Long ago, a couple of computer geeks had a vision that the internet would become the last realm of unfettered creativity. They dreamt of a virtual playground of open ideas and constant innovation fueled by the absence of legal confines and restraints.

The exact moment when reality killed that fantasy is debatable, but this piece by the folks at Wired, about a smug hotshot attorney named Steve Gibson, certainly signifies something monumental in the fall of the on-line Eden. As the article explains, Gibson is an intellectual property lawyer in Las Vegas who figured out that he could make a lot of money by suing people that “illegally” place news articles on their websites or blogs. Gibson certainly isn’t alone, and he’s got his sights set on websites that simply allow their users to post articles onto a web-based forum. Obviously, such activity is discouraged under existing laws, and copyright holders are well within their rights to force a site to take down an article posted by a user in this kind of situation. But actually going as far as to sue a webmaster of such a benign incident represents a new low in terms of frivolous copyright infringement and liability claims.

Now don’t get me wrong. Plagiarism is a vile act that should not be tolerated. Taking someone else’s hard work and claiming it as your own is tantamount to physically stealing and ought to be treated likewise. That said, I honestly do not understand the logic behind this type of legal action. As long as the site, blog, or user clearly states where the article came from and who wrote it, what’s the problem? There seems to be an odd assumption behind this litigation, and that stems from the idea that an article belongs solely to the copyright holder. Consequently, anyone who wishes to run said article elsewhere must first obtain permission to do so.

My question is, why? I thought the whole point of putting an article on-line was to increase access to the information it contains. I mean, as a writer, wouldn’t you want as many people as possible to enjoy your material? By my estimation, it doesn’t really matter where someone happens to see the article and view its contents. After all, one website is as good a source as any other. Of course, I can envision plenty of scenarios that warrant invoking intellectual property laws. For example, as previously stated, a user who attempts to present someone else’s writing as his or her own deserves to be sued. The same goes for a person that alters an article in a meaningful way without attributing the changes to him or herself thus separating them from the words of the original author; both of these instances justify taking appropriate action in the form of tort claims.

Nevertheless, merely posting an article (as long as you cite the source/author) does not equate to a violation in my opinion, especially if the item is not used for commercial purposes. Aside from the fact that making money off of other people’s labor is standard operating procedure in a capitalist economy, generating revenue without permission or paying royalties is obviously wrong, too. Still, that’s an entirely separate issue than that of a few people sharing a newspaper article in an on-line forum for the purpose of entertainment or educating each another. According to Mr. Gibson, the free exchange of text is a criminal act under any circumstances. His rational could easily be applied to images as well, although I’m sure he’s already thought of that. Laugh if you will, but I firmly believe that  his draconian vision strikes at the very core of internet freedoms, and his success threatens to permanently alter the web as we know it.  At this point, the fate of the series of tubes lies in the hands of judges, the ostensibly neutral arbiters of the rule of law.  Let’s hope Mr. Gibson finds himself standing in front of a judge that spends his time off the bench lurking around4chan.