Article
NewsNow.co.uk hits back in battle with UK newspapers
UK's largest news aggregator publishes open letter denying it is undermining publishers' businesses
NewsNow.co.uk placed the open letter to the UK's newspapers above its aggregated news
Aggregating links to internet news is a common battleground, and not only for Google News. NewsNow.co.uk, the UK's largest news aggregator, is facing legal action from several publishers, which it answered with a prominently placed open letter on its homepage, clicked now over 60,000 times according to their own account. Obvioulsy the interest in this issue is still alive and kicking.
NewsNow.co.uk has been aggregating links since it was founded in 1997 and has a 20% market share, second only to Google. It attracts more than 2 million users and more than 100m page views a month.
However, the publishers of several newspapers – among them the Times, the Sun, the Daily Mail, the Daily Mirror, the Daily Telegraph, the Independent, the Daily Express and the Guardian – are putting increasing pressure on the company for linking to their content for free and are demanding compensation. News International, which publishes the Sun, the Times and the News of the World, wants NewsNow.co.uk to stop its linking completely, with Rupert Murdoch calling news aggregators "content kleptomaniacs".
The NewsNow managing director and chairman, Struan Bartlett, responded with an open letter to the publishers saying: "We don't redistribute your web pages to anyone. We operate within the law, and we don't do you any harm."
NewsNow.co.uk is arguing that there are no explicit statutory protections for the operations of intermediary hyperlink providers under UK law, and that NewsNow's business is in enabling people to find others' content, not in reselling it.
"We deliver you traffic and drive you revenues you otherwise wouldn't have received," the open latter states. "The idea that we are undermining your businesses is incorrect. It is fanciful to imagine that, if it weren't for link aggregators, you would have more traffic or revenues. We provide a service that you do not: a means for readers to find your content more readily, via continuously updating links to a diversity of websites."
Both sides have their point. Indeed, it is hard to say exactly where "news" as a product starts and where it stops. Aggregators deliver traffic to news sites, but they also deliver an overview of the current news by aggregating the headlines – a service traditionally provided by newspapers and other news sources.
Related Content
User Comments
MercedesBunz
4 November 2009 3:15PM
I am sorry, but the letter was published on October 20th, which was 2 weeks ago, not three. However you are right, still that is nothing new, except that the interest of the readers is something that is worth reporting as 60,000 is a figure that is at least a bit impressive.
Still, I don't agree that only because someone (me in this case) is not on one side, that means an analysis is not strong. Or wrong. The discussion about news aggregation is complex and interesting, because both sides have their point. Generally I am never afraid in taking one's side and get a punch on my nose for it, but in this case the issue is more complex than right or wrong. I think.
But if there is a story we are missing, which happens from time to time, mail us and give me a hint, that would be nice.
passaport
4 November 2009 3:27PM
yeah, you told him, or her!
it's TWO weeks old, not three.
what a joke.
other headlines coming soon on MediaGuardian:
Robbie leaves Take That!
Stan and Ollie! New comedy duo rock Hollywood!
England Win World Cup!
incidentally, just while you're whining about not getting enough tip offs from people so you can, er, do your job.. this story was reported on journalism.co.uk a fortnight ago. So here's a tip for ya .. read the opposition.
and as for
except that the interest of the readers is something that is worth reporting as 60,000 is a figure that is at least a bit impressive.
you do a one-woman job of making the case for sub-editors.
passaport
4 November 2009 3:28PM
in fact, it would have been better if you'd just stopped your reply after the first three words...
LiamJ
4 November 2009 3:53PM
Yes, and the aggregators also allow readers to dip into a number of newspaper sites, whilst the newspapers themselves may prefer readers to visit their site and browse around for information, get lost in the cluster of content. Aggregators are useful but might prevent papers building 'loyal followers' - or dependants (perhaps how Murdoch sees them)
andrewh780
5 November 2009 10:33AM
This article restates a number of inaccurate assertions made by News Now. The Newspaper Licensing Agency is licensing web aggregators from 2010 but only for paid-for monitoring, Please see our site www.nla-web.com or this interview http://econsultancy.com/blog/4902-the-nla-explains-why-it-is-going-after-the-news-aggregators for an accurate explanation of this scheme.
cronkcronk
5 November 2009 12:09PM
why is this tosh still up on the home page?
i thought one of the advantages of digital publishing was that when you discovered an article was a load of half-arsed baloney, you could at least slip it off quietly to the back of the queue and hope everyone forgot about it. Or better still kill it.
but is media guardian really so hard up for news that it persists with promoting nonsense like this?
confused, genuinely.
cronk cronk
ReasonbleNortherner
5 November 2009 12:42PM
Why no quote from anyone at the Newspaper Licensing Agency?
This item is sadly typical of the one-sided coverage of digital media matters where the spotty young dotcom start up is always in the right and is being done down by the crustry old publisher / retailer / record company which is never given a chance to present its side of any story. And when they are they are questioned along the lines of 'when did you stop beating your wife'.
If NewsNow is making money from aggregating other people's material -- which it is through its subscription services -- why shouldn't they pay the people that go to the trouble of originating it.
ORSalieri
6 November 2009 9:44AM
Reasonble Northerner
If you are interested in the NLA point of view, the post in the thread from andrewh780 is from the NLA and links to their material. I declare an interest: I work for a company advising the NLA.
cronkcronk
4 November 2009 2:31PM
this letter has been up on their site for about THREE weeks.
And you state that newspapers are putting pressure on NewsNow for compensation. Have you called any of the newspapers you name and asked them if this is true? because it isn't.
try calling the NLA and getting a quote from them.
and "both sides have their point". i see the guardian's reputation for cutting edge analysis is still going strong.
there is a good story here if you could only be bothered unearthing it.