Slashdot Mirror
New York Times Sued Over URL Linking
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."
This is EXACTLY why the majority of media companies DESERVE to go under. These idiots want to nail them for free links. What amazes me, is that by now, you would think that not only would they support this, but since the REAL cost of a news paper is the paper and the printing of such, they would get rid of it. .txt and .html directly), then add the capability to do news (make it seek out their site for updated news) PROFITABLY (add ads geared towards the user; provide cheap subscription that does just several ads total while none prescription gets small ad /page) all sold for under $100. Then drop your paper within several years. The important item is having the reporters. If ny times was STEALING the story (and not just the title, then they MIGHT have a real issue).
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Also, I wonder who gets fired when they stop getting linked from the Boston Globe, and suddenly GateHouse pageviews drop by an order of magnitude.
What's next? Suing over the article about the linking? This is completely absurd.
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.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
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.
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
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
Google should have just removed content and stop using the plaintiff as a source, it's not like there is any shortage of sources.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
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.