And I Thought Rupert Murdoch Thought Copying Stories From Other Publications Was 'Stealing'

from the tsk-tsk dept

You may remember, not so long ago, Rupert Murdoch was running around claiming that other publications "stole" from him. He gave a speech where he warned:
"The aggregators and plagiarists will soon have to pay a price for the co-opting of our content."
Of course, around that time, we highlighted the fact that Murdoch, himself, owned a whole bunch of aggregators, many of which acted much worse than the sites -- such as Google -- that Murdoch was complaining about.

However, over the weekend there was a nice example of how one of Murdoch's publications clearly copied a story from another publication and did not give any credit for it whatsoever. We noted earlier how Broadband Reports broke the story of AT&T deciding to put in place metered billing. Broadband Reports got a tip with a leaked email showing the new rules, and got confirmation from AT&T. Nearly every other report on the story credited Broadband Reports with breaking the story. However, when the WSJ (via Dow Jones Newswire) wrote the story, by reporter Roger Cheng, there is no mention whatsoever of Broadband Reports breaking the story.

Now, a few quick points, I don't think that every publication should necessarily have to credit who breaks a story. It's often the neighborly thing to do, and I think that many people appreciate it when it's done. But news is news, and if it's factual, then there's no proprietary nature to it. So, my complaint isn't simply that Dow Jones/WSJ didn't credit BBR. What I take issue with is when a company comes out and states, repeatedly, that it is going to crack down on other sites that copy its work -- who often do it while providing credits and links back -- and then chooses to publish without credit, that seems hypocritical. Don't say one thing and do another.

Of course, some others will (correctly) point out that Cheng appears to have contacted AT&T himself, and added a few tidbits to the story (even if it's been pointed out that he seemed to unquestionably accept AT&T's claim of congestion). So, defenders will claim this is "okay" because he did "additional independent reporting." And, again, it's great that Cheng did additional reporting. But it doesn't change that it appears BBR had the original report, and got the info out there. Even with the additional reporting, it appears that the WSJ was able to create a news report off of a lead from BBR. And this goes right back to the claims of Bill Keller last week in which he seemed to be saying when the NY Times builds off someone else's work, that's journalism. When new media sites do it, it's piracy. It's too bad that these newspapers claim that they're so against such things, but have no problem doing it themselves. Again, most of the actual actions that they do are fine... by themselves. But doing those things after claiming to be against them in others... that's hypocrisy.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 3:29pm

    "Do what I say, not as I do!" ~ Every American with power.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Mike42 (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 3:35pm

    Re:

    "American"? I think you mean, "Person, living or incorporated."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Not THAT Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 3:42pm

    Re: Re:

    Sounds better with "American" though.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    drewmerc (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 3:59pm

    i thought Rupert Murdoch was Austrian ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 4:09pm

    It's what we in Somalia call "piracy."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 4:11pm

    Re:

    I wonder what copyright infringement is called in Somalia?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Chupacabra, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 4:32pm

    Re:

    No, that's Arnold Schwarzenegger. Murdoch is Auschwitzian.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Ron Rezendes (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 4:38pm

    Hypocrites...

    Hypocrites are always wrong at least half the time!
    ~Ron Rezendes

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 4:40pm

    Re: Re:

    "Victimless crime?"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Old Fool (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 5:44pm

    Rupert Murdoch is AUSTRALIAN.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 6:47pm

    The assumption is that the WSJ people didn't contact AT&T directly, right? Do you have any proof to back that up?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 6:51pm

    Re:

    "The assumption is that the WSJ people didn't contact AT&T directly, right? Do you have any proof to back that up?"

    Probably the same amount of "proof" that good ol' Ruppie had to back up his claims.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 6:56pm

    Re: Re:

    Ahh, so either Mike researched this well and Rupe is a great guy, or... Rupe is a turd and Mike punted another one.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 7:22pm

    Re:

    The assumption is that the WSJ people didn't contact AT&T directly, right?

    In the article: "some others will (correctly) point out that Cheng appears to have contacted AT&T himself"

    Seriously, if you're going to make fun of what I say, at least try to state things that I didn't already answer in the post. I mean, really.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 7:25pm

    Re:

    If you aren't going to read the post then please have the courtesy and decency to start your comment with tl;dr

    That way we will know that you are just lazy instead of wondering about your reading comprehension. The post states:

    "Of course, some others will (correctly) point out that Cheng appears to have contacted AT&T himself"



    Reading. It is a life skill.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 7:43pm

    Re: Re:

    It's the point Mike. If Cheng contacted AT&T himself, what is the point? Did he copy the story off of broadband reports? Did they use his story verbatim?

    Nope. They heard about the news (it was all over the place in minutes) and then followed up and got THEIR OWN STORY.

    I can understand the slam if they copied their story verbatim, but it appears this isn't the case. What exactly is your issue then?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 8:09pm

    Re: Re:

    Paying attention to the point is a life skill as well. Why does Mike have his manties in a bunch if the reporter did his own leg work? Perhaps he didn't see the story on broadband reports, maybe he got an email from someone about it, a tweet from someone, or perhaps one of their own reporter on the ground heard about it from people at the event. There is no reason to credit broadband reports for a news story who's content was collected separately.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 8:11pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    It's the point Mike. If Cheng contacted AT&T himself, what is the point? Did he copy the story off of broadband reports? Did they use his story verbatim?

    The sites Murdoch complained about weren't using the story's verbatim either.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 8:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    [citation needed]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    patsw (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 8:53pm

    Plagiarism or Coincidence - You be the judge

    If the BBR story (or another online source) was the reason that Cheng called AT&T, it's not copyright infringement, it is plagiarism - and it is hypocritical for WSJ to do this on one hand while complaining that other sites must pay a price for "co-opting" -- whatever that means in this context. A follow-up phone call to confirm BBR's story is just CYA.

    If WSJ's Cheng became aware of this story apart from any other published source, then it's a coincidence. I don't know. But I do know that Cheng's story followed BBR's.

    If old media sites want to make demands on new media, they ought to lead by example and give credit where credit is due.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 9:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 9:35pm

    Re: Plagiarism or Coincidence - You be the judge

    The idea is that somehow Cheng's only contact with the world is Broadband Reports. Since I doubt that is true, there are plenty of other ways he could have gotten the "smell of a story".

    Obviously, it would be something getting plenty of play. There are plenty of other sources out there writing stories about it:

    http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/gigaom/media/video_att_bandwidth_cap_netflix.html

    http ://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=13134261

    Even the sainted Wired:

    http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/03/att-dsl-cap/

    with absolutely no mention of DSL Reports.

    Now, there is also the question "Did the AT&T guy speak to anyone else" or was anyone else there when the statement was made? For that matter, did the DSL Reports guy talk to anyone? Did anyone post about it on twitter? Was it discussed and reposted?

    Mike should be more concerned about sites like this:

    http://www.prhwy.com/news/7521-att-uverse-imposes-monthly-cap-limitations-on-internet-usage .html

    Clearly, that would be a complete duplication of the story with no attribution.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 9:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Your snide answer gives nothing. Google News is famous for using the headlines and first graphs from many sources. Did Mr Cheng copy anything from DSL Report?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 10:46pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    He likely wouldn't have known about the story, or to call AT&T, if it weren't for DSL reports. He came up with the story considerably after DSL reports. Sure, it's not absolute proof, but it's strong evidence.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 10:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    (and the WSJ doesn't deal specifically with broadband matters either, only generally, so that makes it less likely they did any digging of their own before being tipped off by broadband reports).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 10:53pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "There is no reason to credit broadband reports for a news story who's content was collected separately."

    It's unlikely that it was collected separately. If they got it from someone who got it from broadband reports, the WSJ should have done some basic journalism and found out that the original came from broadband reports.

    Besides, if this were the other way around, if someone posted a story that first came from the WSJ, in the matter of seconds the WSJ would accuse the other person of infringement/plagiarism, instead of assuming that the other source did their own legwork. Especially if the other source put the info out second. This is more than enough evidence for the Murdoch to accuse others of infringement/plagiarism and they would probably make such accusations with far less evidence even. So why is the standard of proof much less to show that others copied the mainstream media but it's much higher to show that the mainstream media copied others? and don't give me the unsubstantiated assumption that the mainstream media somehow does more/better journalism and so they should be given the benefit of the doubt but not anyone else. The MSM are hypocrites and they know it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 10:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    This is more than enough evidence for Murdoch to accuse others *

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 10:58pm

    Re: Plagiarism or Coincidence - You be the judge

    "If the BBR story (or another online source) was the reason that Cheng called AT&T"

    It is the reason, if this were the other way around, if Murdoch put the story out first and then broadband reports put their story out second (after calling), Murdoch would be jumping up and down complaining about others copying him. It would be enough evidence for him, that's for sure. So when the same or greater evidence comes out against Murdoch, I will reasonably assume it's because Murdoch did copy others.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 11:23pm

    Re: Re: Plagiarism or Coincidence - You be the judge

    Besides, Rubert Murdoch (or at least his organizations) is known to copy others without citation, in the past at least one of his employees has even it.

    So given his history of doing this sort of thing, no, he does not get the benefit of the doubt, I will reasonably assume he is guilty.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 11:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: Plagiarism or Coincidence - You be the judge

    errr... the link didn't turn out right.

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090904/0416086107.shtml

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 11:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Plagiarism or Coincidence - You be the judge

    errr... the post didn't come out right. Here is the correction. I musta put the URL in there wrong.

    Besides, Rubert Murdoch (or at least his organizations) is known to copy others without citation, in the past at least one of his employees has even admit to it.

    So given his history of doing this sort of thing, no, he does not get the benefit of the doubt, I will reasonably assume he is guilty.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 11:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Plagiarism or Coincidence - You be the judge

    (and notice how the employee even admit that it's against corporate policy to credit others when copying them. Highly unlikely Murdoch isn't to blame for that, his organizations aren't only known for stealing the work of others and not giving credit, they're also known for making it against corporate policy to give credit when work is stolen. No, he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt, given the evidence and his history, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that he stole the work and didn't give credit).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2011 @ 1:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Plagiarism or Coincidence - You be the judge

    There is a significant difference in knowing about a story and writing your own, versus lifting titles and paragraphs from another source and calling it your own. The story was big in the twitter-verse, there are plenty of stories out there, including stories on the various wire services, and for the most part without credit to DSL Reports, likely because they got the story in a different way. WSJ called AT&T directly. Others may have overheard the discussion.

    We don't know. It's a really big jump to get on Murdoch's case when we just don't know how the story played out. We don't even know if the "exclusive" story on DSL Reports was in fact exclusive.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Mar 15th, 2011 @ 2:19am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Plagiarism or Coincidence - You be the judge

    The problem is NewsCorp's massive hypocrisy; in this case, had the roles been identically reversed, and BBR called up AT&T, I'd bet my life that Newscorp would be going berserk over it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Mar 15th, 2011 @ 2:48am

    Re: Re:

    I wonder what copyright infringement is called in Somalia?

    There is no word - there is no concept....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Mar 15th, 2011 @ 2:50am

    Re:

    No actually he is a naturalised US citizen now - he had to be in order to own the media outlets thanks to US laws. If only the UK and Australia had the same rules he would have to make a choice - and give up around half his empire.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    DS, Mar 15th, 2011 @ 4:20am

    Re: Re: Re:

    If by better, you mean douchier, yes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2011 @ 4:41am

    Re:

    Rupert Murdoch is NOT Australian. He was born in Australia, but became an American citizen a couple of decades ago. Foreign investment laws in the US prohibited him from buying what he wanted to if he wasn't an American.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Mar 15th, 2011 @ 6:54am

    Re: Re:

    Aggregation, of course!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Mar 15th, 2011 @ 6:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You clearly don't know jack about the news ecosystem. Perhaps you should broaden your horizons instead of sitting here, pretending you know everything and coming up with groundless objections.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2011 @ 8:01am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Oh please Marcus, enlighten me. Explain to me how nameless little people sit in darkened cubicles, getting handed wire copy and being told to retype it. Explain to me how every reporter in the world just sits at their desk looking at other news sites to steal stories.

    Tell me the fable about the immaculate conception of this story.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    Punmaster (profile), Mar 15th, 2011 @ 8:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "...This is more than enough evidence for the Murdoch to..."

    I like that - "The Murdoch".

    I'm going to refer to him as "The Murdoch" from now on... makes me want to come up with Monster Manual stats for him.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Mar 15th, 2011 @ 9:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Everything is built on everything else. The fact that the two stories sound remarkably similar has nothing to do with it. The fact that NewsCorp has gone after people for doing exactly the same thing is hypocritical.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Mar 15th, 2011 @ 9:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So wait, do you think that the only two possibilities for content creation are 'immaculate conception' or people sitting in darkened cubicles retyping wire copy?

    Seriously, have you ever been in a newsroom? Have you ever known a working journalist? Have you ever talked to a newspaper editor? Because it's pretty clear that you never have. You have a very bizarre fantasy about how journalism works.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Mar 15th, 2011 @ 9:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    oh, and if you want the "fable" (read: accurate description of the journalistic culture) I already supplied it:

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110310/12551713431/nytimes-when-we-do-it-its-journalism-wh en-huffpo-does-it-its-piracy.shtml#c3

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Mar 15th, 2011 @ 9:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    are we going with Aberration or Monstrous Humanoid?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2011 @ 10:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    To answer your questions:

    have you ever been in a newsroom? Yes, repeatedly Have you ever known a working journalist? More than a few Have you ever talked to a newspaper editor?more than one at a time Because it's pretty clear that you never have. you would be wrong here You have a very bizarre fantasy about how journalism works No, just an understanding that information arrives from various directions at various times, and that in these modern time, a "story" is often converted time and time again, through tweets, blogs, re-writes, emails, re-dos, and so on, often ending up on wire services, in reporter's in boxes, or as rumors in chat rooms that lead reporters to follow up

    There is no proof that (a) the WSJ reporter copied directly off the DSL reports story, and (b) that the DSL reports people were the only ones with the information.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2011 @ 10:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Sorry, but I don't take techdirt as a reliable, fact based source. Sorry.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Mar 15th, 2011 @ 2:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yeah, I was pointing you to my comment, rather than re-type or re-paste the same thing. If you don't want to read it that's fine by me.

    Also though, I forgot I was talking to a small lump of igneous rock.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Mar 15th, 2011 @ 2:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    and that in these modern time, a "story" is often converted time and time again

    Exactly. Which is why it's insane for Murdoch to attack modern journalists as thieves and pirates.

    As for the rest of your stuff, frankly I don't believe you at all, and I don't see why I would. You are just an unidentified green dot, and you are making everything you say up off the top of your head - it's pretty obvious.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Mar 15th, 2011 @ 2:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    (p.s. you asked me to tell you my opinion or "the fable" then complained that my reply wasn't "reliable and fact based" - even though I clearly linked you to another comment, by me, describing the very thing you were asking me to describe, in my own words. I think you might need thinking lessons, or perhaps brain repair.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2011 @ 7:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What murdoch attacks is people who re-use their stories "as a whole" with no re-write, no journalistic work, nothing - just copy paste. The WSJ guy didn't do a copy paste on this story. Actually, it looks more like he was working from the AP wire story for the base, plus his own research.

    Sort of different from a site using the titles and first couple of paragraph of a story as search engine food.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Mar 16th, 2011 @ 7:09am

    "The aggregators and plagiarists will soon have to pay a price for the co-opting of our content."

    Even if it's News Corp Murdoch? You big happy left winger running a supposedly right wing news network, you.

    Sorry, this guy is 'NWO' order all the way. He would like nothing better than a corporate/state controlled world. Say what you like, but there are people with that agenda. That much is certain.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Mar 16th, 2011 @ 7:13am


    Seriously, have you ever been in a newsroom? Have you ever known a working journalist? Have you ever talked to a newspaper editor? Because it's pretty clear that you never have. You have a very bizarre fantasy about how journalism works.


    Clarify and say "how perceived official corporate news sources work".

    News is whatever people think is news and however they want to deliver it. I agree that plagiarism has no place in either, but the big corporations want to tout some "holier than though, we own it" concept, all the while - ripping the news off like ANY second rate blog.

    Doesn't matter what goes on in a news room, the only thing that matters is what product is delivered to the public, otherwise news has no use.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Mar 16th, 2011 @ 7:25am

    Sorry, but I don't take techdirt as a reliable, fact based source. Sorry.

    Which is fine - I have a similar opinion of big corporate news sources. They have stock to worry about, they will give a pass to some people they may consider 'esteemed' - it's evident in the spin.

    Like - watch the dragging of Charlie Sheen or Madoff through the mud and then compare to others that come up in the news. Usually they are all too happy to drag people through the mud, but on occasion you'll see the 'apologist' style applied to 'certain people'.

    There are too many reasons a big corporate news source has to play games with the facts - especially if it's profitable somehow.

    Plus, whenever we have a big disaster, it's time for them to put on a show with snazzy graphics, cool logos and themes too!

    I like how Fox always comes up with what I consider a 'jingle phrase' on each disaster and such.

    Like ba-boom, "Tsunami in Japan, day 2" or "Crisis in the Middle East" Do they trademark that too?

    Or whatever, sorry the only 'official news' source I entertain at all now is my local paper.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    zishao, Mar 18th, 2011 @ 9:31am

    cheap nfl jerseys

    Never put off what you can do today until tomorrow.
    cheap nfl jerseys
    The best preparation for tomorrow is doing your best today!Believe in yourself.We have the most affordable shirt, best service and quality.Believe us, you won't regret it!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This