There's a very interesting case being taken in the US between Rupert Murdoch's Dow Jones agency and a subscription site called Briefing.com.
The principle is whether a news organisation's scoops can be copyrighted for a short period of time. It's called the 'hot news' principle. The rationale is that if a news organisation invests time, money and labour into uncovering or revealing some piece of news, it should bear the fruits of that labour for 24 hours or so, after which rivals and competitors are free to report it.
There's a nice summary of the legal principles in this case on Outlaw.com's website here.
It is generally accepted that you cannot copyright facts. If the Taoiseach is killed on holidays, you cannot ask for others not to report it, just because you broke it, even if you invested in a reporter to go out and trail him.
Having said that, Dow Jones's position is understandable. They're pretty pissed off about some guy in a bedroom throwing up a site, copying and pasting original reporting (not press releases) from a proper news agency and charging a subscription for that.
But the agency is fighting a losing battle on this one.
I don't believe news is free. But you can't start circling the wagons in the way Dow Jones wants to.
Comments