed German law. It represents the exact opposite of the ideals she supported. In fact, it is very, very similar to the central theme in Atlas Shrugged. In Atlas Shrugged, it was impossible to exist in mainstream society without breaking the law. Her solution was to step out of society completely, and form a new one.

There was one pirate in the story, but he was characterized as quite a narcissistic asshole (though irresistible to the main character), and most of the people in the reclusive society of "doers" did not approve of his methods. John Galt, the elusive figure around which the story was built, and the ultimate role model pushed forward by Rand, was certainly no pirate. He did preach too much, in my opinion, when given the opportunity. That part of the book sucked.

Re:Round up the pirates (1)

cduffy (652) | more than 3 years ago | (#32625508)

You completely failed to grok the parent's point -- which was that this law is completely in-line with the kind of behavior Ayn Rand was against, and for essentially the same reasons.

Sheesh.

Re:Round up the pirates (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 3 years ago | (#32625662)

Maybe because it wasn't? Have you read any of her work? Or do you just get the liberal Cliff's notes?

That might be an idiom you're not familiar with. Replace "riffing on" with "making variations on" and I think you'll get the gist of what he meant.

Re:Round up the pirates (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32625920)

Don't scare the Randroid with your non-literal interpretation of reality - don't you know that the facts have a liberal bias? :)

Re:Round up the pirates (1)

Nikker (749551) | more than 3 years ago | (#32625052)

It is funny how that line has apparently become so thin it has almost dissapeared.

Talking about pirates... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32626358)

Every German who didn't vote for the Piratenpartei is personally responsible for this law.

Cease and desist letter, Parker Brothers (5, Funny)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#32624778)

This is to inform you that the headline

"German Publishers Want Monopoly On Sentences"

infringes on our trademark, Monopoly. Please refrain from using this word in your headlines, or contact us for licensing arrangements. Further use will result in legal action.

"Informative" (0, Offtopic)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#32624840)

To whoever modded this post "informative:" it was obviously a joke. Either mod it "funny" or mod it "lame" (yes, I propose that we add "-1 Lame" to the moderation system).

Re:"Informative" (2, Funny)

lgw (121541) | more than 3 years ago | (#32624982)

This is Slashdot. "-1 Lame" is implied on all posts. We just moved the zero-point to compensate.

Re:"Informative" (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 3 years ago | (#32626432)

To whoever modded this post "informative:" it was obviously a joke. Either mod it "funny" or mod it "lame" (yes, I propose that we add "-1 Lame" to the moderation system).

Personally, I'd say the post was "insightful". After all, the Trademark system already **does** provide all the tools necessary to protect full sentences already, the only reason it's not being used more frequently is that the cost to do so for a newspaper is just too prohibitive.

But when it comes down to it, all the issues would be the same. In order to be workable, newspapers would have to find unique sentences that had never previously been published by other newspapers, and that would never be normally used commonly. The resulting headlines would be mismashes of sensationalist gobbledygook, incorrect spellings, and grammatically incorrect turns of phrases -- just to make sure they remained unique and uniquely unusable by others (otherwise, they'll lose all their value).

Re:Cease and desist letter, Parker Brothers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32626338)

You just infringed on Slashdot's copyright to the headline.

Arbeit macht frei (1, Insightful)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 3 years ago | (#32624784)

The Germans can have the right to that particular "word order".....

Re:Arbeit macht frei (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32626670)

For those who are not familiar with this sentence:

"Arbeit macht frei", which literally translates to "work makes free" was an inscription at the entrances of several concentration camps during the Third Reich.

It is beyond me, why the parent uses this particular sentence. May I remind everybody that more than 7 million people died in these camps.

You do not make such a reference in a discussion on copyright. Get some human decency!

We need to put a stop to this (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32624836)

I suggest a "period."

Wont fly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32624940)

If, however they patented the construction of headlines by employing the same kind of absurd semantic abstractions that allow borderline retards to will software patents into existence... Eye-Pee institutions would be only too eager to accommodate such misguided stupidity.

Big Deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32624984)

We have a monopoly on kicking their ass.

Word Permutations (4, Interesting)

alphahydroxy (1837246) | more than 3 years ago | (#32625004)

These publishers need to learn a little about combinometrics. The Associated Press said they wanted to be able to copyright phrases as short as five words. Consider a 500 words story which would have 495 five word phrases which could then match up to anything that was ever written -- or just try googling for the exact string. I just googled the string containing the 2nd-6th words of this comment, "said they wanted to be", and got 3.2 million hits. If AP had gotten their way with the copyrights bit, AP would have had to have determined who had the rights to this phrase and negotiate use with the owner. Then AP would have to search for the owner of the string containing the 3rd to 7th words, "they wanted to be able" which had 7.8 million hits. And so on. Further this would have to be repeated for six, seven, ... word strings. Someone must have pointed out to AP how they would be not just hoisted, by destroyed by their own petard. This inane copyright that the German publishers are proposing would end up preventing them from writing headlines.

Re:Word Permutations (1)

imthesponge (621107) | more than 3 years ago | (#32625240)

This is intentional; everyone will have to pay a fee to some "association" in order to use the language. Negotiation with individual copyright holders isn't required in that case.

Re:Word Permutations (2, Interesting)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 3 years ago | (#32625280)

Perhaps news stories will then have to appear with NO headlines. People will be forced to delve into each story to figure out what it is about. I see an underground internet movement springing up that provides access to mapping stories up with "illegal" headlines, hosted on servers located on boats with satellite connections and guarded by some guys with wooden legs. Bumper stickers will start appearing. "Free the Headlines!" Most people, however, will avoid illegal headline servers and continue to wander aimlessly through their newspapers trying to figure out what they might like to read. Eventually they will get tired of this and stop reading newspapers altogether.

Re:Word Permutations (2, Funny)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#32625320)

Eventually they will get tired of this and stop reading newspapers altogether.

Hasn't that already happened? I mean, I thought newspapers being dead was why Rupert Murdoch was yelling about the internet and the end of the free ride. Maybe he's just off his meds.

From the "copyright ratchet" article: (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#32625038)

> On the other hand, it is unusual that the U.S. would agree to agree to
> another country's intellectual property regimen: It doesn't have to.

I guess that must be why the USA never signed the Berne convention, which would have drastically expanded copyright owner's rights.

Oh. Wait...

Re:From the "copyright ratchet" article: (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#32625154)

We did resist it a very long time, though. It took 102 years to formally adopt, while one could argue that some other countries are adopting the laws US copyright holders are pushing before the US bothers to adopt them.

Re:From the "copyright ratchet" article: (2, Informative)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 3 years ago | (#32625708)

French copyright still gives far more rights to the creators than US copyright, and it always has. It was one of the driving forces behind the Berne convention.

Re:From the "copyright ratchet" article: (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#32625802)

And despite the pressure from the US media conglomerates, the US still has one of the largest areas of fair use/fair dealing and copyright exceptions. I would even go as far as to suggest that our media conglomerates formed largely because of the fair use and generally more lax copyright stance in the US.

Re:From the "copyright ratchet" article: (3, Insightful)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 3 years ago | (#32625692)

The article is right about about the "copyright ratchet", but it's extremely short-sighted and, frankly, wrong when it says that it is the US pushing its laws onto the rest of the world. It has recently been driven by the US - things like the DMCA and Sonny Bono act and such, but most of the draconian copyright laws did not exist in the US until the 60's, where we were the ones who were "ratcheted up" to the rest of the world's standards, which had already been ratcheted up by the French (who still have the most restrictive copyright laws in the world, in my opinion). The French still give far more rights to author's/artists than the US does, so to say it is US driven is a little disingenuous, or at the very least completely ignorant of history. It also goes squarely against the articles main point: that copyright harmonization is any different than any other harmonization. There are swings back and forth.

The real difference between copyright harmonization and other types of harmonization is copyright law affects everyone every single day, where most laws only affect a few people at any given time. Yet only a very small number of people are involved in the decision making process. Our supposed representatives are too easily swayed by lobbyists, they aren't considering the people any more.

Go for the Essentials (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32625168)

Guess Il take out a patent on having bright ideas, then. Any bright idea will then belong to me.

Or snide remarks. That's a good one. Oh, there's a world of activity ahead.

If this goes on, then, will everyone be forced to develop their own language, eventually ? What about translators between individuals ? Will they be possible or viable without large contracts and at least two different patents ? Will there be "club" OR "group" translators? Imagine the legal complexity! Or a "lengua general". Or inter-group translator translators ? Get real !

Solves the problem of humanity actually evolving, though. Nature, of course, might just cut through the bostercaria and make people telepathic. Until someone patents the genes on that, of course. Artificial interpersonal electronic "telepathy", though, might be a bit easier. But the open source version could have an operational issue, or two.

Is someone trying to get German press blacklisted in the world ?

This sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32625194)

(c) 2010, Anonymous Coward.

To be fair, (1)

JavaTHut (9877) | more than 3 years ago | (#32625294)

a sentence in German has roughly the length of a book in English, so they're just bringing things up to parity with the US.

Frist st0p (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32625358)

development mod3l Bunch of r3tarded are there? Oh,

Tough, but not as bad as article suggests (2, Informative)

alhague (127665) | more than 3 years ago | (#32625810)

>In Germany, newspaper publishers are lobbying for 'a new exclusive right conferring the power to monopolize speech e.g. by assigning a right to re-use a particular wording in the headline of a news article anywhere else without the permission of the rights holder

This is not quite true. The auxiliary copyright ("Leistungsschutzrecht", draft leaked: http://www.irights.info/index.php?q=node/880 [irights.info] ) is mostly aimed against big players such as Google (News) who systematically and continuously reuse headlines, snippets and images from publishers for their own profit (selling ads) without paying (in the publisher's mind: adequate) royalties. The average blogger commenting (and quoting) a certain news story is not meant to be affected... but, of course we know, laws like these tend to get out of hand.

Music Publishers are Worse (1)

jvillain (546827) | more than 3 years ago | (#32625862)

Members of the North American music cabal claim that simple chord changes are copyrightable and so exclusively theirs. They have been ordering take down notices for showing such things as the chord changes to Knocking on Heavens Door for example, which has the same chord changes as a million other songs going back thousands of years.

section 71: Posthumous Works, completely insane (1)

Khashishi (775369) | more than 3 years ago | (#32626284)

Wow, it completely turns the concept of public domain on its head. Watch the mad rush as people snatch up exclusive rights to publish old works like the bible.... Complete insanity.

Sieg Heil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32626394)

When did the fourth estate become the fourth reich?

Here, You Can Have This Sentence. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32626466)

All our sentences are yours. We will descend into the preliterate morass (oops, that is one of your sentences isn't it).

Bye now.

No surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32626624)

T-mobile = Deutsche Telecom already claimed magenta as their brand color at the EU trade mark certificate bureau. The next step is a patent on water.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...