Steal This Blog
You know about news aggregation, even if you don't realize it. It's everywhere on the internet. You have Ron Miller's new favorite, Google news. There are blogs that aggregate news in specialized areas, like Profootballtalk.com, THR, Esq. and How Appealing.
You know that you have hit the mainstream when somebody gets mad and says what you are doing is illegal, and Harvard University publishes a white paper (via the aforementioned THR, Esq.) about it.
Apparently, the traditional media have thrown a fit over this wide-spread phenomena. Rupert Murdoch has called Google's aggregation "theft." Of course, accusations of stealing intellectual property have been flying around since before the days of Gutenberg. Today's version has traditional news outlets like the Associated Press claiming that aggregators are "free-riding" because they typically do little to no original reporting, but they derive a benefit from packaging and essentially re-selling third party content. The aggregator incurs none of the cost of producing the content, but is still able to benefit from it.
According to Kimberly Isbell, the author of the Harvard study, there is no definitive law on this issue. She summarizes three notable cases involving the issue, but notes that all have settled. The legal issues involved are copyright protection and the fair use doctrine. This is yet another area where 18th century legal concepts must struggle to adapt to the internet age. Remember back in the 1980's when VCR makers got sued because you could use the device to copy protected works?
Based on Ms. Isbell's work, it looks like so-called "blog-aggregators" like Ron and I have the strongest claims to fair use, because (hopefully) the blogger provides context and analysis which generally adds to and changes the purpose of the original work. Not to mention, there is a real argument that what we do benefits the original producer of the material as well. For example, if this issue interests you, you may click on the link to Ms. Isbell's paper and read it yourself.
It seems to me like this is similar to any situation in which there is unsettled law. Those kinds of cases usually settle, because neither side wants to risk making bad law by pushing for a ruling. Eventually, a case will arise where there is no workable settlement available, and law will be created one way or another. Unfortunately, cases where nothing can be worked out tend to be the kind where bad law gets made. I guess we will have to wait and see which side of this debate ends up creating bad law.
