stoweboyd and the /messengers

After a few paragraphs that recapitulate the downfall of newspapers (without ever mentioning that their downfall has come from their own inept policies), Judge Richard Posner suggests that linking to copyrighted material without express permission might be the only way to protect those that own the copyrights:

[via The Becker-Posner Blog: The Future of Newspapers--Posner]

Expanding copyright law to bar online access to copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's consent, or to bar linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's consent, might be necessary to keep free riding on content financed by online newspapers from so impairing the incentive to create costly news-gathering operations that news services like Reuters and the Associated Press would become the only professional, nongovernmental sources of news and opinion.

As Erick Schoenfeld points out, Posner never mentions freedom of speech, fair use, or the benefits of linking in the context of open social discourse. He -- as might be expected -- is taking a propertarian approach to this antilinking nonsense: in his mind he is saying, "The newspapers spend a lot of time and money building this content, and then a bunch of freeloaders come along and reference it, and then others don't have to visit the original news stories! How dare them! How can the newspapers survive if people start writing about what they have written? After all, the professional news business owns the news, not the people that it matters to! The public are just consumers, and their job is to consume! And to pay to consume! And to shut up, and leave the talking to the professionals! Who don't own their words either, since they are employees of big media companies, who own the words, and the discourse! Learn your place! Get back into line! Shut up!"

Of course, the higher issue is that the newspapers can't effectively 'own' the discussion about newsworthy issues and events, even if they should, which I don't think is the case, anyway. This is another case -- like the failed attempt of the music industry to stop the spread of digital music -- where those who 'own' the elements of our culture want to make us pay for the privilege of living in our culture. And of course, the bug media companies would strike deals with each other to cross link, creating an oligarchy, and pushing all the non-professionals out.

People like Posner would figure out how to make us pay for air, if they could.