
We object to the Newspaper Licensing Agency's terms - ColinWright
http://www.cutbot.net/legal-copyright/we-object-to-the-newspaper-licensing-agencys-terms/
======
gwillen
First comment: "Interesting. These would be the same newspapers that once
quoted my blog, without warning. This caused a traffic spike, and a hit to my
hosting bill. I look forward to my forthcoming claim against The Times."

Because of course, it's not that the newspapers think any view of a webpage or
usage of a headline is infringing, oh no. They just want this rule to apply to
Their Stuff, which is Worth Protecting. Not to Your Stuff.

~~~
mtgx
My favorite such case was when the Belgian newspapers sued Google for linking
to their sites, and then when Google stopped doing it because they actually
won that lawsuit, they came back begging to Google to include them again, once
their traffic dropped significantly.

[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110718/16394915157/belgia...](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110718/16394915157/belgian-
newspapers-give-permission-to-google-to-return-them-to-search-results.shtml)

~~~
freehunter
It really disappoints me that Google would relist those sites. I would have
demanded the money spent in court fees as payment for relisting, and if they
didn't want to pay it... Google's under no obligation to list any site.

~~~
gte910h
While it's fun to be vindictive, google surely made money by listing ads for
those sites, and was probably happy to put them back and get the ad revenue
again.

------
sallen
The article and the headline do not mention it, but FYI, this takes place in
the United Kingdom.

~~~
cstross
More specifically, it takes place in _Scotland_.

Which has a very different legal system from England and Wales (or anywhere
else, for that matter). Primary legislation from 1707 through 2000 was enacted
in Parliament in London, but the judicial system itself is based on Roman law
rather than Common Law or the Napoleonic Continental System.

This affects me (I'm in Edinburgh and so is my colo server). _You_ , whoever
you are, are probably safe.

~~~
w1ntermute
> the judicial system itself is based on Roman law rather than Common Law or
> the Napoleonic Continental System

Says on Wikipedia[0] that it's a hybrid of Roman and English law. Why did they
even use Roman law at all? The Roman Empire had been gone for several
centuries, and England was in control after the 1707 Acts of Union, so it's
surprising they didn't reform the system to follow English procedures.

0: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_law>

~~~
rmc
_Why did they even use Roman law at all_

One of the difference between Roman (aka civil) law and English (aka common)
law is the that precent matters differently.

Lots of countries in Europe are based on civil aka Roman law.

The Act of Union in 1707 Scottish law was guaranteed to continue after the
union, that was a demand. Why didn't they change it? Probably for the same
reason the USA adopt Mexican law? Why should they? It's a different country
with different legal systems.

~~~
bdunbar
_Probably for the same reason the USA adopt Mexican law?_

Bad analogy. The US and Mexico are not connected by an Act of Union.

And actually - parts of Mexican law were incorporated by states in the
Southwest, where they made sense: primarily land-use and water rights.

 _It's a different country with different legal systems._

Act of Union - as I read it - united Scotland and England into the same
Kingdom. You guys shared a flag, your armies are the same, the currency is the
same.

A difference with no distinction.

Now, a prickly Scot could want to keep his oddball legal system and more power
to him. But don't get all irate if the rest of the world looks at that choice
and wonders that two countries that share currency, an army, a monarch, and
etc should not also share the same legal system.

~~~
aaroncrane
Another distinction is that Scotland has its own devolved parliament. Some
issues, including copyright, are reserved to the UK government, but Scotland
can (and does) pass its own laws on devolved issues.

~~~
stfu
And of cause that Scotland likes to emphasize its independence, as probably
best illustrated by Scotland's current push to leave the United Kingdom.

------
lincolnwebs
Attempting to figure out the country of origin for every lawsuit, law, and
court case referenced on this site is ridiculous. It's difficult to parse it
all even if it's clearly denoted, and it rarely is. Please, please add the
country of origin to headlines like this.

------
semanticist
The NLA contributed to the death of a startup I worked for last year (in
Edinburgh, although this is a UK-wide issue, Meltwater being an English
company).

At that time, they wanted £5,000 to not sue us, at least that much again, per
quarter, for access to a horrific and incomplete API, plus 12p per link per
imprint.

Let me repeat that one again: they wanted 12p for every time someone saw a
link to their website published by us.

And even THEN, the NLA don't actually speak for all newspapers in the UK -
News International publications are not licensed, which means that there's no
legal path to accessing their content.

It's complete nonsense. One friend suggested using bit.ly to shorten the URLs,
paying the NLA their 12p once and letting them go after bit.ly (in America)
for the rest.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
News Intl. aren't covered? How ironic, News Intl. publications were some of
the first to put up pay walls.

------
dbcoops
It seems like the content provider has little downside to doing this. News
aggregator sends traffic to their page + news site seeks 'licensing' fees for
that traffic = profit. I suppose there is the potential for the newspaper to
lose money in legal fees as well as look like a jerk to people on the
internet, but hey, gotta fight the inevitable demise of print media somehow.

~~~
Jacqued
Sometimes I just wish they would go out of business already. I think google
should stop infringing their copyright too. You know, indexing Their Stuff and
making links to it. That could do the trick. I wonder what they'd say then.

We see first hand what happens when disrupting incumbents who happen to also
control politicians and have some good friends in the legal system. Hopefully
the current people movement against copyright mafia will see further
victories...

~~~
socksy
What does it mean to go out of business? Don't most newspapers make a loss?
[1] (Excluding The Sun, obviously.) I don't think the motivation for funding
them is profit, but influence, and so they'll continue to be produced for
quite a while.

Regarding Google, didn't Murdoch complain about just that? [2]

[1] Well, at least The Times and The Guardian.
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jul/20/times-paywall-
re...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jul/20/times-paywall-readership)
mentions a daily loss of £240,000 for The Times, and
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jun/10/guardian-
media-g...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jun/10/guardian-media-group-
results) suggests similar (if not as great) losses by The Guardian.
[http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/ideas/tim-de-
lisle/ca...](http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/ideas/tim-de-lisle/can-
guardian-survive) suggests a calculation of £100,000 a day. However, The
Telegraph appears to make a profit, as suggested here because of merging their
digital and print media:
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/18/telegraph-
group-...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/18/telegraph-group-
profits-increase) — though I get the feeling that it would still be funded
somewhat past the point of profitability too…

[2] [http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/07/rupert-
murdoch-g...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/07/rupert-murdoch-
google-paywalls-ipad)

~~~
Jacqued
Good point.

However, I think even Mr Murdoch's personal wealth could not sustain the
losses of digital news outlets should Google comply and stop indexing them. By
any means, they just have to put a little piece of text in their robots file
to do just that - so this is yet more talk in favor of strong copyrights, and
no action to renew anything.

~~~
socksy
<http://www.thetimes.co.uk/robots.txt> would suggest that they are already
doing that for their paywalled sites, wouldn't it?

