Murdoch's The Times Accused Of Blatant Copying, Just As It Tells The World You Should Pay For News
from the oooops dept
Just this week, James Harding, the editor of The Times (of London), a paper owned by Rupert Murdoch, tried to explain why the news is worth paying for, as the paper starts to put up a new business model to get consumers to pay for news. Unfortunately, Harding apparently didn’t get the message himself. As pointed out by Mathew Ingram, just days after making the case for paying for news, The Times has been accused of publishing an article that it copied without permission from a blog.
You can’t make this stuff up.
Yes, just as Rupert Murdoch is calling aggregators (sites that simply summarize and link to stories) parasites (even as he owns a bunch of aggregators himself), one of his papers didn’t aggregate, it flat out copied, without permission, a blog post that was written by Edgar Wright as a tribute to Edward Woodward, who recently passed away. The Times eventually put up a “clarification” online that had a link to the original site, but that hardly explains the original copying — especially during the very week that they’re trying to convince the world that news should be paid for….
Filed Under: blogs, copying, edgar wright, james harding, paywalls, rupert murdoch
Companies: news corp
Comments on “Murdoch's The Times Accused Of Blatant Copying, Just As It Tells The World You Should Pay For News”
Well.... mostly copied.
Epic fail.
Of course, the linked article points out that they didn’t even copy the article “as is”, but felt they needed to edit. This further upset Mr. Wright as it removed what he felt were important parts of the article.
Maybe someone needs to point this out to Mandelson so he can sick his copyright police force on the Times… 🙂
Re: Well.... mostly copied.
The laws only apply to individuals and bloggers. They don’t apply to big rich corporations. Laws don’t exist for them, they can do what they want. Oh sure, the laws might be written there for them as a formality but it’s not enforced so it basically doesn’t exist. The law basically says, “If you’re not a rich and powerful corporation you are subject to copyright restrictions. Otherwise you can copy all you want without penalty.”
That is absolutely ridiculous. They’ve just lifted the whole thing and, as Edgar noted in the Guardian, presented it as though he had written it for the Times.
On noes! You mean Rupert doesn’t have his hand puppet style up every employee’s butt, getting to do exactly as he says?
Who would have thunk it?
Re: Re:
>>On noes! You mean Rupert doesn’t have his hand puppet style
>>up every employee’s butt, getting to do exactly as he says?
>>Who would have thunk it?
Are you actually defending him? WTF.
Re: Re: Re:
Hi! It seems you’re new to the Internet. The post you’re replying to is commonly known as a troll. They pop up from time to time sowing discord and strife. It’s best to just ignore them.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not really different from those who quaff the koolaid and ignore obvious issues.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
seriously? I read this site and agree with pretty much all the posts, but a troll is not someone who simply has a different opinion on a subject then you.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I completely agree with you! Troll.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Who is the troll?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Me silly!
Hilarious!!
If it wasn’t so stupid. Yet another example of just how screwed up our media is.
To Pay for the News
Years ago when cable was brand new, you paid for cable and didn’t have to deal with all of the commercials. Now you pay for cable and have to deal with commercials. Newspapers seem to want you to “pay” for the opportunity for them to display advertisements to you. I’m not really interested in paying for that opportunity. If I have to pay for it, for the value they seem to think it has, then I shouldn’t have to put up with all of the ads. They want to have it both ways don’t they? I pay for the news and then they get paid even more to display ads. They can just keep the news to themselves on the other side of that wall.
I don't know...
Unless someone is going to argue that the *policy* of the Times is to copy material without attribution, or that Rupert Murdoch stepped in and did this personally, I think this is kind of a silly argument.
Companies aren’t monolithic and homogeneous. Human and technical errors are made. Whether those are worth getting one’s underthings in a bunch over is a maybe open for debate.
But, even I as think Murdoch’s stance on aggregators in general and Google in particular is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard, the fact that some writer somewhere at one of the properties that Murdoch owns violated copyright doesn’t really seem at all germane to the conversation.
It’s a nice “gotcha!”, but again, unless someone’s going to argue that this is Times policy or Murdoch’s active hand, it’s a “gotcha!” on an anonymous staffer who almost certainly violated company policy and would have ended up in hot water regardless of whether his boss’ boss’ boss’ boss’ boss’ boss’ boss’ boss had expressed naive opinions about the content economy. Presenting it as “Murdoch hypocritical on copyright!!!!!11!1!” is a cringeworthy distortion.
So yawn.
Re: I don't know...
“It’s a nice “gotcha!”, but again, unless someone’s going to argue that this is Times policy or Murdoch’s active hand”
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090904/0416086107.shtml
Re: I don't know...
Funny, I was always told, as an employee, my actions represent the company, and therefore anything I do negatively also reflects poorly on the company. So yes, it does show that Murdoch is hypocritical of copyright as his managers, and ultimately he is responsible for everything an employee does, especially if it is something as volatile, and as public, as this.
Re: Re: I don't know...
Nice, glad you feel that way.
Now we get to throw the ACORN bosses, Bertha Lewis, and Wade Rathke in jail because of the employees assisting in child prostitution.
after all, they are responsible for their employees actions.
Re: Re: Re: I don't know...
The word “responsible” is not the same as “represent”. The actions of employees are considered representative of a company, but do not automatically bestow responsibility for the actions onto an other individuals.
The actions of the ACORN employees reflected badly on ACORN as a whole and caused funding to be withheld and additional investigations to be launched. So, yes the actions of the employees had a representative effect on the company.
Re: I don't know...
Unless someone is going to argue that the *policy* of the Times is to copy material without attribution, or that Rupert Murdoch stepped in and did this personally, I think this is kind of a silly argument.
Until the Times or Murdoch steps forward and says that this *isn’t* their policy, but rather the actions of some rogue employee (whom they should identify and terminate), I am going to assume it *is* their policy.
Rupert Murdoch has a real twisted view of copyright law.
I’m starting to think that he has a Dementia or Alzheimer’s.
Murdoch Fiddles while Rome burns.
This reminds me of the Khrushchev “We will bury you” statement. Fat chance!
This coming from Mike the man who said he would be honored if anyone used his work. Nice double standard.
Re: Re:
This coming from Mike the man who said he would be honored if anyone used his work. Nice double standard.
Wait… what’s my double standard? I would be honored if anyone used by work. They are free to do so at will. I’m not saying it’s bad that the Times copied. I’m saying it’s bad that they said copying is evil AND THEN copied.
The only double standard here was with the Times trying to claim that copying is bad… and then copying.
Re: Re: "I'd be honored" ??
You weren’t apparently honored when Lily Allen copied it.
You give carte blanche permission up front for copiers of your work, then someone copies it, that should be fine.
Music industry (whether rightly or wrongly) gives no such permission, so it is fair that they bitch when someone copies it without their permission.
Lily Allen copies yours but bitches about people copying hers, that’s not hypocritical.
Now, Lily Allen makes a mix tape without permission, that IS hypocritical, agreed.
But your original outpourings seemed to compare her stance on illegal music copying and her use of your article.
And that seems an unfair comparison.
In accusing Times of double standard, you say
“I’m saying it’s bad that they said copying is evil AND THEN copied.” but surely they are saying that copying WITHOUT PERMISSION is evil, where copying your work would be WITH permission. Not the same at all.
Re: Re: Re: "I'd be honored" ??
No, Mike does not give “carte blanche” for people to copy his work. He tells people that they can copy his work as long as he is credited properly, which Lily Allen did not do.
He does NOT give permission to people to copy his work without proper accreditation. In the event that this IS done, however, he will not pursue the matter. He will still be honoured to know that someone felt his work was worth repeating, and knows that the copy ultimately increases his own traffic, as the Lily Allen incident showed. Nonetheless, if a copied work does not cite him as the author, then it was not given permission.
So, to sum it up:
Copying while citing Mike = Good.
Copying without citing Mike = Bad.
Complaining about copyright violation while violating copyright yourself = Hypocritical.
Re: Re:
There is no double standard at work here.
Unless you don’t know what a double standard is, in which case, maybe you should look it up?
The tardly trolls are out in full force today!
Looks like some one is shilling in over time, trying to make master happy for a holiday bonus ham.
Actually, there appears to be exactly one troll talking to himself, and he isn’t doing a good job. Does your mommy know you are using the internet again this weekend?