

NYT sued over linking practice - villageidiot
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10128600-93.html

======
alex_c
The only word that comes to mind is "suicidal"... not because they're trying
to take on the NYT, but because it's an ad-supported site turning away
relevant traffic. I don't get it.

~~~
villageidiot
The implictions of this case would be enormous, if they were to prevail
against the NYT. It would mean that scraping, mashups, "meta" sites would also
come under review.

I just don't see a court turning back the tide of technology in favor of this
small company - especially given the fact that the NYT subsid (boston.com)
included the name of the source next to all of the links - and only one or two
sentences of text from the articles.

How different is this from what Google does when you run a search - in the
search results they also serve up one or two lines of descriptive text scraped
from each site. Google News too.

I just don't see this happening. I think your choice of the word suicidal is
appropriate.

