Following up on this one. I disagree in that the “eClipsWeb” licence applies to NLA members who circulate links to newspaper articles to their clients, and that is more than just the “aggregators” such as Moreover. My exact wording:

“NLA managing director David Pugh today confirmed the introduction of the new licence extension governing weblinks.

He told Press Gazette that the licence was intended to apply only to organisations circulating hyperlinks to newspaper articles commercially as part of a business model.

There is no attempt to regulate use of hyperlinks where that is not as part of a chargeable service, such as by private individuals or as the results of queries by internet search engines such as Google News.

He said licensing will also apply to recipients of paid media monitoring services, as is the case with existing NLA licences.”

Was emailed to the NLA PR people and verified. I read that as meaning that the “link licence” would also apply to existing customers who were sending links rather than digital cuttings to existing clients.

Indeed, the NLA Press Release says that this is so:

“From September 2009, web aggregators that charge clients for their services will require a NLA licence and be charged from January 2010, The press cuttings agencies that either ‘scrape’ content themselves or buy in services from aggregators will also be licensed and charged. Client companies that receive & forward links from these commercial aggregators within their organisation will also require a licence.”

Link: http://www.nla.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6&Itemid=7

Hope that helps answer your query.

Rgds

I’ve nothing against someone trying to profit from their work, whatever its form. I do point out that customers get a vote too. If they don’t want to pay what you want, your only option is to refuse to provide.

That’s not quite right. Figuring out what links to put where is (some of) the value produced by lawyers. The folks who are producing comparable works (documents with links to interesting things) are being compensated, so I don’t see what distinction is being made.

Both groups also reprint press releases and accept freebies.

This all comes down to a very simple legal principle: You can’t copyright an idea; only the formulation of that idea.

Links are very simply references to other people’s formulations of ideas. They are not the form themselves. And commentary on those ideas, as well as brief snippets from articles, are and have been considered fair use for a very long time. If companies don’t want people to access their publications online, they should probably shut down their web sites. Jackasses!

Interesting. I hadn’t had a chance to read Judge Posner’s latest post until just now. I’m having lunch with him in Chicago on July 15th. Given that I’m very much on your side of the argument, this exact topic should make for interesting conversation!

I’ll let you know how it goes.