US judge: save newspapers with a ban on links

Newspapers are in a tough spot. Freely accessible newsfeeds on the internet have sent subscription figures in a negative trend. And the current economic crisis hits newspapers from two sides. On the one hand, the number of subscribers is falling. On the other hand, advertisers need their money elsewhere. In The Netherlands, the parliamentary commission Brinkman pleads for introducing an internet tax to support written newsmedia.

In the US, the same discussion is taking place. A judge of the Chicage court of appeal recently contributed to the debate in [this article on his blog. Here, he proposes to enhance protection of copyrighted material on newsmedia’s websites. It is too easy for free media, like blogs, to use this information by way of paraphrasis and links, says judge Posner. By doing this, blogs are free riding, using content that paid-for media have only been able to produce because editors have put time and effort into research. If newsmedia are unable to recoup investments, the quality content will suffer.

This is indeed a problem. However, one may question whether a ban on links is the appropriate solution. In my opinion, prohibiting referring to other content is a clear example where the cure is worse than the disease. Referrals and paraphrasis happen everywhere and in most cases, they are allowed and even encouraged. Articles in scientific, peer reviewed journals, for example, consist for a considerabe part of paragrpaphs that serve to describe the current state of the art and positioning the scholar’s present contribution. This is done by summarising, paraphrasis and linking to other work.

Furthermore, paid-for media also use links and referrals on a daily basis. Authorative media like The Guardian also use them. En rightly so. If one would not be allowed to base oneself on the work of others, if one would never be able to stand on the shoulders of giants, new knowledge and content remains superficial as one cannot continue on previous work. Sensible debates on the basis of previous newscontent in protected media can no longer take place. It prohibits people to react to previously published articles as one cannot refer to the position and point of view of others.

Of course creative works, and journalism is certainly a part of that, need to be protected. However, one may question what purpose is served if two means that are very important in a lively democracy, namely referrals and paraphrasis are put on an overly tight leash.