<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: NY Times Sued For Content Theft</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/12/27/ny-times-sued-for-content-theft/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/12/27/ny-times-sued-for-content-theft/</link>
	<description>Beating Them With Their Own Sickle And Hammer</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:22:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Matt</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/12/27/ny-times-sued-for-content-theft/comment-page-1/#comment-110751</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:16:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=18500#comment-110751</guid>
		<description>Links are part and parcel of the web. I hope the court is going to find a smart compromise. This can not mean that linking should be illegal. It can also not mean that stealing content produced (and paid for) by others is the solution. 

Boston.com is principally doing a good thing for wickedlocal.com – the links are not set to ‘nofollow’ (sorry for the technical term) and so they are not only bringing extra traffic to them, but also adding valuable Google page rank.

I guess the solution is easy: what Boston.com does should in general be OK - Unless the website linked does not actively veto the usage. Analog to the daily practice of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act WickedLocal.com should be able to contact boston.com – and ask them to enjoin from using their content. 

Sadly it appears to me that GateHouse is less interested in stopping the usage but more in receiving punitive damage. Kind of death throes of a company sitting on a dying business model.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Links are part and parcel of the web. I hope the court is going to find a smart compromise. This can not mean that linking should be illegal. It can also not mean that stealing content produced (and paid for) by others is the solution. </p>
<p>Boston.com is principally doing a good thing for wickedlocal.com – the links are not set to ‘nofollow’ (sorry for the technical term) and so they are not only bringing extra traffic to them, but also adding valuable Google page rank.</p>
<p>I guess the solution is easy: what Boston.com does should in general be OK &#8211; Unless the website linked does not actively veto the usage. Analog to the daily practice of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act WickedLocal.com should be able to contact boston.com – and ask them to enjoin from using their content. </p>
<p>Sadly it appears to me that GateHouse is less interested in stopping the usage but more in receiving punitive damage. Kind of death throes of a company sitting on a dying business model.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

