Murdoch's The Times Accused Of Blatant Copying, Just As It Tells The World You Should Pay For News
from the oooops dept
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.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well.... mostly copied.
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 thread ]
Re: Well.... mostly copied.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who would have thunk it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
>>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 thread ]
Hilarious!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
To Pay for the News
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I don't know...
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 thread ]
Re: I don't know...
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090904/0416086107.shtml
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I don't know...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I don't know...
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't know...
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm starting to think that he has a Dementia or Alzheimer's.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This reminds me of the Khrushchev "We will bury you" statement. Fat chance!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Unless you don't know what a double standard is, in which case, maybe you should look it up?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Looks like some one is shilling in over time, trying to make master happy for a holiday bonus ham.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I don't know...
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 thread ]
"I'd be honored" ??
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 thread ]
Re: "I'd be honored" ??
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 thread ]