Jan 042013
 

Suppose you wrote a book.

How would you feel if I put a post here explaining exactly where to find your book on the library shelves.  Would you be outraged?  Would you send me a bill?

Library

Well, if you were an outfit called Newspaper Licensing Ireland Ltd, that’s exactly what you’d do and that’s precisely what they did to Women’s Aid, the charity for female victims of domestic violence.

NLI represents the following publications:

The Irish Independent
The Irish Examiner
The Irish Times
The Irish Daily Star
TheEvening Herald
The Sunday Independent
The Sunday World
The Sunday Business Post
TheIrish Mail on Sunday
The Irish Farmers Journal
The Irish Daily Mail
The Irish Daily Mirror
The Irish Sun
The Irish Sunday Mirror
The Sunday Times
The Irish Sun on Sunday

Why did they demand money from Women’s Aid, of all people?

Because the charity on their website included links to certain newspaper articles.  Links, not quotes.  They didn’t copy and paste large tracts of these articles or in any other way infringe copyright, but they were nevertheless slapped with a bill because, despite the fact that there is no law to support their view, NLI contends that even the link is copyright protected.

As they say in a submission to the Copyright Review Committee,

It is the view of NLI that a link to copyright material does constitute infringement of copyright, and would be so found by the Courts.

It’s a bit like saying that the address of your house is copyright.

A clue to their position can be found in another part of their submission:

Any argument that linking in fact drives traffic to the publisher’s website, and therefore is in the publisher’s interests, ignores the fact that linking directly to the article/report/content by-passes much of the publisher’s revenue generating advertising available from the publisher’s homepage. 

Loosely translated, this means We don’t know how to design a website.  Rather than welcoming the free traffic arising from other people’s recommendations, they complain that such support bypasses their carefully-contrived front page and therefore costs them revenue.

Reflect on that, next time you tell people about something interesting you happened to read in the paper.  Instead of advising them to check out the latest carefully-argued and well-researched article by internet guru John Waters, you’ll have to hedge it a little.  Why don’t you have a look at the Times?  There’s something good in it, but I can’t tell you what or where in case you miss the ads.

That’s a great business model, isn’t it?

Now of course, if you were bypassing some sort of pay-wall, that would be a different matter, but the papers put their material out there for all to see provided, it seems, that nobody finds out exactly what or where it is.

A bit like the Vatican, they just don’t seem to get it, and now they’re at sixes and sevens as a storm of national and international ridicule breaks over them.  The Irish Times has broken ranks first with an article that contradicts the submission of its umbrella body to the copyright committee.

According to the IT (and here I take the risk of being invoiced for breach of copyright),

The Irish Times does not see links as copyrightable and will not attempt to impose any restrictions on the posting elsewhere on the Internet of mere URLs that refer to its content.

So which is it?  Either a link is copyright or it isn’t.  Yes?  No?  The attack dog is barking one thing while one of its masters whistles something else.

The Irish newspaper industry has done its credibility no favours by adopting this illogical and confrontational line.  All it has achieved is to confirm the widespread view that it’s owned and operated by people who can’t find an accommodation with the modern era but more to the point, who can’t see the advantages of embracing the new ways of disseminating information.

As always in print journalism,  there are people who think nobody else is entitled to express a view, and it seems that tendency has prevailed, which is a great pity.  There’s nothing better than a well-produced, well-written  newspaper.  It appeals to all the senses and it can never be matched by electronic media.  However, if a newspaper fails to realise that the world has expanded, it will occupy a diminished space and eventually it will atrophy and die.

Perhaps it’s time for the Irish papers to re-examine the kind of brimstone prophets they have elevated and realise that the best way for all to prosper is by putting  the sword away.

__________________

UPDATE  Statement from NLI

Statement on behalf of Newspaper Licensing Ireland Limited regarding use of newspaper content

For personal use: NLI never requires or requests a licence for personal use of newspaper content.

For commercial use: NLI does not require a licence from any organisation which only displays or transmits links to newspaper content. A licence is required when there is other reproduction of the newspaper content, such as display of PDFs or text extracts.

6 January 2012

 

Note the careful wording.  There is still no acknowledgement that a link is not copyright and therefore the statement is meaningless.

 

 

 

 

  20 Responses to “Irish Newspapers Fail to Understand Internet”

Comments (19) Pingbacks (1)
  1.  

    Not only the Irish newspapers, also RTE have completely lost the plot in terms of the Internet. They are beating around a dead bush about copyright issues and using that as an excuse to use obsolete tech and lack of bandwidth/capacity to drip feed their content online. What about all these wonderful people, the diaspora? Or, perhaps we don’t want them to read, hear and see what’s going on in Ireland, only give us their money.

  2.  

    good post, the issue of front page versus linking direct is important, how do the independent lose revenue when they have a video ad on eery page you clikc into from outside, if we don’t link direct it will make it very hard to find anything on newspaper websites, the irish times/hugh linehan has been very careful not to criticise the particular actions of the NLI, the Irish Times doesn’t charge for links it pays another company to charge for them.

  3.  

    By this, when I go to the barbers pick up the newspaper which I have not paid for then turn it over to the sports section bypassing the front page I have infringed the copyright.
    If i then join in a discussion about a match previewed in that paper this would also be an infringement.
    the availability of the newspaper in print or on the internet must be the responsibility of the papers themselfs.
    what a load of nonsence I think it has so many holes in its logic it would be laughed out of court.

  4.  

    I think the barber might have breached copyright by leaving the paper open to the article instead of making you go through the front page. In addition, if you recommended it to anyone, you really should fess up and pay the licence fee.

  5.  

    I used the local paper to soak up a drop of oil off the floor at work, I inadvertently left it open on the floor while I went for a quick slash. Anyone could have seen it. Am I a cunt too?

  6.  

    I read a good article in an Irish news paper yesterday. I cannot tell you what the article was about because of copy right. I cannot tell you the paper it was in, again because of copy right. But the article was very good. I recommend every one should read it.

  7.  

    Because you said it was an Irish paper, I’m afraid you’ve breached copyright. Pay up.

  8.  

    the music licensing agency probably charge barbers to play music/radio, so why not newspapers

  9.  

    That would certainly make sense if a website was reproducing content, but I don’t believe IMRO charge barbers for recommending music to their customers.

  10.  

    yeah i was veering off the point there,straining the analogy this about links

  11.  

    They’re either desperate to show cause for their existence or they’re luddites.

  12.  

    It’s insane. These people are clearly nuts.

    Here is a good read describing how newspapers are writing controversial articles and making a killing from advertising.

    They can’t have it both ways. Idiots

    http://www.boomingback.org/2013/01/the-true-value-of-john-waters.html

  13.  

    i think journeyman nailed it, this is just some idiot trying to justify their position

    its like a bouncer stopping an ordinary joe soap because he is just about to let in 5 of his scumbag mates

  14.  

    It’s not completely without precedent. If you go to http://kkk.forestry-fund.com you are obliged to agree to their Ts&Cs before you can access the content. Under the section ‘Trademarks, Copyright and use’ it explicitly states that ‘no one may link any other website to this website, without the prior written consent of the Company.

    Their ‘Who We Are’ page indicates their relevance to Ireland, and I do wonder how any infringement would stand up in a court of law?

  15.  

    Jeez, that kkk actually works as a live link! sorry Bock – you might want to edit the comment!

  16.  

    Not sure if last comment went through..?

    Sorry Bock, kkk seems to work as a link! you might want to edit.

  17.  

    Nobody can impose terms and conditions on you without your agreement. That particular thing has to do with using their website but it can’t be applied to the whole world. A link is not copyright.

  18.  

    A few days ago I saw someone else who was sent an email for sharing a link to an Irish newspaper, I had at first thought it was a joke.
    If someone shared my link I would be thrilled, free advertising.

  19.  

    It’s bullshit and they know it, even if they’re not mature enough to admit it.

Leave a Reply

/* ]]> */