TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 8 °C Friday 24 May, 2013

Column: Newspapers are seeking to outlaw the free exchange of ideas

Solicitor Simon McGarr writes on Women’s Aid, NNI and newspaper linking – an issue you can read about pretty much everywhere, except for in a newspaper.

Simon McGarr

IRELAND HAS A newspaper problem.

All the members of the National Newspapers of Ireland (NNI) – as well as dozens of other regional newspapers – have agreed a common position. They say that they own rights in links to newspaper websites. They say they can set the prices for those links. The price list they’ve supplied starts at €300 every year for one link and goes up to  €1,250 for up to 50 links on a site. You’ll be glad to hear they say the price for more than 50 links is negotiable.

You might have seen a link ridiculing this position from Graham Linehan on Twitter, or on tech megasite BoingBoing.com. Perhaps you follow international Professors of Journalism like Jay Rosen of NYU or Jeff Jarvis of CUNY or George Brock of London City University and saw them express their astonishment?

Alternatively you might have heard about the story from the New York Observer, or the Guardian, or Techcrunch , or TechDirt, or MediaGazer or Forbes or any of the other news sources which covered the story.

You might even have read the letters – here and here - or our article about it on McGarr Solicitors’ website.

The one place you won’t have read about the Irish newspapers’ demands is in an Irish newspaper. Nor will you have read about the fact that the NNI, representing all the national newspapers – including the Irish Times, the Irish Independent and the Examiner – sought in 2012 to have a specific new law created to outlaw linking to articles. You won’t have read it, because not one Irish newspaper printed a drop of ink on this story. Kardashian Baby? News. Efforts to outlaw how the internet works? Not news.

On those efforts, here’s what the NNI looked for in the middle of 2012:

NNI proposes that, in fact, any amendment to the existing copyright legislation with regard to deep-linking should specifically provide that deep-linking to content protected by copyright…is unlawful.” – Section 7 National Newspapers of Ireland Further Submission to the Copyright Review Committee

The fact that any such law would effectively destroy the structure of the web in Ireland appears not to matter to the newspapers. If I cannot link to any site I wish without first getting either permission or buying a licence at €300 a link, I won’t be doing a lot of linking. A web without links is just a lot of unconnected documents. Or, if you prefer, a bit like a newspaper.

The fact that the NNI are looking for this law to be brought in is an implicit admission that there is no such statutory regime in place right now to justify their demands for money from my client, Women’s Aid.

Yes, that’s right. Women’s Aid. A charity to assist women who are victims of domestic violence. They had linked to some newspaper articles that had dealt with their fundraising efforts. They were contacted by the newspaper’s Licensing organisation, called Newspaper Licensing Ireland. They were told:

A licence is required to link directly to an online article even without uploading any of the content directly onto your own website.

Then they were sent the price list, above.

McGarr Solicitors agreed to act for Women’s Aid pro bono and then exchanged letters with the newspapers’ agent. We wanted to know what the statutory basis for that claim was.

Despite writing back three times, the newspapers’ rep never cited the statutory basis for the assertion that links required either permission or a licence.

‘The silence has spoken volumes’

Which brings us up-to-date and leaves us with that newspaper problem I mentioned at the start. Because, you see, this is news now only because McGarr Solicitors – who on an average day are mostly just representing people hurt in road accidents or injured at work – had access to Twitter and a website to tell our client’s story.

What should have happened was that professional print journalists would turn their attention to the behaviour of their own industry in an adult manner.

After all, it is an article of faith in reputable journalism that the Commercial side of a newspaper will never be allowed to dictate or interfere with the Editorial side.

The silence has spoken volumes.

Newspapers should be committed to giving a space for all of society’s voices to be heard. Instead they have inverted that role and are seeking to outlaw the free exchange of ideas and information. It is shameful.

You’ll notice that I haven’t linked to the Irish Independent, the Irish Times or the Irish Examiner in this article. That is because those newspapers sent legal letters to TheJournal.ie in 2011 telling them they were not allowed to link to articles on their sites.

That is a taste of the internet our newspapers would like to see imposed on everyone in Ireland.

Like I say, Ireland has a newspaper problem.

Read next:

Comments (100 Comments)

  • I find it hilarious that the Irish Examiner wrote to thejournal.ie asking them not to link to articles.

    Last year I wrote a piece about cycling for thejournal.ie. An original piece not plagiarised from anywhere, as Caroline Quinn is suggesting. A couple of days later I found a paragraph from my piece reprinted verbatim in the Examiner.

    I contacted the writer of the Examiner piece and he admitted it.

    Newspapers are not immune to the lowering of journalistic standards just because they are printed on paper and have been around longer than the Internet.

    Reply
  • That’s whack man….

    Reply
  • It amazes me that in this day and age, some of the larger companies cannot grasp the concept of the internet.
    There are times I have read an article and agreed wholeheartedly with the author. But after reading the comments section changed my viewpoint 100%. It is about being open-minded, accepting all viewpoints and learning.
    For that, I applaud the Journal.

    Reply
  • You should be charging them for the link, not the other way round.

    Reply
  • I presume that the same newspapers have offered to pay a license fee to all the websites they link to?

    Reply
  • Such moves will only harm the media. Less people reading means less revenue its a bit if a no brainer from the large papers. I dont see the point in the papers sending legal letters to the journal, I would write to the papers and ask what legislation they are using. The issue is ongoing for a while …

    Reply
  • Wow. That is shocking. So happy I gave up on mainstream media years ago. Thanks Journal.ie for this article

    Reply
  • It will be interesting to see if Today FM, Newstalk or any other Denis O’Brien owned radio station cover this story. This is the problem when one person owns & controls too many media organisations. Media outlets should report the news without fear or favour.

    Reply
  • *prints out article slips it into every newspaper in the newsagents*

    Reply
  • Seriously?

    SERIOUSLY!?

    Who’s idea was this? I mean really, who’s!?

    Reply
  • Who under 30 actually buys newspapers anymore? If the national papers go ahead and institute paywalls on their websites during 2013, I can only see it driving more traffic to sites like thejournal.ie. This whole situation does sound like the rearranging of deck chairs on the titantic as the newspaper industry struggles to keep afloat.

    Reply
  • Great article, regular listener to @jeffjarvis via twig on twit.tv. He regularly talks about how the French and German media industries are trying to get google to pay for linking to their sites. The Main Street media is commercially motivated and lacks independence. Keep up the good work highlighting the medias deficiencies.

    Reply
  • In my opinion, the benefits of free deep linking outweigh any negatives, Links/shares are an easy way to gain website visits, reads and interaction. All of which are important to the industry. Apart from that, directories that charge (premium listings) are 1) a fraction of this cost and 2) provide value to the purchaser.
    What value does this provide when there are multiple news sources that are free.

    If you don’t wish for people to share free material, don’t publish it or lock down sites to login only and sever trackbacks, etc. If the issue is about the loss of money, then charge for online advertising slots like everybody else. The internet is an entirely different model to print and as such, the industry must learn how to strategically adapt to it. Scaling back on printed material would also improve the cost aspect.

    Reply
  • First thing that came to mind about this is the Irish Times and Kate Fitzgerald. Seems like the NNI are trying to find a way to make it more difficult for websites to gather links to highlight problems with outside influences determining what gets published on the sites that the NNI represent.

    Is it fair to assume that a properly referenced quote from a news article is legal. If that is the case would a properly referenced link not fall under the same legal umbrella.

    Reply
    • And then you’ve got references to academic references. They’re legitimate links too. Should people be charged for using these too? That’s going to make most of the internet, as well as most research papers, become just a big pile of hearsay. Say goodbye to that increasing public intelligence thanks to sites like wiki.

      Reply
    • NLI charge companies for use. Academia and personal use is a different matter. How much academic work will be affected? I would say almost none. I don’t know about you but I have found that the amount of a academic docs that used to be searchable through search engines has dramatically reduced over the past few years.

      Reply
  • I highly doubt that google or other search engines are going to pay for indexing these sites so they will disappear from search and then page views will decrease. And the people who came up with these policies have no idea how search works for if they did they’d realise that even if they waived the fee for search engines their page rank will slide massively due to page rank being based of the quality of back links.

    Reply
  • Showed my father in law flipboard on the galaxy tab the other day. He was blown away. And he worked for the print media for 40 years. It’s over folks. Waters is the Bull McCabe telling the tide to go back only less sane.

    Reply
    • Classic example of a service relying on other peoples content and getting it for free. If there’s no free content Flipboard ceases to exist. If people aren’t paid for their content then the usefulness of Flipboard decreases. It would be like flipping through one of those MP3 sites from the 90s – loads of content, most of it no interest.

      Reply
    • I have to admit I don’t understand how flipboard makes money. The app is given away for free, I don’t see any ads on the pages…

      Reply
    • Lazlo – there are some adverts. Sometimes when you are flipping through an article you’ll come across a full screen ad. Instagram didn’t make any money and it was sold for a $1bn. Twitter has only started making monetising,

      Reply
  • If the Newspaper sites don’t want deep-linking why not redirect all inbound traffic to their homepage?

    Reply
  • Ciaran 04/01/13 #

    Please correct me If I am wrong! Have a few of these newspapers last year not been caught out taking storys from the journal and printing them in these papers and calling them their own storys ?

    Reply
    • MVM 04/01/13 #

      How can they prove it though iv even noticed listing to newstalk fm and 20min later see a story published on apps and web saying the same..

      Reply
    • Ciaran 04/01/13 #

      As far as I am aware one story in question was printed lets say at 7am on the Journal then the following day was in a certain paper word for word and signed of from a different person as “their story”

      Reply
    • Can you give a specific example of this. Bear in mind that the Journal uses newswire services and some stories will come from press statements that all news media obtain.

      Reply
    • Ciaran 04/01/13 #

      My comments never contained hard-line facts so I never named any source, it was to the best of my ability of what I could recount. I have not named anyone in question for this reason so I wont make a start now. I also left myself open to be corrected in case I was wrong but as far as I am aware this happened but on the off chance I am wrong I wont name a company.

      Reply
    • Hi Ciaran/Brian

      You might be remembering an apology in the Daily Mail for it not correctly attributing quotes and other information from one of my stories in which I interviewed Joanne O’Riordan’s brother Stephen.

      Thanks,
      Sinéad

      Reply
  • When the journal got that letter in 2011 did they write an article complaining about the situation? Or did you just change policy due to fear and bend over for NNI? If its the latter then you guys let yourselves and readers down.

    Reply
    • Hi Eamonn,

      The letter we received was not the same as that sent to Women’s Aid by the NNI. The issue was really between publishers and therefore not considered worthy of an article. We replied to any of our readers who asked us why we did not link to the newspapers in question.

      Sinéad

      Reply
  • Surely this is the kind of corporate behaviour that a boycott is meant to be reserved for? I’ll personally be boycotting all Irish newspapers after reading this. Why are they publishing news articles on their websites, if it is not for people to be able to read them for free, (in the absence of a paywall)??? The whole problem of copyright is resolved by putting up a paywall & forcing people to pay if they want to access content, just like how they pay if they want to read the same content in a printed newspaper. Trying to generate revenue in this way is ridiculous I think, & is only going to p*ss people off. If you want to charge for content, then charge away and people will vote with their feet. If you are going to provide content for free on your website, then don’t be surprised when people discuss what is free material.

    Reply
  • News talk are just after reporting it at 1pm. Well done to the solicitor who wrote the article and journal.ie for highlighting the story, for bringing a complicated and uncomfortable issue to a wider audience.

    Reply
  • You get the sense that compared to, say, The Guardian, our papers are way way behind with adapting to the new world! Check out what they could be like here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/
    You can get access to all material past and present, you can comment on anything, you can get a free account and interact with their different sections (eg book reviews and articles and give your comments on books and link up with other readers), you can even do the crosswords online!

    Reply
    • Not that I am supporting this ban on deep linking however your praising of the Guardian should also mention that they are losing money at an incredible level. Journalism costs money and many of the people who are so proud of not paying for the provision of news (or any digital content) seem to think that the internet runs on magic money and that we should all just work for the joy of it. A few Google ads are not enough to pay for a newsroom or to run a business – especially in a market the size of Ireland. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

      Reply
  • Copyleft.

    Reply
  • Self-serving nonsense by NNI & NLI. Stick the content behind a pay-wall if you want people to pay for it but demanding payment for a link? Get out of it!
    NLI dodgier than IRMA in their spurious justification for ‘licenses.” – They demand annual fees from their own advertisers for the copying of ads placed in their publications.
    They are really looking to have their cake and eat it too.

    Reply
  • Received letters from the NLI looking for payment in 2012 for a press section where the only links to NNI papers were to articles about the company they were seeking payment from. Eh, they were part of the story the newspaper wrote, perhaps the company should demand payment for giving them the idea for the articles.

    Reply
  • at some point those papers will probably cease to issue hard copies and solely be available online… though that may be years ahead.
    at that point they will realise that greed is a failed policy.
    there will always be blogs and free online new available and this will be where the masses will go if they insist on such steep prices.
    at least this is what i hope.

    Reply
  • The issue has been discussed un depth here http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?t=13532

    Reply
    • It is also being ‘discussed’ by John Waters, the overgrown resident altar-boy, in today’s Oirish Choims.
      I better not give a link, in case they sue me.
      Give yourselves a larf, before they close us down.
      Twisted-knicker strangulation syndrome gone terminal.

      Reply
  • ROBERTO 04/01/13 #

    Wow. That’s crazy.

    Reply
  • Bring me the head of McGarr!!

    Reply
  • This is clearly just targeted only at blogs and aggregated news websites like thejournal.ie but it wouldn’t actually stop thejournal.ie or any website NOT posting a link and just quoting small parts of the article in question, giving credit of course. So all the newspaper would actually do is lose hits to its website.

    Given how few news websites and blogs there in Ireland from a revenue point of view it doesn’t really make sense.
    If they want to lock off their content this is easily achieved with a paywall. But I don’t see how you could legally stop someone linking to something you have put on the public internet. If anything a link is the standard of Creative Commons license as trade for using an image, along with a credit. And a link is even preferred by most writers rather than just quoting extracts of the article.
    They also have the problem that RTE will just be used more as a linking source for breaking news.

    Reply
  • Pravda approach on a national scale by the so called free press and the Irish newspaper regulator appears to have either ignored this news or not aware of its significance. Brings into question the remit of the newspaper regulator to show similarities to the financial regulator before the bank bailout crisis.

    Reply
  • Pay walls aren’t likely to work until 2 things happen

    1) You get a guaranteed version of the content that cannot be redacted. If i buy a paper that’s the version i have, the editor doesn’t take an article out of the paper during the day or change the wording etc.
    2) They all agree a standard way to pay without signing up to every site going and credit cards, direct debits etc

    Then i might consider paying for content

    Reply
    • But surely the advantage of digital media is that a story can be updated at any time? It’s not possible to recall and update the printed page.

      Unless news is sold through centralised points, then there is no means of a standard payment. It wouldn’t be a great idea if all news came through a central payment system for a variety of reasons.

      Reply
  • The backward Ns in their logo make sense now.

    What I don’t get is how they think they can control the content on other websites. A link is just a collection of characters. Surely they have no right to censor the words I use on my blog?

    Reply
  • They are dooming themselves. Abide, wait till their traffic decreases to the point where they revoke their decision, and then you ask them to pay you for linking.

    Reply
  • It genuinely sounds like the online version of vehicle clamping.

    Reply
  • They can calculate the number of times a page on their website has been visited, I bet they are not complaining about visitors who land on the site after following a deep link circulated via Twitter, when they are selling online advertising to their business customers, who are effectively buying those site visits, surely generated via the transmission of site links via Twitter, etc, that they are trying to prohibit here???

    Reply
  • If it was April Fool’s Day, I’d think this was a joke. Doesn’t surprise me that there’s an attempt to shut down the exchange of ideas. We generally have one voice from the media expressing one set of ideas over and over again with a few exceptions. Thank goodness we can’t be controlled any more- people can say what they want on Twitter and other social media. At last ordinary people have a voice!

    Reply
  • Until this recent round of atrocious msm and political hypocrisy about social media and the tragic death of Shane McEntee, I used to care for the survival of the traditional media in certain respects. Now, and after reading the above, not any more. McGarr sums the situation up succinctly.

    The more original journalism they include – and the more receptive sites like TheJournal are to facilitating participatory media, the more they will win out.

    Reply
  • Surely a clear distinction between chasing a charity to pay for links or trying to charge newer online media entrants like journal for content can be made , I’m a big journal fan and I don’t think mainstream media companies have worked out workable models yet to try
    Maintain their role , but I can understand them thinking about asking online companies to pay for content generation , it’s not going to work ! but it is understandable that they might try they have huge costs to try build content and then to Watch it being just ripped ?

    Reply
  • Can’t believe how racist the Forbes article headline is:

    “It Would Have To Be The Irish NewsPapers Trying Something Insanely Stupid Like Charging For Links To Websites”

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/01/03/it-would-have-to-be-the-irish-newspapers-trying-something-insanely-stupid-like-charging-for-links-to-websites/

    Reply
  • The current case law suggests that hyperlinks are cable programmes.

    If you link to copyrighted material without being granted a licence to do so by the copyright owner you could find yourself in breach of copyright under legislation designed to extend copyright subsistence to cable television programmes.

    Reply
  • Big thanks to Simon for writing about this (& journal for publishing).

    There is also an underlying issue tho’ as to how the business model of modern media can work whilst at the same time expanding the open & pluralist character of the Internet.

    Media, especially the Internet, could and should be the lifeblood of democracy. We have the opportunity with the Internet to revolutionise the contribution that the ‘fourth estate’ can make to democratic participation (& hopefully much better decisions in the interests of the majority).

    But I do see a problem in expecting all the funding for it to come from the private sector & advertising. It is much too important to simply leave it to these kinds of concentrated corporate interests (thru’ both ownership or advertising).

    Whether or not NNI succeed in spreading their nonsense elsewhere remains to be seen, but we should not take it for granted that without clear direction the Internet will remain largely open & a freely shared medium.

    The media is much too important for democracy to be entirely in private hands. Historically, we have had little choice in this – a ‘commercial’ business model inevitably involved powerful corporate advertising interests and economies of scale that attracted people like Murdoch to the power he could broker & exert politically (by his own admission in interview!).

    But with such low publishing costs the Internet could change all this for the better and provide the all important free access to consumers.

    However, ‘low cost’ is not ‘no cost’. Funding is still required, and if anything we should be trying to find a way to increase funding available to pay for more in depth analysis like investigative journalism. If you ask any journalist, the last 50 years have seen a large reduction in the budgets available to fund proper investigative journalism. And then we wonder why we are in the mess we’re in with the financial crisis, cronyism & all the rest?

    My answer to this is that we must truly value the public interest role of media & offer a publicly funded subsidy. But rather than have (partial) politicians or bureaucrats decide who gets funding, we ‘democratise’ it by issuing every adult citizen with an ‘e-voucher’ whereby each individual can distribute the value of the voucher to publishers according to their own wishes. Say, on an annual basis. The admin cost would be minimal. Recipients would have to meet some basic eligibility rules. Principally, access online must free (deep links must be free!). Perhaps certain ‘rights’ to online response or comment?

    If we value democracy (and/or consider would be nice to have it) & the public forum that the Internet can be, we should do this.

    Maybe start by reducing the salaries & expenses of TDs and Ministers to help pay for it? Their contribution to democracy is little to nil at present. In the long term of course it will pay for itself by avoiding the Pyramid scheme boom and busts of crony capitalism & generally better government.

    Why not?

    Reply
  • Why have the “Irish Tea Party”, “Profit before People”, FG lead Government not already passed this into law?

    How can anybody individual expect to have the rights of Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Expression without having to pay for it?

    What makes people believe that Freedom means Free?

    For those that do not understand sarcasm, it is defined as “mocking, contemptuous, or ironic language intended to convey scorn or insult”,
    A full definition of the word sarcasm can be found here;
    http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/sarcasm

    So now that I have used an internet link in an online article, to whom do I make the check out to, The Journal.ie or HarperCollins Publishers Limited, or both?

    I take it I also have to make out a royalty payment to HarperCollins Publishers Limited for using the copy & paste functions to copy the words “mocking, contemptuous, or ironic language intended to convey scorn or insult”.

    “Oops I did it again”, that’s another cheque I have to send HarperCollins Publishers Limited, & Britney Spears for using lyrics from one of her songs. Or should that be her record company or the song writer, or all of them?

    I tell you what lads, as I have written the majority of the words other than the copy & pasted “mocking, contemptuous, or ironic language intended to convey scorn or insult”, & “Oops I did it again”, ah no more cheques. Why don’t we call it quits as I own the copyright to the other words expect for “mocking, contemptuous, or ironic language intended to convey scorn or insult” & “Oops I did it again”, there I go again, more cheques.

    This Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Expression stuff, is working out to be very expensive for the individual, would it not be better to have Government & Private Companies decide what the individual should and should not say? If only we came up with a way for people to pay for Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Expression.

    Should we ask the National Newspapers of Ireland if they have an opinion on this?

    Reply
  • Who reads Irish papers anyway? Feck em

    Reply
  • Denis 31/01/13 #

    Test

    Reply
  • Sergey 16/01/13 #

    You are one of the best authors of legal articles I read during last year. Would you please write something to the section of legal articles on Attorney Online http://attorney-online.info/publ There is also an Attorney Directory where lawyers can submit for free their contacts. I hope to gather there all best US lawyers.

    Reply
  • I fail to see the problem here.

    The content of a website isn’t owned by the web at large, or by Womens Aid or their solicitors. It’s owned by the company that created it, paid for its journalists and its infrastructure and took the time and effort to publish it.

    Deep linking has been found illegal by several courts, and as far as I know never found legal. This is not some obscure area of law – it is something which is recognised and put into practice by the search engines. If you don’t want the engines to deep link some pages, you just modify your robots.txt file, and they won’t appear. There’s nothing to stop you from allowing them (or anyone else) to deep link to your site.

    Removing deep links to newspapers won’t “destroy the structure of the web” – that is just lawyers’ hyperbole. It will simply take those newspapers out of the web. Personally, I think it’s an unbelievably stupid policy on the part of the newspapers, which will hasten their eventual collapse. But it really is up to them.

    It’s also up to them what they report and don’t report. If you don’t like it, there are plenty of alternative news sources you can use. thejournal.ie is quite a good one, for example.

    Reply
    • Can you then explain why the Irish Times website then has a ‘Share’ button on individual articles.

      Deep linking has been found to be legal, at least in the US. Within Europe it has been more mixed with conflicting court judgments in various countries. One of the major points, it would seem, when taking into account whether or not a specific instance of deep linking is infringing is whether it bypasses advertising or terms & conditions of the linked site. If you look at the different CMSs in use by the likes of the Irish Times or the Independent you will note that the advertising sections as well as footers which provide the same information as the front page are preserved when an article is linked to. It also remains clear who the creator of the content is. I simply cannot see how deep linking in this way can be considered a contravention of fair use principles in copyright law.

      Reply
    • random 04/01/13 #

      @James I think whether advertising or terms and conditions are displayed at any point is up to the target website, not the person linking to them. It is well within their power to redirect all incoming links to their main page if that is their desire, or display popups with those things for all visitors with an external referrer.

      Reply
    • random 04/01/13 #

      @Emily It’s probably not that big a deal as long as it’s just the shuffling corpse of the Irish print media going around demanding money from individual Irish charities and businesses that link to them. Some of them will probably fall for the scam, and that is unfortunate, while others will get their lawyers involved and that’ll be the end of it, but it won’t really have a major impact on the functioning of the web even within Ireland. It would become a major issue if they succeeded in getting the law changed so that links were considered copyrightable material. I would hope that even in that event, the only people interested in making use of the legislation would be the newspapers, and they would just become isolated and irrelevant. But if it become the norm that each link had to be paid for, then there would be no linking, and there would be no web. I think it’s important that people speak out and nip this kind of thinking in the bud.

      Reply
    • James – the share button is generally for personal use. The NLI licence companies and not personal use (it would seem).

      Reply
    • @random Yep, the point I was making is that the person linking isn’t preventing or circumventing the target site’s ability to advertise, assert ownership or present terms and conditions.

      @Brian Daly The NNI claim to license for commercial use however they are pursuing non-commercial organisations who are simply linking to content.

      Reply
    • ‘Deep linking has been found illegal by several courts’

      citation (in Irish law) please.

      Reply
    • @James – where does it say that they are chasing non-commercial organisations? The only reference is to Womens Aid which is both a registered charity and a registered company.

      Reply
    • @Justin

      There isn’t one – it’s not a question that has been ruled by the Irish courts. In the context of the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000, particularly section 52, I can’t possibly see how it would be ruled “illegal” – it’s impossible for me to understand how linking could prejudice commercial interests, per the Department’s consultation paper:

      “The fact that links make access to that content straightforward does not change the reality that a link, by itself, is content neutral.”

      Definitely need a stronger doctrine of “fair use”/”fair dealing” in the coming Act in light of this nonsense, but the “deep linking” point, in particular, is off the charts crazy.

      Reply
    • @Brian Women’s Aid is a non-commercial entity. I’m involved with a cycling advocacy organisation who were contacted by NNI seeking the license fees being described.

      Reply
    • James – a charitable status no matter how important or worthy their work is does not mean that you do not incur expenses. The fact of the matter is that the charity mentioned is a limited company and NLI are mandated to collect the fees. It’s up to them to decide if they seek full payment, reduce or waive. According to their own website they only contact companies which one would assume are registered companies.

      I have dealt with NLI, my experience was that they are tough to deal with.

      Reply
    • James, I don’t see that the commercial/non-commercial distinction has any legal bearing on this, it’s just something that NNI are using to try to take the heat off themselves.

      I’d tend to agree with your “fair dealing” point, also, in terms of the reproduction of extended quotes, although it would depend on specifics, the exceptions are quite broad.

      The question of whether links can be subject to copyright in and of themselves isn’t settled, but even if they can, I’d tend to think that S.52 of the 2000 Act, allowing for the “incidental inclusion” of a copyrighted work, would cover “deep linking” under most circumstances.

      At the very least, the NNI’s legal position here is questionable. Really is the height of silliness, this.

      Reply
    • @Brian A charitable status recognises that their income is applied for charitable purposes only. A commercial entity in contrast operates for profit. Women’s Aid are non-commercial. Their status as a registered company is separate from that point. The NNI (not NLI!) press release states that “copying of newspaper content for commercial purposes requires a licence” so why are they chasing organisations like Women’s Aid?

      Anyway, as Voodoo points out and you’ll see in Simon McGarr’s other writings on this topic, copyright on links has no legal standing in current copyright law.

      Reply
    • @Voodoo I think you’re right on the commercial/non-commercial legal standing, I just stayed on it as they’re not even self-consistent in the application of their scheme.

      Reply
  • Coming from an online ‘news’ service that lifts all it’s stories from newspapers and other sources, that is a rather smug article slating the industry that you plagiarise on a minute by minute basis. You have no real journalists or indeed journalistic ethics.

    Reply
    • Dont all newspapers use the wires to report news? You are a little behind the times Car. I do have some issues with the site and have contacted them on them before but over all its not a bad site tbh. They broke the story about the green lights on taxis which made the BBC..

      Reply
    • Hi Caroline,

      I can’t even say I’m offended by your comment because it is so misguided. I presume this must be the first time you have been on the site?

      As Deadly Buzz says, if you see articles duplicated across multiple sources, it is most likely because a wire source such as AP or AFP is used.

      As for your assertion that thejournal.ie has no real journalists, there may be some work on here that you are not aware of.

      I know Hugh O’Connell should be proud of his recent interview with the President: http://jrnl.ie/678099

      Personally, the story that has impacted on me the most in recent months was that of a group of women who are still looking for justice after undergoing symphysiotomies in Irish hospitals in the 20th century. Here is Rita’s story: http://jrnl.ie/673097 (it appeared in no other publication – print or online).

      Our team’s coverage of the 1982 State Papers unearthed some gems, including this one from Paul Hyland: http://jrnl.ie/721369.

      And everyone could learn a thing or two from Gav Reilly and other’s explainers. Examples: http://jrnl.ie/723829 and http://jrnl.ie/420142

      I could go on and on. But maybe you’d prefer to read the site yourself?

      Sinéad, Journalist, TheJournal.ie

      Reply
    • Ireland has no real journalists. What we have are a selection of individuals stepping softly around the perimeter fence of our society who are clearly afraid, or cannot be bothered, or who are not permitted to write about what they see. They write about what they are told to see, they specialize in soundbites and the vacuous abyss that passes for news these days.

      The Journal is little more than a reflection of Irish Journalism as it exists. Doesn’t appear to pretend to be anything more than what it is, but I’ll take the Journal over any of the national newspapers currently on offer any day.

      You see in Ireland kissing political arse is a national past time for journalists. You really cannot write an investigative piece whilst willingly holding your face in close proximity to your subjects backside.

      Reply
    • Sinead is bang on, social commentary on Journal.ie leave the rest behind in the shade where such is concerned. They often run with stories that other so called news organizations can no longer be bothered with.

      Reply
    • “no real journalists”. Way harsh.

      Reply
  • On a scale of 1 – 10 of things that should be held up internationally to the shame of Ireland (with 1 being mildly embarrassing mediocre pap that has inexplicably caught on abroad e.g. Enya or Mrs. Brown’s boys and 10 being Giga scale unprecedented humiliation e.g the bank bailout, Enda Kenny accepting European of the year on behalf of the hard suffering Irish people and having the most backward laws on abortion in the Western hemisphere), this whole fiasco registers about a 4 1/2.

    Reply

Add New Comment