Although the many small websites are copying far more then headline and first paragraph, it is not economic to pursue. A clear ruling would decrease this significantly.

Because readers get the main part of the story from the headline and first paragraph, many do not bother to click. It is claimed that Gatehouse should be thankful for the clicks but the reality is the news aggregator benefit greatly by allowing readers to get the main part of the story.

If I as a reader want to read financial stories and I really respect the NY Times, I am more than happy to use Google news business section to read the headlines and first paragraph from all newspapers and perhaps look for the NY Times ones when I have to decide which one to click for the full story. If NY Times stories were not on Google News I would be far more likely to go to the NY Times business section to read financial news. The NY Times might prefer that because they can show me more ads. Therefore it is a completely rational business decision to stop allowing aggregators from using my headlines and first paragraph.

Again, I (like Gatehouse) maintain that taking the headline and first paragraph is NOT fair use and I’ve spent quite a bit of time reviewing the legal issues (although I am not a lawyer nor to I have to money to prove it by hiring one). It is my sincere hope that Gatehouse will take this all the way and not fold in settlement as all the others have done. The world needs to know either way.

Why do you think the NY Times wants to lose? Can you elaborate?

I will agree with you that there are many websites out there that are taking far more than headlines and the first sentence or paragraph. Those that take more than the headline and teaser ought to be stopped in my opinion, but that was not what I saw when I looked at Boston.com. Copyright infringement on the Internet is a problem, and as a content creator I am sensitive to those issues. I also hear you when you seem to have problems with Google and others making money from taking from others. Legally there is no problem with that as long as what they are taking is not enough to constitute copyright infringement. Perhaps it is better to say so long as what they are doing is fair use.

From a business standpoint I am convinced that Gatehouse is making the wrong decision. If they want to stop wholesale copying I am all for that, but the copying here was enhancing their business, not taking away from their business. I personally think it is wrong to look at what others are making from their fair uses and to focus on what benefit you obtain.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

_Gene

Google is likely settling the type of cases you mention because they are afraid of a ruling against them not that they “chose to settle because they were being sued overseas”. They are willing to pay the larger players for the headlines and first paragraph but they won’t for the smaller.

I think there is a reasonable chance that NY Times WANTS to loose this even if they have a deal with Google because there are so many others. If you look at sites like: http://www.thecomingdepression.blogspot.com/ they are taking far more than the headline and first paragraph. By the way, Google is making money because of it (see AdSense Ads).

It will take a court ruling to put Google and the other news aggregators in their place. No single newspaper will prevent Google from indexing their site (with robots.txt) because all other newspapers likely wouldn’t.

The vast majority of commentators agree with you but I do not. These people are taking the heart of these stories and most people ARE NOT clicking though. Individual newspapers can not fight the trend only the courts can protect them.

I appreciate your thoughts, but the law in this area is not at all sketchy or questionable. Google had a similar problem a while back and chose to settle because they were being sued overseas. The copyright laws as they apply to the Internet in the US are quite clear and Gatehouse has very little chance of winning.

Also, if Gatehouse loses it would not at all signal the end of the Google business model. In fact, it would be quite good for those who aggregate content.

The fact that you think it should be illegal to take a title and a sentence of original content does not mean that it is illegal or that it is or even should be a copyright violation. Gatehouse is missing the bigger picture here. If they want to attract more visitors to their website, which will undoubtedly increase the amount of advertising revenue to them and which will also increase their sites in search engine rankings then they should be thrilled that the Boston Globe is linking to them. They have obscure publications and are getting traffic directed to them from one of the premiere news sites in New England. Exactly how is that bad?

I for one was thrilled to get IPWatchdog.com included in Google news and I would be thrilled to have any of my content promoted on such visible sites. Gatehouse needs to watch what they wish for, they might just get it and that would lead to irrelevance.

-Gene

The case law about the Internet is sketchy and brief at best and it’s good the deep linking, headlines and summary paragraphs issue will be adjudicated.

Google should take an interest in this case. If the court’s ruling goes against Gatehouse, it may be the end of the business model of the Googles of the world — take others work without payment and sell lots ads around it.