Re: Intellectula property-journalism

Dwayne Purper (dwayne@futmedia.com)
Sat, 20 Jul 1996 03:30:37 -0400

Kirk McElhearn sez:
>
> >Thus journalists won't have to rewrite every piece of source
> >material to make sure they're not infringing on copyright.
>
> Ooooh! That one makes me cringe!

It *does* make me cringe today to think of future
copyrighted material being reproduced for free. But ...

>That would open the door to every kind
> of bad journalism possible.
>
> Let me give you an example.

Well, since your example already happened, I'd say the
door already *is* open to every kind of bad journalism
possible!

Journalists can quote bad sources today. The ability to
copy directly bad source material instead of paraphrase
it shouldn't turn The New York Times into any less of a
trustworthy source than it is today. (Wow, I sure worded
*that* sentence carefully!)

It's already up to the reader to judge the dependability
of their information. A smart reader thinks about the
context in which the information is being sent. A dumb
one believes anything he or she is told (or doesn't
believe, if that's the easier reaction).

>A few months ago, a very influential e-zine
>written by a reporter for a major American
>newspaper, ran an article
[snip]
>to my surprise, the text was full of mistakes

I bet you won't trust that guy anymore, huh?

>So the problem is, if journalists can be allowed
>to just cut and paste, we will be reduced to a very
>sterile form of journalism, and one without
>freedom. The few companies who will supply
>the information will control it.

A *good* journalist still would use information
judiciously and wisely to illustrate or provide background
for a story. A bad journalist still would do just what he or
she does today. (Which, I believe, is ... make lots more
money.)

Also, more and more "regular" people will have access to
those *initial* sources themselves. So you can do your
own cutting and pasting if you have time. Or (and here's
the future role of journalists: the same as today) you can
pay someone whom you trust to organize it for you.

>The few companies who will supply
>the information will control it.

Per Greg, the few companies who *supplied* the
information would lose control over it as soon as it was
supplied.

Certainly, they would have control over *what*
information they wished to release. But how is that any
different from today?

--
Dwayne Purper
Chapel Hill, N.C. USA
http://www.futmedia.com
----------------------------
Dumb ad slogan No. 21:
"Does your mouth feel *baking soda* clean?"
----------------------------