[...] a case that, though ultimately settled, caught the interest of online news outlets and may even be changing the way such organizations do business. GateHouse publishes more than 375 newspapers in mainly New England and operates their associated [...]

[...] from GateHouse Media’s community newspapers. GateHouse sued and hired Lichtman to produce an expert opinion supporting their [...]

[...] important lawsuit involving the New York Times Company and Gatehouse Media was recently settled, in which the Times [...]

[...] nobody clicks on your home page links.” He also wrote a long post defending GateHouse’s suit against The New York Times Company but has since taken it down. I have the text if you’re [...]

[...] is one reason I deeply regret that the GateHouse Media vs. New York Times Corp  case didn’t go to court.  Building up good case law requires good cases, and All Headline News is [...]

[...] claims 1.5 million unique visitors per month. The legal threat comes soon after GateHouse Media sued the Times Co. for a suite of hyperlocal news sites that aggregated content from GateHouse newspapers and other [...]

[...] Posted by Bill Mitchell under Uncategorized   The most interesting resource I found in Nieman Journalism Lab’s comprehensive coverage of the Gatehouse-New York Times Co. squabble over fair use is this link to a report filed on [...]

[...] articles and for liberal excerpts and reposts, but haven’t been shut down yet.  However the dispute between Gatehouse Media and the New York Times Co indicates there will be trouble ahead for them.  The Huffington Post pulls twice the amount of [...]

Small Local Blogger’s Perspective

The big sites are 100% commercial, “free” or not, just like the “free” broadcast TV networks that bombard us with ads. They only exist to make money. The rest of us are otherwise motivated, obviously, since we keep at it with little or no hope of any financial reward. Maybe that should be the criteria. After all, everybody knows the difference between a prostitute and a lover. It’s the same as the difference between for-profit and non-profit, between charities and businesses, between amateurs and professionals. Yeah, the line gets a little blurry there these days, sometimes. Just remember that hooker or hustler on the street-corner, compared to your significant other. (Assuming yours isn’t a gold-digger… ) Did they do it for love, or money, mostly? That’s commercial vs. non.

The thing is, all of us little wingnuts and moonbats out here really, really do not want our precious Internet to go the way that telephones and movies and radio and TV and cable and the music biz went: Whoredom. We want there to be one damn public place where we can congregate, have contact with our fellow citizens, hash things out and share ideas, feelings and experiences, and organize to make our little corners of the world into better places. We paid for this Darpanet thingy without ever knowing it. Now we want it back. The pubs have been DUI’d, the parks have been homeless’d, “downtown” is now a private mall that’s only suitable for spending money. The public square is online today, and nowhere else. If we lose this, we’re screwed. That’s what’s at stake here: Who owns what. Or who is owned by whom. And what rights does any of us have any more.
.

[...] in Nieman Journalism Lab’s wrap-up of the case, Dan Kennedy suggests that the Times may have had a fight on its hands had the case gone to court: [...]

I’m thinking Pets.com in the internet bubble. Amazon did the same thing and got it right. Just market economies sorting it out. Meanwhile real people with real jobs pay the price of dislocation.