New York Times Sued Over URL Linking 74
Davros writes "GateHouse Media, which publishes more than 100 papers in Massachusetts, accuses the Times of violating copyright by allowing its Boston Globe online unit to copy verbatim the headlines and first sentences from articles published on sites owned by GateHouse."
Google says "take the deal." (Score:4, Funny)
I don't see NYT trying anything different.
Re:Google says "take the deal." (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Google got heat a few years ago for its Google News aggregation of headlines and summaries and settled a copyright lawsuit with Agence France-Presse last year. Google also is paying the Associated Press to use its content on Google News.
When you settle, you normally pay and promise to either NOT do it again or to pay for whatever you use.
Re:Google says "take the deal." (Score:4, Informative)
Not exactly.
They settled the matter with authorization from google to use the full article, for a fee.
That is very diferent. ;)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Google should have just removed content and stop using the plaintiff as a source, it's not like there is any shortage of sources.
No wonder media companies go under (Score:5, Insightful)
The major media companies could take ebookwise design and improve hardware (change USB to ethernet and wifi; change out the flash to something newer) as well as software (allow other formats esp.
Re: (Score:2)
So they shouldn't publish on the Web and (Score:2)
the problem goes away.
If they want to cite NYT material, the NYT can't stop them either. Apart from that, its English. There are only so many ways to express a concept before they are forced to reuse words and phrases.
"On pourrait essayer un autre language, mais cela ne vaut rien su on veut ètre compris."
Translated: "We could always try using another language, but it would be worthless if we want to be understood."
Of course they'll 'twinkle' out of existence like stars in a cold dark sky.
Re:No wonder media companies go under (Score:5, Informative)
Some facts that might get in your way:
* Newspapers have experimented with specialty devices -- and premium/pay services -- for years. Doesn't work. Generalized computing devices and free services have flooded the marketplace and there's no turning back.
* Newspapers are already dropping print editions [yelvington.com] all over the country. Gatehouse itself announced yesterday that it's killing the printed Kansas City Kansan, and going online-only. I have yet to see a case in which this is anything other than a desperation move by a failing business. In the case of the Kansan, I think they only have 7,000 monthly unique users on the Web. That's not a viable business, regardless of what you might "save" by not manufacturing and distributing a printed product.
* Gatehouse's complaint -- and I've read it -- contains a laundry list of issues, some of them in direct conflict with one another. But there is one charge that isn't easily dismissed. The Boston Globe is essentially creating a derivative product to enter hyperlocal markets where it previously had no presence. Gatehouse points out that nearly all the links on the local Globe products are Gatehouse content. That may flunk the fair-use test. (On the other hand, that argument effectively puts Gatehouse in a position of claiming it's entitled to preservation of a monopoly.)
* Gatehouse licenses its content under a Creative Commons no-commercial-use provision. Defining what's commercial use is a big hairy mess, but it's not possible to argue that the NYT company is a noncommercial effort.
Other perspectives:
Mark Potts: http://recoveringjournalist.typepad.com/recovering_journalist/2008/12/gatehousegate.html [typepad.com]
Dan Gillmor: http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2008/gatehouse-v-ny-times-co-not-so-simple-after-all [citmedialaw.org]
Re: (Score:2)
How many were reading Kansas City Kansan PAPER edition? How many of them will switch up to on-line? Saying that they only have 7000 readers on-line, while not saying what is paper version vs. how many will SWITCH once the paper is dropped is pretty worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
If they're seriously changing their tactics, how is it a failing business? We still need reputable sources for the news and not the typical blogger. I know that this isn't always prevalent in news, but I prefer more fact in my daily news like we typically see in news reports than opinion typically from bloggers.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Christian Science Monitor starts in April 2009 (daily edition only). See here:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1029/p25s01-usgn.html
Re:No wonder media companies go under (Score:5, Informative)
1) Knight Ridder has always been at the forefront of trying new technologies, including that abortion of a partnership that was New Century Network (I suffered through the thing, and tried to convince the paper where I was running so-called "new media" efforts that it was a waste or resources). IIR, they also tried developing a handheld device so you could "read the paper on the subway." Newspapers aren't staffed or designed for R&D. Oh, and Amazon says the Kindle gives you access to online newspapers and magazines. I can't vouch for that as I won't pay ~$360 for a thing. Let me guess, in your opinion the high cost is the papers' fault?
2) The real cost of a newspaper is people, not paper. Paper is a _huge_ cost, but it's bought in such gigantic quantities by a chain (or in partnership with other papers if that makes more sense in the particular case) that it makes it cheaper than the cost of reporters, advertising folks, printers (and their union, which is a giant cost-suck) etc.
3) "This is EXACTLY why the majority of media companies DESERVE to go under" - This part of my response has nothing to do with logic, just pure sentiment, but does a statement like that apply to the auto industry? It "deserves" to go under? Take into account the workers and ancillary businesses tied to it (shipping, material suppliers, etc.) and your statement leads tomakes no sense. Neither "deserves" to go under, it's just that it most likely will
4) I'm assuming "prescription" is "subscription" but regardless, ad revenue is of course tied to how much a paper can charge for ads. Ad prices are based on the number of subscribers, and papers have to sell more than 50 percent of their print run to count as "subscriptions" (i.e. if you give away 51 percent of your run by leaving it outside of hotel rooms, then your number of subscribers is much less than the number of readers so have to charge less.) Your argument sounds like those often-heard on
Re: (Score:1)
IANAL but it would seem there are several laws that should be applied.
1) they complainant should have to show damages and free advertising isn't really damage.
2) If it's a public company the officers have to sign an agreement to act in the best interests of the share holders. This is clearly against their best interest.
Too bad the government works for big media. It won't change any time soon Obama or not.
Obama and all (Score:2)
I feel sorry for the man. He has probably inherited the WORSE situation since FDR who inherited a coming nightmare from Hoover/Coolidge fame. Mayb
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah he'll have a hell of a time if he doesn't end up assassinated.
If he were assassinated it would be the perfect premise for another authoritarian clampdown.
Whether you believe 911 was internal or external terrorism it was used to remove rights in the interest of corporate powers. i.e. RIAA
If Obama was assassinated then the minorities who generally have the good sense to be suspicious of government power would be the ones calling for more of this "security".
I'm on the fence about Obama either he is honest
Re: (Score:1)
the REAL cost of a news paper is the paper and the printing of such...
The real cost of producing a newspaper is actually the reporting/editorial side of things...
Re: (Score:2)
X sues Y (Score:2)
It's funny how you never seem to hear the follow-up story titled "X's lawsuit thrown out because it's utter nonsense".
When did unsuccessfully suing people become a marketing tool?
Re: (Score:1)
It's funny how you never seem to hear the follow-up story titled "X's lawsuit thrown out because it's utter nonsense".
This [the-injury...ectory.com] article strongly disagrees.
Re: (Score:1)
It's funny how you never seem to hear the follow-up story titled "X's lawsuit thrown out because it's utter nonsense".
This [the-injury...ectory.com] article strongly disagrees.
Um, the first paragraph of your link states
Some people will try anything to make a million. Ever thought of suing someone because they look like you? Check out this and other frivolous lawsuits for a laugh, but don't try them yourself! Frivolous lawsuits very rarely make it through the courts, and usually wind up costing the plaintiff.
(Bold added by me)
Pretty much matches the QP you quoted...
Unless there is a new definition of 'disagrees' now.
Re: (Score:1)
A lot of them just get settled out of court.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats because its so much easier to just post the insane threats of lawsuits online. Most of the time, it ends there. After all, when you shine a light on cockroaches and their actions, they all scatter and run their separate ways.
Example A:
Caton Commercial [demystify.info] wanted to make threats of a criminal lawsuit, slander and copyright because of a domain that published their publicly available court appearances. The threatening letter was then posted Here [demystify.info]. Although it would have been amusing to hear the 'plaintiff'
Re: (Score:2)
--------
Muni Bond Sales Drying Up as States Face $42 Billion Shortfall [bloomberg.com] ``The combination of the worst financial crisis since World War II and the collapse of the $330 billion auction-rate debt market will leave 41 states and the District of Columbia with shortfalls just as financing sources diminish.''
Well now they are sure to get noticed... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well now they are sure to get noticed... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing Slashdotters don't read articles. Otherwise we would be an accessory to linking an article about linking articles.
According to the RIAA we're still liable for "making available" the link, though there's no evidence anyone clicked it...
Re: (Score:2)
What's next? Suing over the article about the linking? This is completely absurd.
That, my friend, is defamation. We'll see you in court.
Fetch my thickest stick ...... fast (Score:1)
it's on again...
Fuzzy laws and common sense (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with the "fair Use" doctrine of copyright it requires and assumes parties to be reasonable and conscionable. Once either party behaves unreasonably or unconscionably, it ends up in court.
The worst part it is a type of legal situation that can't be defined easily. It must be vague to be flexible enough for there to be "fair use" of material.
Since the media companies HATE everything about fair use (except when it applies to their actions, i.e. HIPHOP sampling and so on) they constantly try to whittle away at it with precedent, using egregious cases that are far more reaching than the judges suspect before they make their rulings.
Unfortunately, lawyers, like all corrosive elements, feed of decay and destruction. Even the "good" ones make a living off the evils, yes by fighting it, but still by engaging it.
We need to find a new way to deal with injustice. The courts belong to big business and the unreasonable. Most people never seriously do anything to harm another, yet the courts are making precedent on the exceptions and that is destroying freedom bit by bit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
no, they attack sampling just as aggressively, then go back and cross-license everything with their cartel members, thus assuring NOBODY can make and market a mashup without signing a contract first.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
This is theft of material, pretty much plain and simple. Treating stuff on the web as a free-for-all and just republishing/redistributing it freely is fine as long as it benefits the person doing it. Nobody likes getting their stuff stolen and redistributed but most people on Slashdot can't see that far in front of their nose.
And as for a new way to deal with injustice, I think dueling needs a comeback. If you knew that offending someone, stealing from them or usurping their rights could lead to staring
Re: (Score:1)
It's called fair use. It's called copyright law. It's called a limited monopoly granted by the state for a purpose. Very different from property rights, which are pretty plainly inherent. Creative works are simply not the same, under law, as land or cattle or something else physical.
It's not property, intellectual or otherwise. It's not theft, stealing, or material. That is all the language of property, which creative content is not. To use t
Re: (Score:1)
Gatehouse has a few points, could use a clue... (Score:4, Insightful)
One could reasonably argue that copying verbatim headlines and first sentences in their entirity is fair use. I think it is, but that's a valid discussion to have. It's not about linking as much as copying the Gatehouse content and using it to label the links.
Boston.com's position as a competing entity (vs. Google's position as a search engine) lends credence to this point. Boston.com is essentially getting Gatehouse to write it's site's local content for them.
It's not as though the links were titled "Aritcle 7 from Gatehouse" instead of Gatehouse's actual title. The former case would indeed be about linking vs. about copyright.
otoh, Gatehouse ought to love having a megasite drive traffic to them. All I can imagine is that they're looking at their metrics and seeing people back right out. They ought to work on keeping those visitors once they get em.
Re: (Score:2)
> Boston.com's position as a competing entity (vs. Google's position
> as a search engine) lends credence to this point. Boston.com is
> essentially getting Gatehouse to write it's site's local content for them.
I can't see what is wrong with using the original headline and the first couple of sentences in order to show people what is at the other end of a link.
That helps people to decide if they want to visit that site - or not.
I think that is very much fair use.
It's no different from taking the titl
Re: (Score:2)
No argument from me that using the exact headline and first sentence makes the content much easier to use (I'm a usability professional, and it's what I'd recommend someone do if they're trying to make these articles easy to find - if they had a clear right to use the content, fair use or otherwise).
And as I stated, it looked a lot like fair use to me - but reading this thread further, it looks like the license that Gatehouse put on the RSS feed explicitly disallows exactly this kind of commercial use.
If we
Re: (Score:2)
> And as I stated, it looked a lot like fair use to me - but reading this
> thread further, it looks like the license that Gatehouse put on the RSS
> feed explicitly disallows exactly this kind of commercial use.
I wasn't aware that you could contract out of the Law.
And what has Gatehouse's own RSS feed got to do with someone else directly linking to Gatehouse's website my means of using the headline and the first few sentences?
I mean, anybody can link to anything on the WWW.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't aware that you could contract out of the Law.
Of course you cannot. But this is exactly my point: if you aren't doing fair use (and it's valid in my opinion to ask for a court ruling on this), then you have arguably agreed to the Creative Commons license on the RSS feed you're consuming. Fair use and acceptance of the license are both covered under the law, so you're not contracting out of it either way.
I mean, anybody can link to anything on the WWW.
Yes, but as noted in my post above, this is n
Re: (Score:2)
First off:
Nothing is being "consumed".
Secondly,
Even IF someone at the NYT became aware of the content by means of an RSS feed pushed out to the Internet by Gatehouse, there is no reason why that same information could not be obtained merely by someone surfing to that website on a regular basis and getting the relevant quotes manually.
IMHO, Gatehouse simply doesn't want people viewing the content on its website. The bottom line is that it shouldn't have even bothered pushing it onto the WWW if it didn't want
Re: (Score:2)
Many portals and CMS presentation engines can consume RSS feeds and integrate them into a site. This is not at all uncommon.
For a portal or presentation engine to consume an RSS feed, or for a user with a browser or feedreader to view an RSS feed to which they're subscribed, they have to load it from Gatehouse's site. It doesn't get pushed
Re: (Score:2)
> Many portals and CMS presentation engines can consume RSS feeds and
> integrate them into a site. This is not at all uncommon. For a portal
> or presentation engine to consume an RSS feed...
No RSS feed is "consumed" as it is not destroyed or otherwise wasted or used up.
From Dict.org:
Consume \Con*sume"\ (k[o^]n*s[=u]m"), v. t. [imp. & p. p.
Consumed (k[o^]n*s[=u]md"); p. pr. & vb. n. Consuming.]
[L. consumere to take wholly or completely, to consume; con-
RSS = Copyright Violation? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:RSS = Copyright Violation? (Score:5, Informative)
If you look at a Gatehouse RSS feed, you'll see that it is clearly marked as copyrighted material and licensed under a Creative Commons "no commercial use" provision.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing illegal, wrong, or problematic about selective litigation - this isn't defense of a trademark. I still think the case is stupid, but you do NOT lose copyright if you don't defend it.
I generally click on the linked articles provided. (Score:1)
Good lord, a vast amount of blogs out there pretty much copy/paste at will. I don't know about Fair Use, because the nature of this is commercial, but the NYT can do a good step by removing all links to the offended organization, and never do them the favor of driving traffic to them again.
Isn't URL Linking a form of Free Advertising? (Score:4, Insightful)
When someone links to your site you will get some visitors who wouldn't otherwise of stopped by. /. reader.... :-)
By using the title and the first sentence, this (IMHO) is enough of a taster that people who were interested in reading more would then click on the link and read the whole story.
Unless:-
1) The story is only 1 sentence long.
2) you are a
Surely the NYT can beat this because they are only using a very small part of the story. If I were a book or Film critic, I would be able to use verbatim a few of the words in the book or spoken in the film in my review so what is the difference here.
It is not as if they are using the whole article (or are they)
This is not the first case of this type and won't be the last.
As another poster put it, I wonder how much they have estimated they are going to lose when the NYT/Globe stops linking to their sites. Less hits means less pay/per click advertising revenue.
This is pure silliness if you ask me. They should be getting more people to visit their site not less.
Perhaps their Lawyers found themselves with nothing to do and felt thay had to be seen to be earning their fat/huge/obscene retainers?
And no it is not the 1st April
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a Creative Commons Angle (Score:5, Informative)
Poor Headline (Score:1)
They're not suing for linking, they're suing for ripping off their material verbatim. I'm sure the New York Times wouldn't like it if I printed out copies of their newspaper and sold it for free.
Re: (Score:1)
sold it for free.
Try giving it away instead and then see what happens
Re: (Score:1)
Did you think that the newpaper was their product? Quite the contrary, their product is the readers of the newspaper, which are bulk leased to advertisers.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
hypocrites (Score:5, Interesting)
I work for the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle newspaper, and a Gatehouse site, The Batavian [thebatavian.com], uses our headlines in their sidebar.
This is a boneheaded, hypocritical move by a desperate company - their market cap has dropped to about $2 million.
Not "stealing" (Score:3, Insightful)
This is theft of material, pretty much plain and simple.
How is that?
Treating stuff on the web as a free-for-all and just republishing/redistributing it freely is fine as long as it benefits the person doing it.
They weren't "republishing" they were linking to it with a brief synopsis of what the like points too.
Nobody likes getting their stuff stolen and redistributed but most people on Slashdot can't see that far in front of their nose.
It isn't "stolen" as no one is deprived of its use.
Complainant is a fool. (Score:1)
Let's see...
If the NYT lost such a case (not likely), what would the outcomes possibly be?
1 - NYT hires some junior reporter wannabes whose job it is to read articles on other sites, rewrite them without plagiarizing, and post as NYT material. The winner gets neither fees and advertising revenue. NYT gets the stuff cheap.
2 - NYT pays licensing fees for linking to the winner's site. The winner gets both fees and advertising revenue. NYT gets shafted.
3 - NYT goes to the winner's competitor(s) and gets appr
And there I was ... (Score:1)
a. hom-,
b. racist-,
c. gender-, or
d. age-
o-phobic lawsuit over civil rights violations and/or LIBEL?
RR
Gatehouse wants to double its impressions (Score:2)
After RTFA, here's what I see: Gatehouse shows ads on the story pages, and they are getting paid whenever someone follows a link from Boston Globe and reads the story. On the face of it, their claim of copyright infringement is ridiculous. The excerpted material is small, and if someone wants to read the article, Gatehouse will make money.
Their problem is that they also want the homepage impressions. If someone goes to Gatehouse's site(s) instead of Boston Globe's site, and clicks through a story link,