Media Nation has moved!

You should be automatically redirected in 6 seconds. If not, visit
http://www.dankennedy.net
and update your bookmarks.

Monday, January 26, 2009

GateHouse and New York Times Co. settle (II)

Since it appears that GateHouse Media and the New York Times Co. are still working out the details of their proposed settlement, I'm thinking we're not going to hear anything for a bit. Perhaps the two sides will put out a joint statement, but I've seen nothing yet.

The Boston Globe has a brief story here, and GateHouse, with an assist from the Associated Press, runs an account here.

Labels:

7 Comments:

At January 26, 2009 at 11:30:00 AM EST, Blogger Bob Sprague said...

What -- no story from Wicked Local? Isn't this story, well, "wicked local"?

Bob Sprague

 
At January 26, 2009 at 11:46:00 AM EST, Blogger ben said...

Most of the time any settlement will be confidential. I wouldn't expect to hear much. I doubt there was much money exchanged. Perhaps Boston.com will stop linking?

 
At January 26, 2009 at 12:45:00 PM EST, Blogger Jerry said...

The Globe's version seems to have gone AWOL at this hour.

 
At January 26, 2009 at 12:58:00 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Globe article has moved. And now with Settlement Details!

http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2009/01/nyt_gatehouse_r.html

"GateHouse Media Inc. will set up technical barriers preventing Boston.com, the Boston Globe's website, from automated "scraping" of GateHouse content, and Boston.com has agreed to honor those barriers under a settlement disclosed this morning in a widely watched lawsuit filed by GateHouse against The New York Times Co., owner of the Globe and Boston.com."

 
At January 26, 2009 at 1:28:00 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And now the full text of the agreement is available here: http://nytco.com/pdf/Agreement.pdf

 
At January 26, 2009 at 1:35:00 PM EST, Blogger Ted M said...

So what do we all think??? Looks like automated feed pulling is verboten on both sides. No legal precedent because it's a settlement, but it would be interesting to be inside the lawyers' heads here.

 
At January 26, 2009 at 1:54:00 PM EST, Blogger Unknown said...

Having read the agreement, the NYT's clearly caved? Why is the big question.

My bet -- Boston.com's local sites appeared, at least in some cases, to be pulling the majority of their links from one site.

That made the Boston.com sites a direct replacement for the wicked local site and risked tipping the fair use test to GateHouse.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home