Um, Techcrunch and Techdirt are two different sites.

More to the point, I think you're confusing copyright infringement with plagiarism. Downloading a copyrighted song without permission is copyright infringement, but it's not plagiarism. What Mike seems to be objecting to here is primarily the lack of attribution--i.e. the plagiarism--not the copyright infringement per se.

But the more important point is that those splogs obviously haven't destroyed TechCrunch's business model, and nobody really expects them to. Nobody is flocking to a TechCrunch splog rather than visiting the real site. So I don't really understand what your point is. TechCrunch doesn't depend on copyright law in any significant way. You could repeal copyright law tomorrow and it wouldn't have any significant effect on TechCrunch's revenues. So while Mike may be wrong, he's not a hypocrite.

Would like to second Tim's point that TechCrunch and Techdirt are two very different sites, and I'm sure both myself and Mike Arrington would appreciate it if you didn't suggest one of us said something the other did.

Btw, while I had nothing to do with the TechCrunch piece, I've made Techdirt's position on splogs quite clear: if someone wants to do it (and many, many people do) go right ahead:

Here's why:

1. None of those sites get any traffic. By itself, they offer nothing special.

2. If anything, it doesn't take people long to read those sites and figure out that the content is really from Techdirt. Then they just come to the original source. So, it tends to help drive more traffic to us. That's cool.

3. As soon as the people realize the other sites are simply copying us, it makes those sites look really, really bad. If you want to risk your reputation like that, go ahead, but it's a big risk.

4. A big part of the value of Techdirt is the community. You can't just replicate that.

5. Another big part of the value of Techdirt is that we, the writers, engage in the comments. You absolutely cannot fake that on your own site.

So, really, what's the purpose of copying our content, other than maybe driving a little traffic our way?

The reference to techdirt is obviously a typo. Calm down.

Dear Mike and Tim:

Thanks for the catch on Tech-Crunch/Dirt: For reasons that I have never been able to fathom, I can usually catch grammatical errors, but I am remarkable inept at detecting transposed or incorrect words. I can read them repeatedly, yet see only what I wanted to write, not what I did.

As for Tim's point about the differences between infringement and plagarism, I don't think it is relevant here. Granted, you can infringe without plagarizing, (think Harper Row), and vice versa, ("fair use" of a short quote without attribution). Nevertheless, for-profit, unauthorized, unattributed copying of an entire work is more infringement than plagarism. Moreover, because TechCRUNCH stresses the for-profit nature of the copying, (which it detected using a new tool for detecting copyright infringement), I think it is fair to characterize TechCrunch's concerns as relating to infringement.

As for whether TechCrunch's ad-supported business model would be unaffected by the repeal of the Copyright Act, suffice it to say that many others pursuing similar business models do not agree.

I do not, and need not, purport to know who is right or whether differences in the type of content produced mean that both are right. Enforceable property rights are supposed to let different people make different decisions about how to administer their rights: They can waive them in whole or in part, and property owners do so all the time. This is one of the critical advantages of property rights and markets: They resolve disputes about the best means of administering resources based on real-world experiences, rather than the suspicions or prejudices of government officials or policy wonks.

So if Mr. Arrington decides that copyright protection is irrelevant to his business, I am glad that copyright law lets him choose to place all TechCrunch content into the public domain upon publication. (Under Dastar, that might even remediate the "sploggers'" potential Lanham Act issues.) But copyright law should also ensure that other copyright holders can make different choices that will, as a practical matter, be enforceable and enforced.

Thanks for the posts. --Tom

You say:

"As for whether TechCrunch's ad-supported business model would be unaffected by the repeal of the Copyright Act, suffice it to say that many others pursuing similar business models do not agree."

That's fairly meaningless. The same is true of any law that creates gov't granted monopolies. Just because a gov't gives a huge subsidy in the form of a monopoly to someone, doesn't mean that it's right. Just because some companies want to keep that monopoly, again, does not make it a good thing.

"I do not, and need not, purport to know who is right or whether differences in the type of content produced mean that both are right. Enforceable property rights are supposed to let different people make different decisions about how to administer their rights"

Yes, but the purpose of property rights is for efficient allocation *in the presence of scarcity*. When there's no scarcity, property rights make little sense.

"This is one of the critical advantages of property rights and markets: They resolve disputes about the best means of administering resources based on real-world experiences, rather than the suspicions or prejudices of government officials or policy wonks."

But when those property rights grant too much power, then it IS based on the prejudices of gov't officials: those who believe that infinite content requires a monopoly to create artificial scarcity.

"But copyright law should also ensure that other copyright holders can make different choices that will, as a practical matter, be enforceable and enforced."

Why? I could just as easily say that while slavery is abhorrent, the fact that any slave owner can free their slaves means things are fine. It can then ensure that any slave holder can make different choices that will, as a practical matter, be enforceable and enforced.

You are trying to put property rights where they do not belong and are not needed.

"As for whether TechCrunch's ad-supported business model would be unaffected by the repeal of the Copyright Act, suffice it to say that many others pursuing similar business models do not agree."

Sure, and I'm not in favor of repealing copyright law either. But you seemed to be accusing Arrington of hypocrisy, by saying that he endorses copyright infringement except when it affects his bottom line. My point is that splogs don't actually hurt his bottom line, and therefore this is a bad example, and your charges of hypocrisy is misplaced.

Masnick, this is absolutely the last time I bring this up. Tell me what economic justifications for IP arise from the need for efficient allocation of scarce resources. If I recall, IP imposes an artificial scarcity rather than being based on any existing scarcity. I don't recall anyone arguing that IP and real property having the same economic basis.

Tim, you're actually supporting Tom's point that Arrington is a hypocrite. This kind of reminds of the Kazaa threatening copyright suit against those who modified and redistributed Kazaa-lite!

Who's threatening a copyright suit?

The owners of Kazaa were. This is several years ago. Surprised you were not aware.

Masnick, I've read your economics of scarcity pieces, and still find that your bottom line is simply that "IP and real property differ." Underscoring this point by arguing that inventions/creations covered by IP have no scarcity really does not weaken the basis for IP.

Noel, you said: "This kind of reminds of the Kazaa threatening copyright suit against those who modified and redistributed Kazaa-lite!"

Who is Arrington threatening to sue?

Noel, you're totally failing to address Masnick's point: the fact is, copyright and patent monopolies ARE artificial scarcity. IP is of course not justified from the efficient allocation of scarce resources (it's typically socialist "help the starving artists" crap), but because the resources are not scarce, IP is unjustified, since P is a means of allocating SCARCE resources, and using it for non-scarce resources CREATES an artificial scarcity which steals from us all.

Noel said "I don't recall anyone arguing that IP and real property having the same economic basis."

Hey Noel, that's been a theme at IP Central for a long time....