<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories about &quot;naa&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:37:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Appeals Court Realizes Hot News Makes No Sense; Dumps Injunction On TheFlyOnTheWall</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/13271614771/appeals-court-realizes-hot-news-makes-no-sense-dumps-injunction-theflyonthewall.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/13271614771/appeals-court-realizes-hot-news-makes-no-sense-dumps-injunction-theflyonthewall.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ "Hot news" was pretty much dead a few years ago.  The court-created doctrine, which resulted in a weird quasi-intellectual property on factual information about a century ago, hadn't been used for years and many people had assumed that it was pretty much gone.  However, old legal doctrines die hard and, a few years back, some Wall Street firms sought to revive it, claiming that the website theFlyOnTheWall.com <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100319/1214338635.shtml">violated their "hot news" rights</a> by accurately reporting on how those Wall Street firms were rating stocks.  That's factual information and not protected by copyright, but the firms claimed it undermined their business models via hot news... and the lower court agreed, issuing an injunction.
<br /><br />
Thankfully, an appeals court <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/hot-news-doctrine/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A wired27b %28Blog - 27B Stroke 6 %28Threat Level%29%29" target="_blank">has dumped all of that</a>, claiming that hot news is preempted by federal copyright law and that there's nothing wrong with reporting on factual information.  The court mainly relies on the famous <a href="http://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/nba.html" target="_blank">NBA v. Motorola</a> case, which found that basketball scores and stats were facts and not protected by copyright or hot news.   Using the same rules, the court finds that copyright wipes out any "hot news" in this case as well.
<blockquote><i>
We conclude that applying NBA and copyright preemption
 principles to the facts of this case, the Firms' claim for "hot
 news" misappropriation fails because it is preempted by the
 Copyright Act. First, the Firms' reports culminating with the
 Recommendations satisfy the "subject matter" requirement because
 they are all works "of a type covered by section 102," i.e.,
 "original works of authorship fixed in a... tangible medium of
 expression." 17 U.S.C. &sect; 102. As discussed above, it is not
 determinative for the Copyright Act preemption analysis that the
 facts of the Recommendations themselves are not copyrightable.
 See NBA, 105 F.3d at 850. Second, the reports together with the
 Recommendations fulfill the "general scope" requirement because
 the rights "may be abridged by an act which, in and of itself,
 would infringe one of the exclusive rights' provided by federal
 copyright law," Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d at 716 (citing Harper &#038;
 Row, 723 F.2d at 200), i.e., "acts of reproduction, performance,
 distribution or display," id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
<br /><br />
Third and finally, the Firms' claim is not a so-called
INS-type non-preempted claim because Fly is not, under NBA's
 analysis, "free-riding." It is collecting, collating and
 disseminating factual information -- the facts that Firms and
 others in the securities business have made recommendations with
 respect to the value of and the wisdom of purchasing or selling
 securities -- and attributing the information to its source. The
 Firms are making the news; Fly, despite the Firms' understandable
 desire to protect their business model, is breaking it. As the
 INS Court explained, long before it would have occurred to the
 Court to cite the First Amendment for the proposition:
<blockquote>
 [T]he news element -- the information
 respecting current events contained in the
 literary production -- is not the creation of
 the writer, but is a report of matters that
 ordinarily are publici juris; it is the
history of the day. It is not to be supposed
 that the framers of the Constitution, when
 they empowered Congress "to promote the
 progress of science and useful arts, by
 securing for limited times to authors and
 inventors the exclusive right to their
 respective writings and discoveries" (Const.,
 Art I, &sect; 8, par. 8), intended to confer upon
 one who might happen to be the first to
 report a historic event the exclusive right
 for any period to spread the knowledge of it.
</blockquote>
</i></blockquote>
The court also distinguishes the classic "hot news" case (INS) by noting that in that case, the competing firm was taking AP news, rewriting it, and pretending it was its own.  That's not what's going on here, where ratings are simply being aggregated.

<br /><br />
This is an excellent ruling, though I doubt we've seen the end of "hot news" yet.  There may still be appeals, and there are a few other such hot news cases out there.  But it's nice to see the judges toss this one out.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/13271614771/appeals-court-realizes-hot-news-makes-no-sense-dumps-injunction-theflyonthewall.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/13271614771/appeals-court-realizes-hot-news-makes-no-sense-dumps-injunction-theflyonthewall.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/13271614771/appeals-court-realizes-hot-news-makes-no-sense-dumps-injunction-theflyonthewall.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>hot-news-loss</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110620/13271614771</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 07:06:58 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Newspapers To Court: We Don't Care About TheFlyOnTheWall, But Please Don't Take Away Our Hot News</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100623/0129249928.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100623/0129249928.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Yesterday we wrote about Google and Twitter's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100622/0144239913.shtml">amicus brief</a> in the infamous <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100319/1214338635.shtml">FlyOnTheWall hot news</a> case, and the folks over at the Associated Press were kind enough to send over a link to <a href="http://www.ap.org/pages/about/pressreleases/documents/APAMICUSBRIEF.pdf" target="_blank">the amicus brief from a huge coalition of newspapers</a>.  Basically, every big US newspaper or newspaper organization signed on to this one, including the Associated Press, AFP, the NY Times, the Washington Post, Gannett, McClatchy, Belo, Scripps, Time, and the Newspaper Association of America (just to catch everyone else).  Considering that the AP has been leading the charge to bring back hot news, you can probably guess where this one is going:
<center>
<object id="_ds_44548929" name="_ds_44548929" width="560" height="550" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://viewer.docstoc.com/"><param name="FlashVars" value="doc_id=44548929&#038;mem_id=715794&#038;doc_type=pdf&#038;fullscreen=0&#038;allowdownload=1&#038;showrelated=0&#038;showotherdocs=0" /><param name="movie" value="http://viewer.docstoc.com/"/><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /></object>
</center>
The short summary?  "We don't care about TheFlyOnTheWall or Barclays or this specific case, but we're scared to death that you might make a ruling that says the hot news doctrine should go away."
<br /><br />
I'm still sort of amazed that any <i>serious</i> news organization supports the hot news doctrine, because it's almost guaranteed to come back and bite them if it is regularly used again.  All of the newspapers above rely on rewriting news from other publications to some extent, whether they admit it or not.  If they really support this, they're going to run into trouble themselves, even if they're apparently unwilling to admit it.  It's incredibly short-sighted.
<br /><br />
Also weird is the claim that these newspapers "rely" on hot news today.  They don't.  Sure, the hot news doctrine has technically been around for about a century, but it's barely been used at all in the last few decades.  It was, for all intents and purposes, a dead doctrine that many considered <a href="http://www.houstonlawreview.org/archive/downloads/40-3_pdf/Posnerg2r.pdf" target="_blank">not worth keeping around</a> (pdf).  To claim that these organizations have relied on the hot news doctrine is ridiculous, because it's barely been showing up in court until recently.
<br /><br />
Either way, it looks like lots of parties who are concerned about "hot news" have realized that TheFlyOnTheWall case has become ground zero for whether or not "hot news" is actually allowed.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100623/0129249928.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100623/0129249928.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100623/0129249928.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>they-will-regret-this</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100623/0129249928</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 2 Jun 2009 20:16:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Wait, Is The Newspaper Business Thriving Or Falling Apart?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090602/0712025092.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090602/0712025092.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It would appear that the folks in the newspaper business don't quite have their talking points set.  Yesterday, we showed the letter from the Newspaper Association of America all about how the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090601/0941555084.shtml">newspaper business was supposedly thriving</a> despite what you may have heard.  But clearly, not everyone in the industry agrees.  A whole bunch of folks have sent in the Ars Technica article about the AP's <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/ap-tech-coming-to-stop-wholesale-theft-on-net.ars" target="_new">supposed plans to go after sites that copy their articles</a>, but we'd avoided posting it -- because there really weren't many new details beyond what they'd said before.  However, reader Mark pointed to a rather interesting (and surprisingly honest) quote from the AP about why it wants to crack down on sites reposting some of its content:
<blockquote><i>
"We need the money. The industry is falling apart."
</i></blockquote>
So, on the same day, the NAA claims that the newspaper industry is thriving and profitable... and the AP insists its running out of money and the industry is collapsing.  It would be great if, I dunno, one of these <i>reporters</i> could maybe dig into the actual numbers to figure out what's actually happening.  Or is that not what the press does?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090602/0712025092.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090602/0712025092.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090602/0712025092.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>depends-on-who-you-talk-to-apparently</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090602/0712025092</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>