Strong words. Indeed, The New York Times has repeatedly leapt to the defense of strong copyright protection. Back on July 29th, 2000, the paper's editorial, "Copyright in the Age of Napster," told its readers, correctly, that "the protection of copyright is vital to the health of a free and creative society" and that society benefits when, "the law assures that the creation of new art, writing or other intellectual property is rewarded."
But, in September 1999, a federal appeals court ruled for a group of writers, saying that the Times, along with other defendants, was guilty of stealing the copyrighted works of freelance writers by using our work without permission in electronic media (Tasini v. The New York Times). Though only a few media companies were defendants in the case, the precedent fingered the practices of virtually every major media company. And, in fact, copyright "protector" that it is, The Times, mainly through its website, is a virtual copyright infringement machine. Since our victory, it has continued to use legal maneuvering, which now includes a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court, to avoid paying writers their fair share.
I know, I'll just hand over my entire paycheck to … well … let's see … AOL-Time/Warner-Disney-CNN-Viacom-Sony. Or is it Disney-CNN-Viacom-AOL-Time/Wanrer-Sony? I don't remember. But that's not important; what is is passing on my paycheck to some huge comglomerate multinational corporation because, well, gosh darn it, because they need it!
The phone just rings.
I dial tech support.
Ten minutes later: “All trunks are busy. Please try your call again.” Click.