Maybe NPR's linking policy is actually a small part of a bigger problem
Reading George Will's column (which I found via Instapundit), makes me think that, these days, we have a more fundamental problem than just failure to understand the purpose of hyperlinking. Will points to a silly suit by a teacher's union against a policy group because the policy group quoted (correctly) the president of the teacher's union when he praised the policy group. They did so in a fundraising newsletter, so the teacher's union wants all of the proceeds that resulted from the fundraising letter, and other things.
Will's article goes on to demonstrate that free speech rights are being whittled away, referring to
Martin Shapiro of the University of California School of Law at Berkeley [who] noted in 1996...that "almost the entire First Amendment literature produced by liberal academics in the past 20 years has been a literature of regulation, not freedom -- a literature that balances away speech rights. . . . Its basic strategy is to treat freedom of speech not as an end in itself, but an instrumental value."
Will is drawing attention to ordinary speech issues, but I see it applying to the problem of linking and copyright law too. After all, unless the lawsuit that Will describes is immediately dismissed with scorn and derision, the message will be sent that --even in ordinary speech-- the person who says something can control how others use that statement.
If I say Joe Blow is a good guy, then Joe should be able to quote me on that and shouldn't have to ask for my permission. If the law allows me to inhibit Joe's ability to quote me then what chance does hyperlinking have when NPR and others claim they have the right to control that form of speech? None. And that's not good.
You know what the real problem is? We are obsessed with property rights in this country, and we are starting to value property rights over free speech rights. And that is REALLY not good!
9:55:15 AM
