Thursday, October 11, 2012

International News Service v. Associated Press (1918) (stealing news)


a.       Facts- P and D are both involved in the news industry. D actively takes news from bulletins that P publishes, and uses the news to publish their own articles. P and D are direct competitors.
b.      Procedural History- Trial Ct found for P, Ct of appeals affirmed, U.S. Sup Ct affirmed
c.       Issue-
                                                              i.      Whether “news” can be considered “property”
                                                            ii.      Whether the D’s admitted appropriation of P’s news for commercial use constitutes unfair competition in trade, thus allowing lawful restraining of D
d.      Holding-
                                                              i.      Yes, the substantive “news” (not the form or the actual words it is presented with—re copyright law) is considered quasi property
                                                            ii.      Yes, D’s admitted appropriation of P’s news for commercial use DOES, in fact, constitute unfair competition, and D can be lawfully restrained from such actions
e.       Rule- There is quasi property in the “news” that a news agency makes against other news agencies. It is unfair for a news agency to takes another agency’s news and present it as their own
f.       Rationale-
                                                              i.      Because P and D are both in the business of “news”, we can treat the “news” that P acquires as quasi property…thus vesting property rights in P. For D to appropriate this quasi property for D’s own economic gain is to exploit the work of P. In other words, P does all the hard work and D takes the credit
                                                            ii.      POLICY: If we allow wrongful appropriation of news for economic gain, there would be no economic incentive for “first responders” in news to carry out their business. Ex: News companies would simply wait until another “creates” news, then re-report it
                                                          iii.      Of course, once the news is published, readers can transfer intelligence in said news to others…so long as an economic infringement is NOT taking place
                                                          iv.      “Instead of D selling their goods as P’s goods….D is selling P’s goods as D’s own”
g.      Notes:
                                                              i.      This case analyzes the legal relationship between the two Corps, NOT the P and the general public
                                                            ii.      The Ct wants news to be available to the public…the Ct does NOT want to discourage this
                                                          iii.      Just because you discover the news does NOT mean that you exclusively own it…you can NOT copyright it
                                                          iv.      P and D are in “direct competition” with each other
                                                            v.      The Legislature is who says “what intellectual property” belongs to who
                                                          vi.      When do you get, if ever, an IP law right?
1.      In terms of against the world, you get no rights
2.      This is not about property rights, it’s about unfair competition
                                                        vii.      The idea is to prevent monopolies…the Cts want to promote fair competition. Competition is the best thing for consumers because it promotes good quality products and lowers prices
                                                      viii.      Contrast to a company that doesn’t rely on the data to make money (NBA)…by me reporting the scores in real-time doesn’t mean that the NBA is going to stop playing basketball games
1.      Think about: “what will happen to a certain industry once this ‘stealing’ happens?”
                                                          ix.      “INS” is applied very narrowly
1.      Demise of economic venture
2.      Direct competition
3.      Strict applicability to “hot news”

No comments:

Post a Comment