Gatehouse suing NY Times

It would be a breath of fresh air (not to mention a potential savior to the newspaper industry as a whole) if a judge would rule that copyright laws actually meant anything when it came to the internet. Fanboi blogs are nothing but parasites. I am not a big fan of "fair use." If someone is paying to produce content, they should have 100 percent of the rights to that content. News gathering organizations should have to prove that either they have reprint rights (through permission, a contract, etc.) or that they produced the content on their own.

I know there are many gray areas, but maybe there shouldn't be.

 

Gatehouse's side:

In the affidavit, Reibman said Boston.com is avoiding paying journalists to cover local events by copying content from GateHouse’s Wicked Local sites, which are filled with news items from GateHouse journalists.

“If the Boston Globe wants to compete with us in Newton and the other communities we serve, they should approach it fairly,” Reibman said in the affidavit. “They should hire and pay their own journalists. They should generate their own original content and nurture their own contacts within the community.”



http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x512360627/GateHouse-Media-sues-New-York-Times-Co-over-competing-Web-site

 

Interesting observation from a blogger in that area:

That said, I've noticed an interesting shift in reader habits of late. When UniversalHub or the Netwon TAB Blog used to link to a story on TheGardenCity.net, we'd get a bit more traffic and some discussion on the site. But over the last 6 months people just comment on the other blog post, not bothering to jump here. This suggests to me that readers feel "informed enough" based on the summary they read. If you have an aggregate site like Boston.com/Newton, then people may feel they get everything they need from scanning the headlines and never bother to link over to the source articles. So in a way, Boston.com is creating a collective news digest of stories reported by other sources and then selling ads on that.


http://thegardencity.net/?q=node/957

 

We were both onto something Frank.

From the story in the link you posted:

Greg Reibman, the editor-in-chief of GateHouse Media New England’s metro unit, said in an affidavit that many online readers only read headlines and lead sentences and do not click through to the full stories. He said that when readers do click through from the “Your Town” links, they bypass the ads on Wicked Local’s home pages.

 

Fair use, and not even close.

This is the problem with news aggregators. Still, this type of lawsuit is aimed at stopping the internet and keeping big newspapers as the sole gatekeepers of information.

It is textbook fair use. They are sumarizing a story and providing a way ou can read more about it.

 

Maybe, but . . .

From the US Copyright Office website:

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

and

The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

 

Except among the relatively small segment of society that blogs about news and has a vested interest in being able to steal content with impunity, the Globe is going to come off looking scuzzy to most people in that market. So even if they win, they will lose. GateHouse has no choice but to fight this legally, in the arena of public perception, and by use of further security measures.

 

The stealing content is okay, because everyone is doing argument is trotted out

http://recoveringjournalist.typepad.com/recovering_journalist/2008/12/gatehousegate.html

And Jarvis, fucking Jarvis, comes out as well with an unsurprising rant as to why Gatehouse is wrong. Because, you know, if anyone says our content is original and should be protected is wrong.

http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/12/23/a-danger-to-journalism/

Links are killing the newspaper business and Slate did a nice takedown on Jarvis

http://www.slate.com/id/2204372/

 

Compelling arguments on the other side are being made, but I'm with Jarvis.

 

Looks like GateHouse essentially got what it wanted in the settlement:

http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2009/01/nyt_gatehouse_r.html

 

Yeah, essentially you're right. They can still post links to the other places; they just can't do it with an automated system.

 

Rats. I was hoping GH would get some money out of them. Then maybe we'd get our raises back.