The Boston Phoenix's Carly Carioli points out that on the same weekend that the New York Times carried a column from Bill Keller decrying piracy as a war on creative people, the Times's op-ed page pirated an article to which the Phoenix holds the copyright. And of course, the Times is the same corporation that claimed that aggregating its RSS-feed headlines in a mobile app was piracy, and shut down an app called Pulse. (Thanks, Light Bulb!)

16 Responses to “NYT publishes "infringement is theft" column and rips off another paper's article in the same weekend”

  1. CarlyCarioli says:

    Cindy’s my mom’s name. But thanks for the link! <3 Carly

  2. Andrew Singleton says:

    This does not surprise me. Saddens, but not surprising.

  3. Pulse is still available on Android.  I had no idea it’d been pulled from Apple.  I love that app.

  4. pupdog says:

    Pulse is available for i devices as well, it was reinstated not long after being pulled. The NYT is no longer a default feed, if I’m not mistaken. Pulse was already going strong and got a big boost by being one of the default Apps on the Kindle Fire.

  5. michael says:

    Actually, IMHO its Fair Use – or at the very least its not the simple rip-off that you say it is Cory. To quote someone else (source: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3569201 :

    Long story short: The original story was actually written by a freelancer that sold the story to a newspaper which The Phoenix gobbled up. The freelancer may have retained the copyrights to the story, except for the serial publication rights actually exercised by the original newspaper (but in either case, not the Phoenix). The Phoenix did not keep records or archives of its stories, and did not even know this story still existed…until the NY Times posted a copy of it.

    The NY Times had no ability to get permission from the original copyright holder because no one knew who that was. They republished the original article as an appendix/supplementary item to another article published in the physical paper (available online at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/opinion/nocera-the-cost-of… .

    This is the textbook definition of “fair use”: providing a copy of an out-of-print, otherwise unavailable news article, for the purposes of supplementing a published news article. (Fair use is a multi-factor test with no fixed requirements…it’s basically whatever use is “fair” in the context of the actual use.)

    • Paul Renault says:

      Er, you DID read Carly Carioli’s blog post, eh?

      Particularly this paragraph:
      Put simply, the Times nuked an app developer for merely publishing its headlines. Imagine what would happen if, say, the Village Voice decided to begin uploading 3000-word New York Times features to its blog. There’d be a shitstorm.

    • wysinwyg says:

       From the Phoenix blog:

      But wait — you might ask — could it be the case that columnist Nocera had the permission of Booth, the article’s original author, to reprint the story? Perhaps: Nocera doesn’t say. But in legal terms, it wouldn’t matter. Depending on a newspaper’s licensing agreements with its freelancers, Clark Booth may have had the ability to give the Times the rights to re-publish the text of the story, if they’d re-typed it and credited the original source. But in any case, that’s not what the Times did.

      Any comment on that?

      • michael says:

        “This is the textbook definition of “fair use”: providing a copy of an out-of-print, otherwise unavailable news article, for the purposes of supplementing a published news article. (Fair use is a multi-factor test with no fixed requirements…it’s basically whatever use is “fair” in the context of the actual use.)”

        I agree with the above quoted statement.

    • Palomino says:

      You quoted a fucking comment, there isn’t a blood&guts author. 

      1. Phonix News writes story
      2. Citizen danso (4.95) posts a direct link on Hacker News
      3. rprased (2.74) submits a comment.

      And that’s where you stop.

      If you read the replies to the comment you chose to try and prove Cory wrong with, you wouldn’t look so unenlightened. 

      Plus, you performed a seedy tactile move that tabloids employ, you didn’t post the full quote. You left off:

      “This is the textbook definition of “fair use”: providing a copy of an out-of-print, otherwise unavailable news article, for the purposes of supplementing a published news article. (Fair use is a multi-factor test with no fixed requirements…it’s basically whatever use is “fair” in the context of the actual use.)”

      All the replies  after that, and the replies to those replies, would’ve shown the original comment was by a person who’s an illiterate in regard to copyright/fair use. And who knows where they got their info from. So you jumped on this for one reason only, to prove someone wrong, using incorrect information. What’s your beef?

      • michael says:

        Actually I did provide the full quote. Nothing was left off. Re-read it again please.

        I also did state I was quoting someone else and posted a link directly to them.

        The replies to that Comment (and others) were mixed. Some agreed, some didn’t. 

        What’s your beef?

  6. Grahamers2002 says:

    In a related story, Ted Haggard.

  7. CarlyCarioli says:

    Oops, they did it again: another example of Times poaching another publication’s article: http://blog.thephoenix.com/BLOGS/phlog/archive/2012/02/09/bill-keller-me-again-here-s-another-article-the-new-york-times-pirated.aspx

  8. Guest says:

    I’m surprised you didn’t address the Keller piece itself, because it is a nearly laughable collection of misinformation, propaganda, contempt, and outright lies, as well as evidence that he Just Doesn’t Get It. Then again, maybe you didn’t address it because that’s pretty much everything Keller writes.

  9. Marc45 says:

    Hopefully one of these big media guys will get sued or fined heavily for infringement!
    Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Leave a Reply