I find we're using "publisher" in a quite broad manner any more.
When I think of a publisher, I think of words on paper. Specifically a newspaper or book. As a publisher, I convey the words to some permanent form (a publication) which is then broadcast in some fashion.
The point here? I own the words. I put my name on them.
But now we're asked to believe that publishing involves some kind of deeper interaction. If I'm a publisher, I guess, I'm supposed to be creating an immersive, interactive (perhaps "sticky" or "addictive") model of content consumption. People who leave my words alone but take away my interaction with consumers are stealing my works.
This just sounds like a playground fight over who gets to be the newspaper delivery boy -- and the reason it's so important isn't because of the content, genre, or authorship of the work in question. Everybody agrees on that. This is important because content creation in 2014 is about a fight for eyeballs. Get them on the page, get them to join an email list, get them involved in the comments sections, get them coming back.
Publishers and publications, at least in the way the words have generally been used, have little to do with anything here. The fight is because everybody's looking to psychologically manipulate the poor schmuck who's reading the publication, not for any loftier reason than that.
I don't think that's valid. "Publishers" are those who publish content - that is, make it available to others in some form. The fact that this publishing is via RSS or a website doesn't change that.
You can bet that if you created a newspaper that was simply a selection of articles photocopied from other newspapers, you'd have IP issues. Same if you tried it with a book.
Didn't there use to be "clipping services" for executives that did just this? You'd pay them, they'd subscribe to a bunch of different print services, then they'd clip out what they thought might interest you, compile it, and send it as it's own custom publication?
If I gave my passwords to a poor person in a third-world country, might they not consume all of my digital content online for me, summarize it, and send me what's important, in plain text format?
Yes, but the clipping services needed to purchase a license to do this. In the UK there are two special bodies that handle this: the Newspaper Licensing Agency and the Copyright Licensing Agency.
In the US you don't need a license for the physical version, though, where you literally cut out news articles and mail an envelope of clippings to someone. Under the first-sale doctrine, you own the physical printed copy of a book, magazine, or newspaper you bought, and you can resell that copy (only) without further permission of the copyright holder. You can also modify it before resale if you'd like, since you fully own it: carve it into a book-sculpture, clip out pages and sell them independently, cut out the pages and reuse the binding, etc. You can even buy copyrighted paintings, modify them, and sell the modified version, as long as you're modifying the physical canvas you bought (not copying it onto a new canvas or making prints).
Comments
I find we're using "publisher" in a quite broad manner any more.
When I think of a publisher, I think of words on paper. Specifically a newspaper or book. As a publisher, I convey the words to some permanent form (a publication) which is then broadcast in some fashion.
The point here? I own the words. I put my name on them.
But now we're asked to believe that publishing involves some kind of deeper interaction. If I'm a publisher, I guess, I'm supposed to be creating an immersive, interactive (perhaps "sticky" or "addictive") model of content consumption. People who leave my words alone but take away my interaction with consumers are stealing my works.
This just sounds like a playground fight over who gets to be the newspaper delivery boy -- and the reason it's so important isn't because of the content, genre, or authorship of the work in question. Everybody agrees on that. This is important because content creation in 2014 is about a fight for eyeballs. Get them on the page, get them to join an email list, get them involved in the comments sections, get them coming back.
Publishers and publications, at least in the way the words have generally been used, have little to do with anything here. The fight is because everybody's looking to psychologically manipulate the poor schmuck who's reading the publication, not for any loftier reason than that.
I don't think that's valid. "Publishers" are those who publish content - that is, make it available to others in some form. The fact that this publishing is via RSS or a website doesn't change that.
You can bet that if you created a newspaper that was simply a selection of articles photocopied from other newspapers, you'd have IP issues. Same if you tried it with a book.
Didn't there use to be "clipping services" for executives that did just this? You'd pay them, they'd subscribe to a bunch of different print services, then they'd clip out what they thought might interest you, compile it, and send it as it's own custom publication?
If I gave my passwords to a poor person in a third-world country, might they not consume all of my digital content online for me, summarize it, and send me what's important, in plain text format?
Yes, but the clipping services needed to purchase a license to do this. In the UK there are two special bodies that handle this: the Newspaper Licensing Agency and the Copyright Licensing Agency.
Under UK law, the digital version is actually legal without a license, because the Supreme Court held that copies made by digital-clippings services were permitted "temporary copies": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Relations_Consultants_A...
In the US the same case came out the other way around, holding that copies made in the process of digital aggregation didn't constitute fair use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press_v._Meltwater
In the US you don't need a license for the physical version, though, where you literally cut out news articles and mail an envelope of clippings to someone. Under the first-sale doctrine, you own the physical printed copy of a book, magazine, or newspaper you bought, and you can resell that copy (only) without further permission of the copyright holder. You can also modify it before resale if you'd like, since you fully own it: carve it into a book-sculpture, clip out pages and sell them independently, cut out the pages and reuse the binding, etc. You can even buy copyrighted paintings, modify them, and sell the modified version, as long as you're modifying the physical canvas you bought (not copying it onto a new canvas or making prints).