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."

Comments

No wonder media companies go under

[WindBourne]

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.
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. .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).

Re:No wonder media companies go under

[yelvington]

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 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

Dan Gillmor: http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2008/gatehouse-v-ny-times-co-not-so-simple-after-all

Re:Google says "take the deal."

[Nirvelli]

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.

Fuzzy laws and common sense

[mlwmohawk]

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.

RSS = Copyright Violation?

[FireIron]

I clicked through the links, and sure enough, it looks like they're suing over having their RSS feed aggregated...isn't the act of providing an RSS feed affirmatively granting permission fort others to aggregate the material contained in the feed for other sites and systems?

hypocrites

[ceejayoz]

I work for the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle newspaper, and a Gatehouse site, The Batavian, 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.