CBC Online

[Holden West]

I love CBC's extensive and eclectic online content.

But their new copyright restrictions on news stories has some people baffled.

As reported in BoingBoing, CBC has signed up with iCopyright, "the American copyright bounty hunters".

Now, if you want to quote a CBC article here or on your blog it'll cost you at least $125 a month for the privilege. Click the "License" tab at the top of this story.

What's more is the million dollar reward for snitches. Oh, and you can't criticize the CBC or the terms of your purchase are violated.

[VicHockeyFan]

Hmmm. I find myself using the SHARE feature to post right to FBook - that is quite good, TC and CBC. I like the end of the article, how it states they want us to pay to quote an article we (as taxpayers) already paid for.

[victorian fan]

CBC's online archives are wonderful.

[Holden West]

^For some reason the archives are offline today.

[Mike K.]

It's not as drastic as BoingBoing makes it out to be.

CBC wants you to pay for publishing a big chunk of or an entire article as a way of curbing rampant duplication of articles. Some websites are designed to duplicate articles for the purpose of generating advertising revenue.

iCopyright's website states: The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

In other words that's legal mumbo jumbo for "you can use a few words or lines of an article when linking to or describing that specific article, but don't go overboard. And even if you do go overboard, we'll have to refer to the Canadian intellectual property office to ascertain whether or not we have legal grounds to claim you've infringed on copyright."

Canada's intellectual property office acknowledges that it's fair game to quote published materials under the following circumstances: People such as critics, reviewers and researchers often quote works by other authors in articles, books, and so on. Are they infringing copyright? Not necessarily. The Copyright Act provides that any "fair dealing" with a work for purposes of private study or research, or for criticism, review or news reporting is not infringement. However, in the case of criticism, review, or news reporting, the user is required to give the source and the author's, performer's, sound recording maker's or broadcaster's name, if known. ...There are no guidelines that define the number of words or passages that can be used without permission from the author. Only the courts can rule whether fair dealing or infringement is involved.

I think this is a step in the right direction, quite frankly, as too many aggregators and mirror sites have sprung up that rely on the content generated by others to profit while intercepting search results that would have otherwise gone to the author's original article.

[VicHockeyFan]

Actually, I'd prefer to sum it up this way. It's not as drastic as BoingBoing makes it out to be.

CBC wants you to pay for publishing a big chunk of or an entire article as a way of curbing rampant duplication of articles. Some websites are designed to duplicate articles for the purpose of generating advertising revenue.

iCopyright's website states: The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

In other words that's legal mumbo jumbo for "you can use a few words or lines of an article when linking to or describing that specific article, but don't go overboard. And even if you do go overboard, we'll have to refer to the Canadian intellectual property office to ascertain whether or not we have legal grounds to claim you've infringed on copyright."

Canada's intellectual property office acknowledges that it's fair game to quote published materials under the following circumstances: People such as critics, reviewers and researchers often quote works by other authors in articles, books, and so on. Are they infringing copyright? Not necessarily. The Copyright Act provides that any "fair dealing" with a work for purposes of private study or research, or for criticism, review or news reporting is not infringement. However, in the case of criticism, review, or news reporting, the user is required to give the source and the author's, performer's, sound recording maker's or broadcaster's name, if known. ...There are no guidelines that define the number of words or passages that can be used without permission from the author. Only the courts can rule whether fair dealing or infringement is involved.

I think this is a step in the right direction, quite frankly, as too many aggregators and mirror sites have sprung up that rely on the content generated by others to profit while intercepting search results that would have otherwise gone to the author's original article.

[Mike K.]

^that's gonna cost ya

[Holden West]

The CBC pop-up doesn't mention any safe minimum or anything about quoting portions. They make it out to be an all-or-nothing affair. At least the Associated Press is gracious enough to allow you to freely quote four words or less. :/

Mike, I totally agree with you on the scourge of the mirror sites. Almost as annoying as the five million directory ads that show up when you search an address trying to find the website of a business.