No, ACTA Secrecy Is Not 'Normal' -- Nor Is It A 'Distraction'

Murdoch's The Times Accused Of Blatant Copying, Just As It Tells The World You Should Pay For News

from the oooops dept

Fri, Nov 20th 2009 8:33am — Mike Masnick

Just this week, James Harding, the editor of The Times (of London), a paper owned by Rupert Murdoch, tried to explain why the news is worth paying for, as the paper starts to put up a new business model to get consumers to pay for news. Unfortunately, Harding apparently didn't get the message himself. As pointed out by Mathew Ingram, just days after making the case for paying for news, The Times has been accused of publishing an article that it copied without permission from a blog.

You can't make this stuff up.

Yes, just as Rupert Murdoch is calling aggregators (sites that simply summarize and link to stories) parasites (even as he owns a bunch of aggregators himself), one of his papers didn't aggregate, it flat out copied, without permission, a blog post that was written by Edgar Wright as a tribute to Edward Woodward, who recently passed away. The Times eventually put up a "clarification" online that had a link to the original site, but that hardly explains the original copying -- especially during the very week that they're trying to convince the world that news should be paid for....

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: blogs, copying, edgar wright, james harding, paywalls, rupert murdoch
Companies: news corp.

28 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Mike C. (profile), 20 Nov 2009 @ 7:48am

Well.... mostly copied.
Epic fail.

Of course, the linked article points out that they didn't even copy the article "as is", but felt they needed to edit. This further upset Mr. Wright as it removed what he felt were important parts of the article.

Maybe someone needs to point this out to Mandelson so he can sick his copyright police force on the Times... :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2009 @ 8:49am
  
  Re: Well.... mostly copied.
  The laws only apply to individuals and bloggers. They don't apply to big rich corporations. Laws don't exist for them, they can do what they want. Oh sure, the laws might be written there for them as a formality but it's not enforced so it basically doesn't exist. The law basically says, "If you're not a rich and powerful corporation you are subject to copyright restrictions. Otherwise you can copy all you want without penalty."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call me Al, 20 Nov 2009 @ 8:52am

That is absolutely ridiculous. They've just lifted the whole thing and, as Edgar noted in the Guardian, presented it as though he had written it for the Times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2009 @ 9:07am

On noes! You mean Rupert doesn't have his hand puppet style up every employee's butt, getting to do exactly as he says?

Who would have thunk it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- martyburns, 20 Nov 2009 @ 9:27am
  
  Re:
  >>On noes! You mean Rupert doesn't have his hand puppet style
  
  >>up every employee's butt, getting to do exactly as he says?
  
  >>Who would have thunk it?
  
  Are you actually defending him? WTF.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Pitabred (profile), 20 Nov 2009 @ 10:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    Hi! It seems you're new to the Internet. The post you're replying to is commonly known as a troll. They pop up from time to time sowing discord and strife. It's best to just ignore them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2009 @ 10:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Not really different from those who quaff the koolaid and ignore obvious issues.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Liam, 20 Nov 2009 @ 10:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      seriously? I read this site and agree with pretty much all the posts, but a troll is not someone who simply has a different opinion on a subject then you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2009 @ 10:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I completely agree with you! Troll.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2009 @ 11:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Who is the troll?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2009 @ 1:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Me silly!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
deadzone (profile), 20 Nov 2009 @ 9:27am

Hilarious!!
If it wasn't so stupid. Yet another example of just how screwed up our media is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TasMot, 20 Nov 2009 @ 9:39am

To Pay for the News
Years ago when cable was brand new, you paid for cable and didn't have to deal with all of the commercials. Now you pay for cable and have to deal with commercials. Newspapers seem to want you to "pay" for the opportunity for them to display advertisements to you. I'm not really interested in paying for that opportunity. If I have to pay for it, for the value they seem to think it has, then I shouldn't have to put up with all of the ads. They want to have it both ways don't they? I pay for the news and then they get paid even more to display ads. They can just keep the news to themselves on the other side of that wall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brooks (profile), 20 Nov 2009 @ 9:42am

I don't know...
Unless someone is going to argue that the *policy* of the Times is to copy material without attribution, or that Rupert Murdoch stepped in and did this personally, I think this is kind of a silly argument.

Companies aren't monolithic and homogeneous. Human and technical errors are made. Whether those are worth getting one's underthings in a bunch over is a maybe open for debate.

But, even I as think Murdoch's stance on aggregators in general and Google in particular is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard, the fact that some writer somewhere at one of the properties that Murdoch owns violated copyright doesn't really seem at all germane to the conversation.

It's a nice "gotcha!", but again, unless someone's going to argue that this is Times policy or Murdoch's active hand, it's a "gotcha!" on an anonymous staffer who almost certainly violated company policy and would have ended up in hot water regardless of whether his boss' boss' boss' boss' boss' boss' boss' boss had expressed naive opinions about the content economy. Presenting it as "Murdoch hypocritical on copyright!!!!!11!1!" is a cringeworthy distortion.

So yawn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2009 @ 9:47am
  
  Re: I don't know...
  "It's a nice "gotcha!", but again, unless someone's going to argue that this is Times policy or Murdoch's active hand"
  
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090904/0416086107.shtml
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- technomage (profile), 20 Nov 2009 @ 9:53am
  
  Re: I don't know...
  Funny, I was always told, as an employee, my actions represent the company, and therefore anything I do negatively also reflects poorly on the company. So yes, it does show that Murdoch is hypocritical of copyright as his managers, and ultimately he is responsible for everything an employee does, especially if it is something as volatile, and as public, as this.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Sean, 20 Nov 2009 @ 10:33am
    
    Re: Re: I don't know...
    Nice, glad you feel that way.
    
    Now we get to throw the ACORN bosses, Bertha Lewis, and Wade Rathke in jail because of the employees assisting in child prostitution.
    
    after all, they are responsible for their employees actions.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - taoareyou (profile), 20 Nov 2009 @ 10:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re: I don't know...
      The word "responsible" is not the same as "represent". The actions of employees are considered representative of a company, but do not automatically bestow responsibility for the actions onto an other individuals.
      
      The actions of the ACORN employees reflected badly on ACORN as a whole and caused funding to be withheld and additional investigations to be launched. So, yes the actions of the employees had a representative effect on the company.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2009 @ 6:45pm
  
  Re: I don't know...
  Unless someone is going to argue that the *policy* of the Times is to copy material without attribution, or that Rupert Murdoch stepped in and did this personally, I think this is kind of a silly argument.
  
  Until the Times or Murdoch steps forward and says that this *isn't* their policy, but rather the actions of some rogue employee (whom they should identify and terminate), I am going to assume it *is* their policy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2009 @ 11:42am

Rupert Murdoch has a real twisted view of copyright law.

I'm starting to think that he has a Dementia or Alzheimer's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert Dominy, 20 Nov 2009 @ 11:54am

Murdoch Fiddles while Rome burns.

This reminds me of the Khrushchev "We will bury you" statement. Fat chance!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2009 @ 1:07pm

This coming from Mike the man who said he would be honored if anyone used his work. Nice double standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Nov 2009 @ 1:38pm
  
  Re:
  This coming from Mike the man who said he would be honored if anyone used his work. Nice double standard.
  
  Wait... what's my double standard? I would be honored if anyone used by work. They are free to do so at will. I'm not saying it's bad that the Times copied. I'm saying it's bad that they said copying is evil AND THEN copied.
  
  The only double standard here was with the Times trying to claim that copying is bad... and then copying.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Griff (profile), 23 Nov 2009 @ 5:20am
    
    "I'd be honored" ??
    You weren't apparently honored when Lily Allen copied it.
    
    You give carte blanche permission up front for copiers of your work, then someone copies it, that should be fine.
    
    Music industry (whether rightly or wrongly) gives no such permission, so it is fair that they bitch when someone copies it without their permission.
    
    Lily Allen copies yours but bitches about people copying hers, that's not hypocritical.
    
    Now, Lily Allen makes a mix tape without permission, that IS hypocritical, agreed.
    
    But your original outpourings seemed to compare her stance on illegal music copying and her use of your article.
    And that seems an unfair comparison.
    
    In accusing Times of double standard, you say
    "I'm saying it's bad that they said copying is evil AND THEN copied." but surely they are saying that copying WITHOUT PERMISSION is evil, where copying your work would be WITH permission. Not the same at all.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2009 @ 12:25pm
      
      Re: "I'd be honored" ??
      No, Mike does not give "carte blanche" for people to copy his work. He tells people that they can copy his work as long as he is credited properly, which Lily Allen did not do.
      
      He does NOT give permission to people to copy his work without proper accreditation. In the event that this IS done, however, he will not pursue the matter. He will still be honoured to know that someone felt his work was worth repeating, and knows that the copy ultimately increases his own traffic, as the Lily Allen incident showed. Nonetheless, if a copied work does not cite him as the author, then it was not given permission.
      
      So, to sum it up:
      
      Copying while citing Mike = Good.
      Copying without citing Mike = Bad.
      
      Complaining about copyright violation while violating copyright yourself = Hypocritical.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2009 @ 1:55pm
  
  Re:
  There is no double standard at work here.
  
  Unless you don't know what a double standard is, in which case, maybe you should look it up?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2009 @ 2:31pm

The tardly trolls are out in full force today!

Looks like some one is shilling in over time, trying to make master happy for a holiday bonus ham.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2009 @ 2:45pm

Actually, there appears to be exactly one troll talking to himself, and he isn't doing a good job. Does your mommy know you are using the internet again this weekend?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]