In another of those court decisions that infuriate critics of intellectual property, Judge Denise Cote, of the United States District Court in New York, ruled in favor of Barclays, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley. The banks claimed that the website, theflyonthewall.com, violated their copyright when it published headline news like changes in stock ratings link here. The site must now wait until 10 a.m. to publish news about research that was issued before the 9:30 a.m. opening bell or if issued during the day, by a full two hours.

The court found that fair use was topped by the "hot news" doctrine, which protects organizations from theft by competitors. The ruling clearly gives big Wall Street clients a head start each trading day. "The banks claimed Fly's practice of publishing pieces of research reports almost instantly undercut their work by making key nuggets meant for exclusive client use available to a wider audience immediately. Why would clients pay big money those reports--which themselves cost the banks money to produce--if Fly was going to publish the important stuff right away? link here

Fly will appeal. The monopolists win, if only for the moment, but the lawyers profit, no matter what.

"The court found that fair use was topped by the "hot news" doctrine, which protects organizations from theft by competitors."

Where's the theft here? "Theft" is a very, very inappropriate expression for it and the "hot news" doctrine itself an aggression to the community as a whole.

I saw this, this morning. See the CNBC video: Judge Puts Brakes on Financial News Site

I hope that Becky is simply taking the pro-copyright position for the sake of discussion and that she does not really mean it.

Ludicrous. Short, purely-factual statements cannot be copyrighted. This must get overturned on appeal.

The judge even basically admits that there's no real copyright infringement here by not simply barring the site from publishing the stuff altogether, and awarding damages of $750+ per infringement. That the judge did not prescribe the standard remedy in cases of copyright infringement will surely be a factor in that appeal, and can be used to show that the judge realized that there was no actual infringement and should have found for the defendant, but instead basically decided to make the law up as she went along, presumably out of misplaced sympathy for the plaintiff. Grounds for overturning on appeal if ever I saw such.

Beeswax:

Even if short statements could be copyrighted, and you are correct that they cannot, you should still be able to say something like "Bank X reports that they have upgraded/downgraded investment Q." Factual information is not protected by copyright, nor can it be, nor will it be.

You are correct that an appeal will overturn this ruling. I suspect that the overturned ruling will be harshly worded, as well, with a bit of education for the judge involved.

Beeswax:

Even if short statements could be copyrighted, and you are correct that they cannot, you should still be able to say something like "Bank X reports that they have upgraded/downgraded investment Q." Factual information is not protected by copyright, nor can it be, nor will it be.

You are correct that an appeal will overturn this ruling. I suspect that the overturned ruling will be harshly worded, as well, with a bit of education for the judge involved.

You all are, sadly, mistaken. I agree with your positions, but the Judge has the law correct, as much as you might disagree with it. Hot news misappropriation is a real cause of action, and the Second Circuit (to whom FlyOnTheWall is now appealing) recognized it as such. See NBA v. Motorola, 105 F.3d 841 (2d Cir. 1997). The law basically says that you can't take other people's information and sell it yourself in direct competition with the people who generated that information. So what FlyOnTheWall did that was wrong was take the banks' research and sell it itself in competition with the banks' own distribution channels.

By the way, if you are interested in actually learning more about this bizarre "hot news misappropriation" doctrine and where it comes from, the Judge's opinion actually does a decent job of explaining it: http://www1.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=109. Scroll to about halfway through or so. I had no idea this tort existed but it dates back a long time.

Bob writes:

You all are, sadly, [insult deleted].

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

I agree with your positions, but the Judge has the law correct, as much as you might disagree with it.

Nope.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service we have the following:

It is a long-standing principle of United States copyright law that "information" is not copyrightable, O'Connor notes, but "collections" of information can be. Rural claimed a collection copyright in its directory. The court clarified that the intent of copyright law was not, as claimed by Rural and some lower courts, to reward the efforts of persons collecting information, but rather "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (U.S. Const. 1.8.8), that is, to encourage creative expression.

Since facts are purely copied from the world around us, O'Connor concludes, "the sine qua non of copyright is originality". However, the standard for creativity is extremely low. It need not be novel, rather it only needs to possess a "spark" or "minimal degree" of creativity to be protected by copyright.

In regard to collections of facts, O'Connor states that copyright can only apply to the creative aspects of collection: the creative choice of what data to include or exclude, the order and style in which the information is presented, etc., but not on the information itself. If Feist were to take the directory and rearrange them it would destroy the copyright owned in the data.

What this says is: Even if one argues that the data being republished by the blog contained some copyrightable original expression, all the blog needs to do to be non-infringing is to rephrase it in their own words, thus keeping the facts but replacing all of the original expression with their own original expression.

Facts cannot be copyrighted. Period. The opinion of the Supreme Court trumps that of some dipshit judge in New York.

The law basically says that you can't take other people's information and sell it yourself in direct competition with the people who generated that information.

a) That is not at all what copyright law says.

b) FlyOnTheWall wasn't selling it anyway. Blogs post information for free and sell ad space, as a rule.

Look, "None of Your Beeswax," I agree with you on the merits. But you don't know as much as you seem to think. This decision DID NOT REST ON COPYRIGHT LAW. Indeed, facts cannot be copyrighted. The decision rested on state unfair competition law, and more specifically, on the tort of hot-news misappropriation.

Also, if you look at Fly's website, they clearly sell their service as a subscription --it's not a blog.

Bob, as a general rule, most people who post on this blog think they know more than they do. It's hard to see intelligent commentary on anything legal. I suggest you head elsewhere and don't waste your time here.

Anonymouse:

Careful. You will inspire the ire of the Against Baloney crowd and they will regal you with their legal expertise. Oh, wait. There is no legal expertise needed because all needs are market driven. What you will get is a purist "The Market God Knows All" position that ignores real life.

If you are looking for knowledge and wisdom here, all I can say is YOU'RE GETTING COLD!

Bob:

Good Lord, man. You have attracted the attention of the Great and Powerful Glandular Secretion of Apus. You are DOOMED. You will have to hear "None of the nasty things you have said or implied about me are at all true," followed by a parrot squawking noise, and possibly a whistle. In fact, to every factual argument you make, you will hear this incantation, followed by diversionary tactics intended to drive you insane, possibly to get others to become as crazy as she is.

Good luck! You will need it.

Hey guys, Halloween isn't until October. So what's with all the wackos coming out of the woodwork today?

Bob writes:

Look, "None of Your Beeswax," I agree with you on the merits. But you [insult deleted].

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

This decision DID NOT REST ON COPYRIGHT LAW.

From the O.P.:

The banks claimed that the website, theflyonthewall.com, violated their copyright when it published headline news like changes in stock ratings link here.

John Bennett is privileged to be able to make top-level posts here, and does so under his full, real name. You're an effectively-anonymous random commenter. Which am I going to believe, when you directly contradict each other?

From Bob:

Also, if you look at Fly's website, they clearly sell their service as a subscription --it's not a blog.

From Bennett:

The banks claimed Fly's practice of publishing pieces of research reports almost instantly undercut their work by making key nuggets meant for exclusive client use available to a wider audience immediately.

So which is it? They were in the same business as the banks, selling to some exclusive clientele, or they were publishing this stuff for general public consumption? Once again, you're contradicting the O.P. If you think the O.P. got the facts wrong, take it up with him (and stop flaming me).

Alonniemouse, inevitably, rears his ugly head:

Bob, as a general rule, most people who post on this blog [insult deleted][insults the entire blog]

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me or about Against Monopoly are at all true.

If you don't like this blog, Lonnie, I suggest that you "head elsewhere and don't waste your time here".

Careful. You will inspire the ire of the Against Baloney crowd and they will regal you with their legal expertise.

Well, we are against baloney, but this site is where we fight a particular subspecies of baloney, namely, the type of baloney spouted by pro-IP nuts like Lonnie here.

Oh, wait. There is no legal expertise needed because all needs are market driven. What you will get is a purist "The Market God Knows All" position that ignores real life.

You probably will, in a while, and probably from Stephan Kinsella. That much I'll grant you.

If you are looking for knowledge and wisdom here, all I can say is [insult deleted]!

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about Against Monopoly are at all true.

Good Lord, man. You have attracted the attention of [insult deleted]. [numerous insults deleted]. [incorrect speculation as to my sex deleted].

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

I was impressed when I read an article found by http://www.torrentbasket.com saying that a federal appeals court on Thursday lifted a lower court's order that a well-known financial news aggregator delay publication of prominent financial analysts' buy and sell recommendations stock picks that allowed the well-to-do the first crack at capitalizing on that trading research. The appeals court essentially stayed a New York federal judge's ruling that Theflyonthewall breached the doctrine, which allows suits for re-reporting time sensitive "hot news." The banks' research that Theflyonthewall reposted or alluded to on its site was designated for the banks' clients that earn the various firms at least $50,000 to $100,000 in trading commissions yearly, the banks argued.

So by this argument, I can go over to finance.yahoo.com, scrape all the financial data, since it's all facts in the public domain and create my own competing service?

In theory, yes. Of course, your service will always be playing catch-up, just a wee bit behind the Yahoo site...

The appeals court essentially stayed a New York federal judge's ruling that Theflyonthewall breached the doctrine, which allows suits for re-reporting time sensitive "hot news." The banks' research that Theflyonthewall reposted or alluded to on its site was designated for the banks' clients that earn the various firms at least $50,000 to $100,000 in trading commissions yearly, the banks argued.Read an article at XspyZ

Very strange situation unfolding in the financial market Personally I do not think the positive aspect of the openness and universal access to such information. Primarily because it can be used not quite humane purposes. This is the thesis that should form the basis of possible changes!

Don't be ridiculous. The efficient markets hypothesis specifically requires that buyers and sellers know as much as possible about the products and the market conditions. Which means markets require transparency to work properly.

They were in the same business as the banks, selling to some exclusive clientele, or they were publishing this stuff for general public consumption? Once again, you're contradicting the O.P. If you think the O.P. got the facts wrong, take it up with him by verified

I will take any debate up that I please, with anyone that would debate it with me, and especially against anyone who publicly says anything that might besmirch my good name, thank you very much.

I really enjoyed reading this post. Keep up the good work. When can you publish more articles? Where can I read more about this? Thankyou on behalf of the Dating Sites team.

I think I actually preferred people arguing here to this silence punctuated only by occasional posts that just say they agree or whatever and don't really add anything to the discussion.

I think I actually preferred [insult deleted!] arguing here to this silence punctuated only by occasional posts that just say they agree or whatever and [aspersion of verbiage deleted].

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about Dating Sites are at all true.

Is that better?

No, not really. The topic of monopoly and its evils is preferable.

I really enjoyed reading this post, big fan. Keep up the good work and please tell me when can you publish more articles or where can I read more on the subject? Thankyou on behalf of the Muscle Building Supplements team.

I really enjoyed reading this post, big fan. Keep up the good work and please tell me when can you publish more articles or where can I read more on the subject? Thankyou on behalf of the Communication Skills team.

And you posted all of that twice under two slightly different names because?

That's true what you say about Lawyers. Whether they're on the side of good or evil, it doesn't matter because the always get the green. What's with the [insult deleted] comments? Is it an inside joke? dmaa

"Morgan Stanley believes this is the right decision as it recognizes and protects each bank's intellectual property," a spokeswoman, Carissa Ramirez, said by e-mail of today's ruling.

Bill Halldin, a spokesman for Merrill Lynch, called the decisions " an important milestone in regaining control over the distribution of our proprietary research and preserving the value of our investment ideas for our clients."

Charles Davis, executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition at the University of Missouri in Columbia, said he was unaware of the trial and it might prove significant. Audio books torrents

This is interesting.

No it isn't.

Let professionals deal with your academic papers we provide professional thesis writing service, we specialize in a wide range of academic disciplines and possess different degrees for any academic level at affordable prices resume writing service

And you posted this off-topic comment here because?

NN:

These things are produced by bots. You're wasting your time by responding to them, as well as the time of others who feel as you do. The difference is that other people don't waste anyone's time, including their own, by responding to them. Please stop responding to them.

These things are produced by bots.

Can't be -- this site uses a captcha.

And regardless, I will occasionally comment on these inane and non-contributing comments until the admins take some kind of action on the issue. My posts aren't really meant for whoever's posting the comments -- it's long became clear that whoever or whatever they are they are ignoring negative feedback -- they're meant for the site admins, who for some inexplicable reason seem otherwise to be oblivious.

writer jobs yes, i agree

writer jobs yes, i agree

Jim wrote:

This is a nice site.

Yes, it is. It's a shame douchebags like you are ruining it.

"The court found that fair use was topped by the "hot news" doctrine, which protects organizations from theft by competitors." Why these kind of cases are saved by just a few slightly different meaning words or a single page document? 1 3 dimethylamylamine

I wanted to know about the subject matter, when I read your post, I observed that you tried to provide valued information regarding subject. It is a great effort; please provide more information regarding subject for improvement of your reader's knowledge.