News - universal property

The most dangerous defensive tactics that the old news companies have recently been practicing is an attempt to declare the right to own “hot” news and prohibit others to repeat the information that they have placed until the news ceases to be “hot”. This is a threat to freedom of speech, as well as a violation of the first amendment to the US Constitution, the doctrine of the copy and conscientious use of works. This is a threat to the news as such. Old news companies: Ny Times, Advance, Gannett, Belo, McClatchy, Scrips, AFP, AP, Washington Post and some others, made a united front against the new Google and Twitter players , setting their official opinion on the use of “hot” news sites TheFlyontewall.com. The problem of “hot” news was also discussed in the US Federal Trade Commission, which is inclined to think that it would save traditional news companies if it introduces a terrible, from the point of view of the constitution, the concept of “ ownership of facts ”. The problem of “hot news” also surfaced when the Times correspondent David Carr began to scourge the Time.com and Politico media company for published on the Internet of the Rolling Stone articles about General Stanley McCrystal even before the magazine himself did (since the news was very “hot”). The concept of “hot” news arose in 1918, when INS sued with AP: one telegraph agency, which was banned from transmitting information from the UK during the war, rewrote the news of another telegraph agency for its customers at the distance of three hourly belts from the scene. The 1928 precedent surfaced during the Fly case when the Barclays, Merrill, Morgan Stanley investment banks and some others accused the website of reprinting the recommendations of their analysts. Now news companies want to use the concept of “hot” news to limit the freedom of action of aggregators and other websites; Google and Twitter are trying to interfere with them. The concept of "hot" news to the ridiculous is obsolete. What today to consider “hot” news? According to the head of Thomson Reuters, Tom Gluser , the news is of particular value in the first milliseconds after entering the tape. The restrictions on the use of “hot” news should seem disgusting for journalists, even for the most desperate journalists, since the work of any of them is built on facts revealed by colleagues. These restrictions are all the more disgusting that turn into a certain trial. Restrictions on the use of “hot” news suicidally for news companies - although some of them mistakenly believe that they can protect themselves - because they impede the distribution of news through hyperlinks and delivery to other journalists. The problem of “hot” news should worry all our fellow citizens, because the free transmission of information is vital for democracy. The structure of news services, the method of collecting and presenting the material have completely changed compared to 1928 and even since 1998. Therefore, the story with Rolling Stone is so instructive. The statements of McCrystal leaked to the Internet and immediately spread there, seriously influencing state affairs and the information field. To quote the article without the permission of the authors made just the fact that the news was very hot. The other day I asked the question: couldn't the magazine prevent the information from reprinting the information using the doctrine of “hot” news? Isn't it really? Since Rolling Stone did not publish an article on the Internet and since it was impossible to give a cold of such a material, Politico and Time decided to place it in PDF format, for which they got from Carr - it is quite possible according to his merits (I must say, Time subscribed under a letter in the Fly case). But Carr could have the same success to scour the Rolling Stone for the fact that the magazine did not understand how important his material is, as well as for what he wouldingly shared. As soon as Rolling Stone himself posted an article on the Internet, other sites began to refer to it. The economy of hyperlinks works if only an appropriate opportunity arises. The same can be said about the first amendment to the Constitution. “It is worth publishing the facts how they become public,” the official opinion of Google and Twitter, sent to the court, said. It was worth the words of McCrystal to seep on the Internet, as they became part of a democratic dialogue. To limit any of us in quoting is to rob the audience. “The message of truthful information is such a manifestation of freedom of speech that our constitution protects especially strongly,” says Google and Twitter. In this case, the parties argue not only about the rights of new and old media. They argue about the nature and roles of the public sphere. These two letters are exhaustively clearly indicated by the worldview of both camps. Traditional companies believe that the concept of "hot" news "is necessary in order to protect the right of news organizations to collect and report information." They talk about "freezers" - companies reprinting other people's news and do not pay anything for this. “News suppliers are concerned with the fact that available technologies allow you to easily accumulate information,” newspapers say. Representatives of traditional media did not say a word about how much money could be brought to their news. The statement says how newspapers are ruined, but the authors do not want to admit the fact that bankruptcy is a consequence of huge debts and mediocre management. The authors have the courage to argue that the news business “does not bring income in difficult economic conditions” (although until recently it was a highly income monopoly). They say that it is not against isolated cases of using "strangers" facts, since they are doing this without exception. They are against the “systematic” (read: computerized) information collection. They do not want to admit that there are tools (Robots.txt) that allow the aggregators to blocked the path. This is an intellectually insolvent, not too scrupulous attempt to enlist the support of the court to combat competitors, and the authors carefully turn a blind eye to the possible consequences of their message for news business and democracy as a whole. The Google-Twitter statement raises a lot of questions about how significant the freedom of speech and information for democracy is, and a few years ago, news companies would only welcome these issues. The authors recall the case of Feist Publications against the 1991 Rural Telephone Service, in which the court ruled: “He who first discovered a fact and reported him is not its creator; He or she simply talked about his existence. ” Even competitors, "preparing their material, have every right to use the facts contained in the publication of another company." Further: "The main thing in Feist was the denial that if the information was obtained" later and blood ", this alone is enough to justify the right to intellectual property." “The main goal of the copy of the copy is not to the authors for the invested work, but to promote the progress of science and art. The authors believe that the doctrine of “hot” news is a maneuver designed to circumvent a constitutional article on copy. ” Google and Twitter reminded the court that all news organizations use facts from the articles of competitors: television companies repeat newspaper messages without indicating authorship, and recently do the same with television programs and newspapers. They argue that the Feist case proved the following: “Freedom to use facts is to even use the facts collected by others with great difficulty for free,” is protected by the Constitution. ” My friend Spencer Raiss told me how he turned the mountains to meet the time with the material about the release of Nelson Mandela from the prison that he wrote for Newsweek. However, his editors in New York received information from the television program. Our news ecosystem has grown and began to act faster. “In the world of modern communication technologies, every person with a cell phone can inform the whole world about events, they will hardly have time to happen, and say that some one media company should have a monopoly on“ hot ”news, not only illegal, but practically pointless,” the Google-Twitter statement said. The authors are afraid that news companies will pay sources so that they do not cooperate with competitors, and that judges can turn into “superconditions”, determining the period of time during which the news should be considered “hot”. As an example, they lead an explosion on Times Square. Worse, the threat of a judicial lawsuit “will interfere with the legitimate spread of important news, since news sites will not know how long you need to“ sit ”on the news, before all the deadlines expire and it will be possible not to be afraid of judicial persecution for the use of“ hot ”information.” When a storm raged last week in the New York area, I met a resident of Long Island, who complained that Newsday did not take care of people's safety, delaying the publication of weather forecasts. The Google-Twitter statement says: “The latest news can sometimes pose a threat to society and security, however, to approve the court decision means to prevent the publications of important facts, which is especially dangerous when, due to the burning nature of the information, it is necessary to inform about it as quickly as possible.” If NewsDay’s weather forecast was better than competitors, how could she not report a storm? American and European news companies seek to extend the duration of the copy and limit the websites in the legal use of information. You can object to this with eloquent quotes from the joint statement of Google and Twitter: “Considering the Feist case, the court has repeatedly argued that the facts should be universal property, without any restrictions and obstacles.” Further, the example provides one more thing: “All facts-scientific, historical, biographical, as well as the latest news-should not become someone else's property, they should remain open sources available to everyone and everyone.” Further: “Naked facts must be copied by anyone and anywhere, and you should not see in this injustice or an unlucky turn of fate. Thanks to this, intellectual property contributes to the development of science and art. ” Further: “If the court allows organizations that have been the first to publish information to prevent its copying, it will act contrary to the goals of copyright, not contributing, but preventing the dissemination of knowledge.” Do you really want to prevent the dissemination of knowledge? The statement by Google and Twitter states: “The availability of information on numerous news portals suggests that attempts to protect“ hot ”news from“ illegal ”use are an anachronism, designed to plug the mouth - except for the most influential media companies. In the world of mass journalism and blogs, online services and broadcasting companies competing with each other 24 hours a day, it is impossible to keep the news under the castle for any significant period of time. ” The battle goes not only for the rights of several large companies. This is a fight for our rights with you.

Original post