|
| Ah,
I
finally
have
c
|
|
 |
|
 |
Ah, I finally have come to uaedrstnnd your POV on "cost". And, definitely, if copyright infringement is the lens you're looking at, then profits made by the infringer and actual licensing rates do play a part. (Please note that neither of these were the parameters used in the report, which was forgone advertising revenue.)My simple submission is this: copyright infringement is a small lens to look at the large issue of article reproduction and how that affect the newspaper industry. Copyright is only one of the many ways for compensation of article writers and their publishers. Eyeballs and readership are more important that control of reproduction from the viewpoint of profits. That's the long tail. While the knee-jerk reaction might be to enforce copyright, the considered viewpoint (in my opinion) would be to acknowledge that readership is as, if not more, important.And very simply put, many of the people who read an article from WSJ on Counterpunch might not ever have gone to read it on the WSJ website. The reproduction of the article on Counterpunch gets people more interested in WSJ. That's a benefit for WSJ.Sometimes brands pay filmmakers to place their products in films, and sometime filmmakers pay brands to place their products in their films. What I want to show is that who benefits (Counterpunch vs. WSJ) is malleable, and not clear-cut enough to be called a "cost". It is merely a "lack of gain".Enjoy your break from Spicy IP.Cheers,AC
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(VISITOR) AUTHOR'S NAME
Milano
MESSAGE TIMESTAMP
16 december 2014, 18:06:24
AUTHOR'S IP LOGGED
62.210.78.179
|
|
|
|
