New York Times Settles Linking Suit

In what many of us thought was a slightly bizarre case, the New York Times Co. has settled with GateHouse Media in a suit attempting to cease the automated aggregation of Gatehouse content on Boston.com’s affiliated properties (Boston.com is owned by the Times Co.). It is not clear why the settlement was reached, since precedence was on the side of the Times’ operation.

Mathew Ingram examines the settlement at the Nieman Journalism Lab:

Because while the settlement is not a legally-binding precedent — the one piece of what might be called good news — it still involves the New York Times voluntarily refraining from what many would argue is perfectly defensible behaviour. As Joshua Benton notes in his post at the Nieman Journalism Lab, that could well embolden other publications to launch similar cases, on the assumption that if the NYT caved then someone else might too. [Links included in original post.]

tags: , , , , , ,

Get the O’Reilly Data Newsletter

Stay informed. Receive weekly insight from industry insiders.

Get the O’Reilly Web Ops and Performance Newsletter

Weekly insight from industry insiders. Plus exclusive content and offers.

Get the O’Reilly Programming Newsletter

Weekly insight from industry insiders. Plus exclusive content and offers.

Get the O’Reilly Hardware Newsletter

Get weekly insight and knowledge on how to design, prototype, manufacture, and market great connected devices.

Get Four Short Links in Your Inbox

Sign up to receive Nat’s eclectic collection of curated links every weekday.

Get the O’Reilly Design Newsletter

Stay informed. Receive weekly insight from industry insiders.

Get the O’Reilly Web Platform Newsletter

Stay informed. Receive weekly insight from industry insiders—plus exclusive content and offers.

  • Apple has just released Ipad with similar pricing and seemingly better features for their base model. Do you think this will affect the Amazon Kindle market? Thanks :)

  • I don’t know what an Amazon Kindle has to do with this article…

    However, I do know that Google doesn’t like duplicate content and that including “sourced” content from another site can result in your site/page being discounted by Google’s algorithm. Here’s what Google has to say about it http://bit.ly/2OCWu1

    For example, if I write something newsworthy about whatever, let’s just say something topical like, health insurance, and then someone copies my content on another page. Well, Google now has a hard time figuring out which site has the most authority and therefore which site should be the higher result in a search. In most people’s minds I’d bet, the author probably should, right? But, sometimes, it’s places like the NY Times that gets the credit in a search engine even though the credit the originating source in the story.

    So, with this article in mind, the linking that happens need to also take into account what the search engines are doing with the content.

  • Because while the settlement is not a legally-binding precedent — the one piece of what might be called good news — it still involves the New York Times voluntarily refraining from what many would argue is perfectly defensible behaviour. As Joshua Benton notes in his post at the Nieman Journalism Lab, that could well embolden other publications to launch similar cases, on the assumption that if the NYT caved then someone else might too. [Links included in original post.]