Interview with Mr. John Gile-Follow Up
Read an edited transcript of the audio interview
Mr. John Gile
Dr. John Riolo, The Insider, interviews Mr. John Gile, an author, journalist, editor, and publisher about the epidemic of copyright infringement on the Internet.
John Gile is an author, journalist, editor, and publisher whose books have made and topped best-seller lists. As a Grievance Officer/Contract Advisor for the National Writers' Union, a UAW/AFL-CIO affiliate, he is focused on strengthening copyright protection to safeguard the rights and livelihoods of all who create intellectual property. When his company's flagship book The First Forest was "stolen” by the National Wildlife Federation, he successfully defended his rights under civil law in federal court and received $350,000 from the National Wildlife Federation for damages to his registered copyrights.
He created and advocated a resolution passed by the Delegate's Assembly of the National Writers Union calling for Justice Department enforcement of criminal copyright law on behalf of individuals and currently is organizing class action lawsuit against the Justice Department for failure to provide creators of intellectual property with equal protection under the law.
He is a frequent speaker at education conferences, at programs for leaders in commerce and community service, and at schools across America and abroad.
Learn more about his work on this issue. Visit Mr. Gile's website.
Follow-up to Interview with John Gile
This is a follow up with John Gile of the National Writers Union on the subject of intellectual property and internet discussion groups. Please see Part One or listen to the audio.
Riolo: Mr. Gile, so far most all who agreed to participate in this series have given remarks consistent with yours. However I have been in contact with one group of privacy advocates and mental health professionals who seem to take exception to what I have written and commented upon. The group and its current and past president were invited to be interviewed for the record but declined. Therefore I will merely paraphrase our discussions and respect their desire not to go on record, but their views seem to be held by a number of professionals among the mental health community.
In summary, the president of this group has expressed the view that that circulating a news item on a discussion group or listserv is no different than showing an article to a friend, cutting out something to mail to someone, etc.; such a practice could not be construed as taking the article for your own purposes. Their view seems to be that there is nothing wrong with cutting and pasting a full article as long as it is not for the purposes of making profit. In fact, members of this group, including a past president, do so regularly. As often as not, at the end of these articles one will find a statement in caps COPIED AS FAIR USE.
Do you have any on the record responses to such a view? Or any do you wish to clarify or elaborate on your earlier comments?
Gile: First, the president is dead wrong, though it is a common misunderstanding that is okay to take others' works if "it is not for the purposes of making profit." That is not true, and the law is very clear on that point. Perhaps you should suggest that members of this group read the FBI copyright notice the next time they watch a movie on DVD. Most warnings include notice that it is a crime to steal copyrighted work whether or not you do it for profit. The root cause of the problem and the misunderstanding is that your colleagues are thinking from the perspective of their own personal interest, not from the perspective of safeguarding others' interests. I am particularly disappointed to find such an unprofessional and anti-social mindset in persons I would expect to have greater sympathy for others. Using copyrighted work without permission harms creators of copyrighted works and deprives them of fundamental constitutional and human rights. I would expect a mental health professional to understand and respect that principle which is the basis for copyright law. I would expect professionals to err on the side of safeguarding others' rights, not violating them. Typing the words "COPIED AS FAIR USE" after a stolen article is meaningless, unprofessional, even ludicrous. It is the equivalent of posting a sign on the back of stolen car, "TAKEN AS FAIR USE." The only words that would make the use legitimate are "Copyright 2006 by Person's Name. Used with permission" -- after taking the trouble to secure permission.
Second, disseminating newspaper, magazine, and online articles without securing permission and verifying accuracy is the equivalent of mere rumormongering. It is beneath the dignity of any professional. Typing "COPIED AS FAIR USE" instead of following the proper course and securing permission calls to mind lazy researchers who fail to take the trouble to do valid and legitimate research. I would think the mental health professionals would be especially sensitive to practices that prima facie undermine their professionalism and credibility.
Third, perhaps the strongest statement against such shoddy and slipshod practices comes from a major player in Internet communications, America Online. Here is what they say about posting others' copyrighted works online without permission: "Certain areas of AOL.COM may allow you to post Content that can be accessed and viewed by others, including the public in general. YOU MAY ONLY POST CONTENT TO PUBLIC AREAS ON AOL.COM THAT YOU CREATED OR THAT YOU HAVE PERMISSION TO POST. YOU MAY NOT POST CONTENT THAT VIOLATES THESE TERMS OF USE." (my caps for emphasis). I believe that statement by America Online and other Internet service providers should make it clear to your colleagues and others that they are breaking the law -- in addition to violating others' rights.
Riolo: As an update on this series I wanted to give you an update. On the one hand almost every one I have interviewed agrees that it is a problem. On the other hand few seem to care or think anything can be done. I have interviewed one writer from a major newspaper and another prominent freelance science writer who basically say they don't care once they are paid. Even an attorney for a major newspaper chain said it's like holding back a flood. They occasionally send friendly letters for blatant offenders, but that is about all. So the epidemic is understandable. Recently the Dallas Morning News asked if they would print a letter I sent regarding the issue. It was printed on Dec 10, 2006 in their Business Section. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-letters_10bus.ART.State.Edition1.316f5d1.html .
Any further comments?
Gile: As I have said before, the Justice Department has created an epidemic of copyright infringement by failing to enforce criminal copyright law. The situation is exacerbated by prohibitive costs and procedures under civil law that make it impossible for most victims to defend themselves. The most common answer victims receive when they seek counsel is, "It costs too much to defend your rights." What the system should be doing is telling infringers that it costs too much to violate others' rights. When the law is not enforced and when victims are victimized a second time by systemic injustice in civil court, crime increases. That's where we are today. Some writers, like the freelance writer you mentioned, have the attitude, "I don't care about anyone else but myself. Give me my money and let the rest be damned." It is the prominent freelance writers' brother and sister journeyman writers and researchers who suffer most from that attitude because it fosters a culture of infringement and makes the work of all writers and researchers fair game for predators. Big corporations like major newspapers can afford to tolerate some theft. So can chain retailers who actually factor theft losses into their cost of doing business. It is the independent publishers and entrepreneurs who suffer in our deplorable culture of infringement because they cannot absorb the losses they suffer at the hands of predators. The National Wildlife Federation nearly drove our little company into bankruptcy by its infringement of The First Forest and its litigious response when they were caught. They paid $350,000 for destroying $740,000 in registered copyrights, but still have paid nothing in royalties for using my work 547,000 times -- and putting my name on altered work with a message diametrically opposed to all I stand for. Why were they so bold? Because the Justice Department does not hold parties guilty of felony copyright infringement accountable. Also, most victims who win any compensation in civil court sign nondisclosure agreements -- which means they fail to create a deterrent against infringement. They take their money and run, leaving others vulnerable to the same fate. My goal in seeking criminal prosecution of the National Wildlife Federation is to create a deterrent so that others will not be subject to the same treatment I and my family have suffered and still suffer at the hands of the National Wildlife Federation. That also is the goal of the National Writers Union in demanding a Justice Department Task Force -- which could be handled by one attorney -- to see that infringement victims are given equal treatment under the law and that criminal copyright law is enforced on behalf of individual victims, not just on behalf of large corporations. Again, the problem and misunderstandings stem from the culture of infringement created by Justice Department dereliction and by domination of the civil courts by large corporations, insurance companies, and their lawyers.
As to you letter in the Dallas Morning News, I think it is excellent.
Riolo: Thank you again Mr. Gile.
Comments for Mr. Gile may be sent to him through me at johnr@psychjourney.com or you may phone in a comment at (214) 615-6044--- 8460. Long distance rates may apply.
