Hot News Is Back: Court Blocks Website From Reporting The News
from the first-amendment? dept
In the last few years, there's been a push by some companies to bring back the immensely troubling "hot news doctrine," that appears to violate everything we know about the First Amendment and copyright law. Basically, the "hot news doctrine" says that if someone reports on a story, others are not allowed to report on their reporting for some period of time -- on the theory that it somehow undermines the incentive to do that original reporting. Last year, we wrote about the very troubling implications of allowing the hot news concept to stand. Beyond the free speech implications, it also has the troubling quality of effectively creating a copyright on facts -- which are quite clearly not covered by copyright. On top of that, it's not necessary in the slightest. As anyone who is actually in the online news business knows, getting a scoop gets you traffic -- even if others report the same thing minutes later. Being first gets you the attention. You don't need to artificially block others from reporting the news.Unfortunately, with various publications struggling, some have picked up on the hot news doctrine as a way to somehow block competition. Tragically, it looks like a court has now adopted the hot news doctrine in one case. Paul Alan Levy alerts us to the news that a judge issuing an injunction against TheFlyOnTheWall.com, a website that would publish summaries of Wall Street research. The Wall Street firms said this undermined their business model -- and the court agreed. It passed an injunction saying that TheFlyOnTheWall had to hold off publishing any news about any Wall Street research report until either 10am (if the report is released early in the morning) or for two hours after it's released if it comes out during the day.
These totally arbitrary restrictions are highly troubling from a free speech standpoint and seem effectively random. This seems like yet another case of a company being upset by interference with its business model, which should be a reason to change the business model -- not run to the courts.
But what's most troubling of all is that now all the publishers who have been salivating over the hot news doctrine have a legal ruling to point to. Can you imagine how the world would work if you couldn't blog about or mention a particular piece of news for a few hours because the Associated Press got to it first? It's hard to see how this could possibly stand up to a First Amendment analysis, and it's quite troubling that the judge found the way she did.
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, facts, first amendment, hot news, reporting
Companies: theflyonthewall
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Extra! Extra!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blogs would continue updating and news source would continue fighting for hits with stories of the event
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Plus, if the newspapers all put up paywalls so you can't read their stories without paying, how are you to know that you've been scooped and so can't report on something?
*Actually, not that interested since I'm fairly certain I can predict which way it'll go ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Federal Case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporations have MORE first Amendment rights than individuals, at least in our legal system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Link Building Advantage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another thought: Does this apply only to the internet? or can I print out a version of the "Hot News" and pass it out on the street before the time limit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What law did the judge cite in the decision?
It's very scary that a judge can make what seems to be a clearly unconstitutional decision and invent a law out of whole cloth and you can get in trouble for not obeying the decision.
I am wondering more and more everyday if I should move to another country... but I'm not sure if anywhere else is even better anymore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hot News doctrine recognized by U.S. Supreme Court (1918)
International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918)
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
***
But one who gathers news at pains and expense, for the purpose of lucrative publication, may be said to have a quasi-property in the results of his enterprise as against a rival in the same business, and the appropriation of those results at the expense and to the damage of the one and for the profit of the other is unfair competition against which equity will afford relief. P. 248 U. S. 236.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hot News doctrine recognized by U.S. Supreme Court (1918)
Ahhhhh,
Film at eleven ... tomorrow evening.
Had this not beeen a real emergency, you would still be alive to watch it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hot News doctrine recognized by U.S. Supreme Court (1918)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Wall Street firms said this undermined their business model -- and the court agreed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Wall Street firms said this undermined their business model -- and the court agreed.
" The Wall Street firms said this undermined their business model -- and the court agreed."
I think rightly so were the courts. And i think it will stand on appeal, The "News" at question here , is actually original research produced to be a exclusive to paying customers. Not at all the same as "breaking news for the Times , et al ......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Wall Street firms said this undermined their business model -- and the court agreed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Under NBA, the elements of
an INS claim surviving federal preemption are:
(i) a plaintiff generates or gathers information at a
cost; (ii) the information is time-sensitive; (iii) a
defendant’s use of the information constitutes free
riding on the plaintiff’s efforts; (iv) the defendant
is in direct competition with a product or service
offered by the plaintiffs; and (v) the ability of
other parties to free-ride on the efforts of the
plaintiff or others would so reduce the incentive to
produce the product or service that its existence or
quality would be substantially threatened.
NBA, 105 F.3d at 845.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fuck that judge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
little mike should be concerned
Seems like a pretty good idea actually. Maybe if you and your counterparts could take and actually write something original you wouldn't be so concerned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: little mike should be concerned
It's not fair! It's so not fair!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: little mike should be concerned
That's the thing about Michial Thompson, he acts in such a mature manner and never belittles anyone with silly name calling or other derogatory retort.
I look forward to the time when the weather and traffic report can only be found on one channel, because we can not tolerate the theft of facts which clearly belong to whomever whines the loudest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: little mike should be concerned
You should really shut down that THEFT DEVICE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: little mike should be concerned
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank Goodness For This Decision!
Good thing that courts are in place to uphold these business models, rather than people's so-called "rights".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And I'm moving to the US, why?
Maybe I'd be better off staying here in Ireland.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And I'm moving to the US, why?
Until we export (by coercion) our brand of legal protectionism to your government, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New World Order
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why should Like That...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]