Soon it will be Christmas Eve in Media Nation, so I don’t want to get too bogged down with blogging today. But I do want to call your attention to the excellent work the Citizen Media Center is doing on the matter of GateHouse Media’s lawsuit against the New York Times Co.
First, there is Citizen Media founder Dan Gillmor’s nuanced take. (Is Jeff Jarvis going to call his ally Gillmor “clueless”? It’s time for Mr. Buzz Machine to settle down with a nice cup of decaf and take another look at this.) Next, the Citizen Media Law Project offers an analysis of GateHouse’s legal claims. The center is also aggregating information about the case as it unfolds. Indispensible stuff.
Yesterday U.S. District Court Judge William Young rejected GateHouse’s request for a temporary restraining order, which would have prevented the Times Co.’s Boston.com from linking to GateHouse content immediately. (GateHouse story here; Boston Globe story here.)
A trial date has been set for Jan. 5, which seems pretty aggressive, given that Media Nation hears the Times Co. has been given a deadline of Jan. 6 to respond to GateHouse’s complaint. In all likelihood, the Jan. 5 session will just be a chance for everyone to exchange business cards and New Year’s greetings before getting down to work.
Discover more from Media Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Do media people think that the legal framework in which Gatehouse and Boston.com are forced to argue is helpful (1) for resolving the dispute, and (2) for the overall development and health of on-line media?
Ani: Personally, I don’t think a lawsuit is ever helpful.
Okay, but even without an actual lawsuit, players may be thinking in terms of the legal framework — I’m wondering whether it meets the needs of on-line media, whether it shapes what goes on in helpful ways or whether new conceptual models might serve better. Maybe the legal framework will evolve anyway, either by legislation or case law or some interaction of the two, but I’m wondering which is the tail and which is the dog.
My tail and dog question is about media and the law (not about legislation and case law).
In looking at other blogs (and their comments sections) around this, I’m unpleasantly surprised at the naive assumptions of the “information wants to be free” crowd. The Globe’s PR “defense” seems to be aimed at this cohort.If it gets heard to conclusion, this case will be a precedent-setter.
Dan — Check out:http://ottaway.blogspot.com/2008/12/we-welcome-bostoncom-links-but-first-we.htmlOttaway Newspapers’ web vp is saying he won’t oppose Boston.com’s aggregation of content if the Globe decides to expand its content reach still farther.Paul
Paul: Interesting, though I would point out that Ottaway’s Web strategy is a lot different from GateHouse’s. Unlike GateHouse, Ottaway isn’t trying to build single-community portals. Thus Boston.com is not a threat to Ottaway in the same way that it is to GateHouse.