Re:High Court ruling implies headlines are copyright
by hxa7241 on Saturday November 27, 2010 @01:41PM
(#1945528)
> certainly newspaper editors put a lot of time and creative work into headline writing
But that is not the basis of copyright. The purpose (mechanism-wise) of copyright is this: keep prices high enough to allow producers to cover costs.
Would increased copying of headlines drive down the price of the product being sold? That does not seem sensible. In fact, it seems more likely that the opposite would happen. So how is copyright monopoly justified here? -- it does not appear to be.
> the aggregators don't have any inherent right to make money off other people's content
Yes, actually, they have exactly that, as we all do. Benefit is not a zero-sum game. Copyright removes that natural freedom only for particular circumstances, and only because it is thought pragmatically useful to do so.
But that is not the basis of copyright. The purpose (mechanism-wise) of copyright is this: keep prices high enough to allow producers to cover costs.
Would increased copying of headlines drive down the price of the product being sold? That does not seem sensible. In fact, it seems more likely that the opposite would happen. So how is copyright monopoly justified here? -- it does not appear to be.
> the aggregators don't have any inherent right to make money off other people's content
Yes, actually, they have exactly that, as we all do. Benefit is not a zero-sum game. Copyright removes that natural freedom only for particular circumstances, and only because it is thought pragmatically useful to do so.