Gatehouse And NY Times Settle Linking Dispute: Bad News For Everyone
from the this-isn't-good dept
It appears that GateHouse Media and the NY Times have settled their dispute over the NYT's Boston Globe linking to GateHouse's local events site with a snippet of the text (something GateHouse's own sites did as well). GateHouse had little to no chance of winning in court, but it looks like the NY Times totally caved in to avoid having to deal with a long and costly lawsuit. The result is pretty much bad for everyone.It's bad for the NY Times, because in settling they've almost guaranteed that plenty of other companies will now come seeking similar "settlements." It's bad for GateHouse Media because in winning "the battle" they're losing the war. The NY Times/Boston Globe will no longer be sending them the traffic they were getting in the past. It's hard to describe the level of pure cluelessness that goes into actively turning away the kind of traffic a major media publication can provide. It's bad for readers of both sites, because it limits the usefulness of the content they get. And... most importantly, it's bad for everyone in failing to have a hard and fast precedent set that linking to such sites and including the headline and a snippet are clearly fair use. What a shame.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, linking, news
Companies: gatehouse media, ny times
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Traffic is not legal tender
I agree that the question of "fair use" was not settled and I wish it was. Some people think wholesale copying of headlines and first paragraph is fair use and others don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Traffic is not legal tender
Um... what?!? Linking to someone is not a contract. There is no guarantee of "payment." If Gatehouse did not want traffic from the NY Times, they could easily block them.
I agree that the question of "fair use" was not settled and I wish it was. Some people think wholesale copying of headlines and first paragraph is fair use and others don't.
Yes, there are some people who understand the purpose of copyright law, and a few who don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Traffic is not legal tender
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Traffic is not legal tender
The second group is wrong. Fair use is a clear part of copyright law. It is not "in the eye of the beholder" but is a clearly delineated part of copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Traffic is not legal tender
Hopefully, one day there will be a court ruling one way or the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Based upon the plaintiff's complaint as filed, the copyright claim would have failed at this point in time given that (1) no registrations are in hand, and (2) titles of articles/books have historically not been afforded protection under copyright law.
There were some state and federal trademark claims, but those likely would have also been easily disposed of by the court.
What would have remained after the dust settled would have been the state unfair competition claim, and it is this claim that would have been one of first impression and if decided could have provided valuable future guidance on the subject of the degreee to which a party may deep link into the site of another. It is useful to bear in mind that these sites are ad supported, and it is a bit difficult to keep all of your advertisers happy if another company with a larger market presence is able to assist others to bypass the ads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Curious, MLS, how is sending more traffic to your site "bypassing your ads" while not sending any traffic to your site at all, not bypassing your ads?
Also, how is it unfair competition to send more traffic to the competitor, than not sending any traffic at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If the linked sites would somehow bypass the ads, that's not unfair competition, that's BAD WEBSITE DESIGN by Gatehouse Media.
It's hardly an area of legitimate inquiry. It's a sign of people who don't bother to actually understand the internet and rush to their lawyers before bothering to think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Precedent
Granted, the case wasn't actually decided by a judge, but sue-ers (also called "plantiffs") will use this case as way to show why they should be able to get away with their own lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Foot, meet bullet
Good show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm glad the NYT caved.
Would you be willing to take this chance given the stupid legal decisions being made of late?
While it seems the NYT would have won, it only seems that way. All it takes is a complete moron of a judge to not understand copyright law and a much worse decision could have been made.
Or do you not read your own blogs?
GateHouse will realize its own stupidity once revenue drops. Advertisers are pulling out of newspaper because it's a dying model (and about damn time).
I was curious when I first read the complaint from GateHouse stating its "ads were being bypassed". WTH? If a link to an article didn't include the ads, whose damn fault was that? Oh, right... the web developer. So GateHouse started crying like a 5 year old about "infringement".
And you really wanted this to take its chances in court?
Personal note: The other reason why I'm glad the NYT pulled out goes against their recent editorials and news items, spreading ignorant information to an even more ignorant public.
I certainly hope the NYT gets so slammed by lawsuits, they'll simply vanish as a "reliable source" of news, er, ignorant propaganda in support for whatever the NYT feels it needs to.
Good riddance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess this means that if I do not build a proper fence around my yard then I have no one to blame but myself for having a "bad landscape design".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not at all, but you know that.
Your yard is clearly private property. Putting up a website online is not private property, but putting up a big sign that says "we're open for traffic!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It parallels the music labels looking at P2P download stats and thinking: "look at all those lost sales! If we force all those people to pay we will be filthy rich!".
Traffic is the "currency" of the internet, and GateHouse Media just threw it away! How many websites wouldn't PAY the NYT for that privilege?? They could easily have put more ads on the news pages (like everybody out there these days), or even make people coming in from NYT go to a page with a big juicy expensive ad first. But no, not GateHouse! They don't to change or adapt anything! It's better to go to court and force the others to comply with their wishes. Who the hell runs this GateHouse Media??? Music execs???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]