washingtonpost.com — "A few weeks ago, I scored what passes these days for one of journalism's biggest coups, satisfying a holy writ for newspaper impact in the Internet age. Gawker, the snarky New York culture and media Web site, had just blogged about my story in that day's Washington Post."
Aug 2, 2009 View in Crawl 4
nesagwaAug 3, 2009
He went over the copyright issue for almost an entire page in the article. Did you not read it? There is no copyright on the stories, the law was changed in '76 so they basically have no rights.
rikfAug 3, 2009
I'll see your US-centric post and raise you a BBC.
tobtohAug 3, 2009
Music: Downloading mp3s isn't theft because you're downloading a copy not physically stealing anything.Gawker/Wash. Post: Gawker is stealing because it's copying the Wash Post. article.Music: I'm justified in downloading copied music because the music industry rips us off and screws the actual musician who gets virtually nothing from the corporationG/WP: Gawker isn't justified in copying the article because it takes away legitimate revenue from a corporation Music: If the music industry decides not to/can't/doesn't know how to adapt to new technologies/ways of doing things, then I'm justified in copying/taking whatever I want/G/WP: Gawker's actions are bad because they undermine a corporation who doesn't want to/can't/doesn't know how to adapt to a new world.Music: I'm not a thief for copying contentG/WP: Gawker is a thief copying contentInteresting ....
ksoundAug 3, 2009
I'm assuming that everyone crying outrage about this article doesn't have so kind of ad block plugin installed. Over the years I have become quite good at ignoring ads but I refuse to block them since the sites I visit make their living on ad revenue. Blocking those ads is more stealing than quoting or even copying large parts and adding a link to the original. On the actual article: while I agree it's wrong to copy parts of an article from other source other without providing proper links to the source. I don't always agree with the news papers who also have a habit of recycling other paper's content and often act like things that happened in the real world is news that they have 'created'. With blogs and aggregators the problem is often that one blog links to another and the original source gets lost in the process. That's why I like Engadget attempts of linking to the source AND the via where they found the article.
falldogAug 3, 2009
I've been burring Gizmodo stories as blog spam for ages. Yet I doubt the Digg community is going to suddenly take an about face and stop digging up stories from these sites anytime soon.
sprucecabooseAug 3, 2009
"The question remains: who is going to pay for serious journalism when the papers are gone?"Excellent question, and as much as I hate to say it, the answer is most likely "Corporate sponsors" who will exchange money for promotional fluff pieces that look and sound like real reporting.
Closed AccountAug 5, 2009
It's not meta when the post closes down and fires all it's reporters