One Entertainment Business Publication Sues Another For Copyright Infringement For Having The Same Stories
from the idea-expression,-nikki dept
Nikki Finke, the infamous editor of Deadline.com is apparently suing the Hollywood Reporter for copyright infringement... because it wrote stories on the same news events as Deadline.com. Seriously. Here's Finke's quote:"PMC (the company that owns Deadline.com) is taking a stand against desperate and copycat news organizations and media outlets such as THR that constantly monitor PMC�s websites for the sole purpose of copying and imitating PMC websites� news stories and original content within minutes after online publication. These copycat media outlets such as THR, rather than conducting their own independent reporting and investigation, developing their own sources and insiders, and generating their own leads and stories, simply steal PMC�s content and pawn it off as their own. In truth, THR, faced with the harsh reality that it had become a second-rate entertainment industry news source unable to attract insiders� attention anymore."THR, for its part, claims the whole thing is ridiculous, and many of the stories mentioned were on both sites because Hollywood publicists sent the same info to both sites:
"An initial review of the complaint shows that it is replete with examples of stories that originated from widely-released press releases from publicists, or widespread confirmations from publicists to numerous outlets, including both The Hollywood Reporter and Deadline.com. It is not copyright infringement to report these stories, even if on occasion Deadline.com posts them first."While I don't always agree with THR's coverage, on this one, I'm on their side. Reporting on the same story -- even if you find out about it from the other site -- is not copyright infringement. It's often how news works. Someone should explain to Finke the idea/expression dichotomy in copyright law, as well as the important tidbit of information that you can't own facts, and others are free to write about the same facts.
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, hot news, journalism, news
Companies: deadline.com, pmc, the hollywood reporter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Bizarre.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The person that wrote this is a professional editor?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know, right. That's almost as bad as Mike writing a story about how stupid Deadline is for making certain arguments--although Deadline isn't really making those arguments
I guess any idiot can be a "professional editor." Right, chubby?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or, you could try another business model
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What IS it with communication companies?
Why do almost all of them do it so BADLY?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What IS it with communication companies?
...
Several hundred years of monopoly status has caused the evolution of a new form of humam. Monopolus Stagnatus Sapiens, they are a throw back to an earlier time in human evolution. While Monopolus Stagnatus Sapiens looks like Homo Sapien Sapiens, there are several distinct differences. Monopolus Stagnatus have lost the ability to adapt to changing situations, are easily frustrated, rationalize continuosly, have lost the ability to make fire or use tools, and believe that all things belong to them.
Most in the scientific community believe that, with humanity encroaching on their domain, they will be extinct in less that 20 years. The belief is that the subspecies Reporticus will go first, followed by Musicus, and finally Filimicus. Genetic sample are being saved to prevent this genetic aberation from occuring again in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What IS it with communication companies?
> humanity encroaching on their domain, they will be
> extinct in less that 20 years.
But copyright is forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What IS it with communication companies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What IS it with communication companies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe he's hoping to get the same judge that's presiding over the LaChapelle/Rhianna case, so they can completely eliminate that pesky difference altogether?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I was just going to post a link to the complaint and say that there's more to the story, but I feel I must point out how you blew this one (like you blow so many others) because you jumped to conclusions.
If I were going to write a story about how Deadline is wrong and stupid for not understanding the idea/expression dichotomy, I would first look at the actual complaint to see what in fact they are arguing.
If you read the complaint, it is clear that they are only suing over source code that was allegedly copied verbatim and for which Deadline has filed applications for the copyright on. They are NOT suing over any sort of hot news claim, as you erroneously say they are.
This is what I mean about doing basic Journalism 101 stuff. It took me 30 seconds on Google to find the complaint, and then 2 minutes of reading the complaint to see what was actually being claimed. With 2.5 minutes of research, I was able to completely debunk your entire argument.
Did you do even this most basic amount of research before writing this piece? Nope. It's ridiculously sad. Seriously. If you only did this every once in a while, that'd be forgivable. But the fact is you do this all the time.
If you want to be taken seriously, it would help if you did even the most basic research into a story. Instead, you jump to conclusions in your haste to spread FUD on a copyright story.
Your bias blinds you to a fault. You COMPLETELY BLEW this one, chubby. Again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But it's not about getting it right, is it? It's about spreading copyright FUD. Pure idiocy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
opinion
Mike clearly has blown this story.
opinion
COMPLETELY UNTRUE
opinion
You spout silly non sequitur.
opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and doesn't need another one.
my guess is you have 4 or 5.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What's with the attitude? So you* are right, and Mike's wrong. That's what the comment section is for: to provide useful insight.
What do you want now? A medal? What about the other 52 times (yes, I was counting) that you were wrong? Where is MY medal?
*Actually, it was someone else, who actually bothered to post a useful link, but we'll let it slide this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What do you want now? A medal? What about the other 52 times (yes, I was counting) that you were wrong? Where is MY medal?
It was me that posted the link. Don't let the snowflakes fool you.
What I want is for Pirate Mike to do basic Journalism 101 stuff, like verify if the central premise of an article is accurate. Just look at the headline: "One Entertainment Business Publication Sues Another For Copyright Infringement For Having The Same Stories." Nope. Wrong. With two minutes of research I was able to determine that Mike had this wrong.
I tried to explain this sort of thing to Mike just the other day, but he denied that he does anything wrong when researching and writing these articles. The fact is, he should do more research before publishing his "debunking" articles.
Having people point out his mistakes in the comments afterwards doesn't cut it, Mike. Your job is to do basic, minimum research up front. That you don't admit your own shortcoming in this regard is just more intellectually dishonesty.
It's fucking ridiculous. You should be ashamed. I know you only care about spreading FUD, but shame on you, chubby. Shame on you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That snowflake shuffling also makes it hard to analyze YOUR journalistic integrity. Maybe you systematically posted erroneous information in the past and this time you just got lucky and got it right?
We'll never know. But, we can't argue with fact, so, +1 to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
mua-hahahahahah, ok, we call you the snowflake.. now I can visualize the savant from Cube.. astr0--nomical...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike set out to write an entire article about how wrong Deadline's arguments were, without actually taking two minutes to ascertain what in fact Deadline's arguments were.
It's completely ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's kind of strange actually, but you're wrong. If you read the complaint, it's quite clear they are alleging copying of both news content and source code. It's so obvious I wonder why you would say otherwise, unless it's because you're a troll who has no particular interest in the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
and who is this Mike character you so vehemently hate?!?!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The fact that you haven't corrected this clearly erroneous "article" shows what a manipulative lying sack of shit you really are. If you had even an ounce of integrity, you would admit your HUGE mistake here. Not you though. You just dig in further. You're a fucking joke. If you can't even get the big things right, how in the world do you think anyone would trust you with the minutia? You couldn't "debunk" your way out of a paper bag. Idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Either that, or I hadn't read the comments on this article until now. If you think I got something totally wrong, next time send us an email so we know it's urgent.
While there were two separate issues raised by the lawsuit, I was posting about Finke's direct comments, in which they whined about copying stories. The source code claim I read about, but didn't find that interesting and didn't write about it.
If Finke isn't making a copying story argument, she shouldn't say: "PMC is taking a stand against desperate and copycat news organizations and media outlets such as THR that constantly monitor PMC�s websites for the sole purpose of copying and imitating PMC websites� news stories and original content within minutes after online publication. These copycat media outlets such as THR, rather than conducting their own independent reporting and investigation, developing their own sources and insiders, and generating their own leads and stories, simply steal PMC�s content and pawn it off as their own. In truth, THR, faced with the harsh reality that it had become a second-rate entertainment industry news source unable to attract insiders� attention anymore."
'Cause that sounds exactly like what my title says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your headline: "One Entertainment Business Publication Sues Another For Copyright Infringement For Having The Same Stories"
This is false. They are not being sued for "having the same stories." They are being sued for copying the copyrighted source code verbatim.
Your sub-headline: "from the idea-expression,-nikki dept"
Again, they are not suing for running the same stories. They are suing for copying the source code. Your sub-headline is completely wrong.
Your first sentence: "Nikki Finke, the infamous editor of Deadline.com is apparently suing the Hollywood Reporter for copyright infringement... because it wrote stories on the same news events as Deadline.com."
Completely wrong. They are not suing because they "wrote stories on the same news events." It's because of the verbatim copying of the source code.
The rest of your article is equally wrong and misleading.
While there were two separate issues raised by the lawsuit, I was posting about Finke's direct comments, in which they whined about copying stories.
Bullshit. You weren't just "posting about Finke's direct comments, in which they whined about copying stories." You claimed that the copying of the stories WAS WHAT THEY WERE SUING OVER. They were not.
If Finke isn't making a copying story argument, she shouldn't say: "PMC is taking a stand against desperate and copycat news organizations and media outlets such as THR that constantly monitor PMC�s websites for the sole purpose of copying and imitating PMC websites� news stories and original content within minutes after online publication. These copycat media outlets such as THR, rather than conducting their own independent reporting and investigation, developing their own sources and insiders, and generating their own leads and stories, simply steal PMC�s content and pawn it off as their own. In truth, THR, faced with the harsh reality that it had become a second-rate entertainment industry news source unable to attract insiders� attention anymore." 'Cause that sounds exactly like what my title says.
Yes, she said that. But notice that "taking a stand against desperate and copycat news organizations" doesn't mean that her copyright claim is directly about that. It's not.
Had you done two minutes of research, you would have found out what they were actually suing over. But we all know that you can't be bothered with facts when spreading FUD.
You're a joke, chubby. Do the minimum amount of research, or expect me to point out how fucking wrong you are. And when your mistake is pointed out, DON'T FUCKING LIE AND PRETEND LIKE YOU DIDN'T GET ANYTHING WRONG.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your headline: "One Entertainment Business Publication Sues Another For Copyright Infringement For Having The Same Stories"
This is false. They are not being sued for "having the same stories." They are being sued for copying the copyrighted source code verbatim.
Your sub-headline: "from the idea-expression,-nikki dept"
Again, they are not suing for running the same stories. They are suing for copying the source code. Your sub-headline is completely wrong.
Your first sentence: "Nikki Finke, the infamous editor of Deadline.com is apparently suing the Hollywood Reporter for copyright infringement... because it wrote stories on the same news events as Deadline.com."
Completely wrong. They are not suing because they "wrote stories on the same news events." It's because of the verbatim copying of the source code.
The rest of your article is equally wrong and misleading.
While there were two separate issues raised by the lawsuit, I was posting about Finke's direct comments, in which they whined about copying stories.
Bullshit. You weren't just "posting about Finke's direct comments, in which they whined about copying stories." You claimed that the copying of the stories WAS WHAT THEY WERE SUING OVER. They were not.
If Finke isn't making a copying story argument, she shouldn't say: "PMC is taking a stand against desperate and copycat news organizations and media outlets such as THR that constantly monitor PMC�s websites for the sole purpose of copying and imitating PMC websites� news stories and original content within minutes after online publication. These copycat media outlets such as THR, rather than conducting their own independent reporting and investigation, developing their own sources and insiders, and generating their own leads and stories, simply steal PMC�s content and pawn it off as their own. In truth, THR, faced with the harsh reality that it had become a second-rate entertainment industry news source unable to attract insiders� attention anymore." 'Cause that sounds exactly like what my title says.
Yes, she said that. But notice that "taking a stand against desperate and copycat news organizations" doesn't mean that her copyright claim is directly about that. It's not.
Had you done two minutes of research, you would have found out what they were actually suing over. But we all know that you can't be bothered with facts when spreading FUD.
You're a joke, chubby. Do the minimum amount of research, or expect me to point out how fucking wrong you are. And when your mistake is pointed out, DON'T FUCKING LIE AND PRETEND LIKE YOU DIDN'T GET ANYTHING WRONG.
Can you seriously not even admit that you got this wrong by saying that the copying of the stories is the basis on the copyright claim in the lawsuit?
SERIOUSLY, CHUBBY?
I called you out for jumping to conclusions, and you won't even admit your mistake. It's completely fucking ridiculous. What a FUCKING IDIOT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wrong. The complaint mentions the copying of the news stories, but that IS NOT THE BASIS OF THE COPYRIGHT CLAIM. There is only one copyright claim, and it is for the copying of the source code verbatim. It is right there in black and white.
Unfortunately, neither you nor Pirate Mike seem to be able to understand a complaint. Nowhere in the complaint do they claim that the copying of the news stories is copyright infringement. Pirate Mike jumped to conclusions and made that part up. I pointed out Pirate Mike's error, and he is too intellectually dishonest and slimy to even admit that he made a mistake.
Typical Pirate Mike. Can't understand basic things. Can't admit when he's wrong. And we're supposed to take him seriously on the hard stuff? Ha! What a fucking idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's really simple. Yes, they mention the issue of copying the stories in the complaint, but that copying IS NOT THE BASIS OF THE COPYRIGHT CLAIM. The copyright claim--the one and only claim in the complaint--is about copying the source code verbatim. Does chubby acknowledge this FACT? Nope.
You idiots will defend chubby no matter what he does. It's ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
/visualizes AC here jumping up and down screaming 'John f*cking Mayer!!'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]