Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jeremymims 4771 days ago
This analysis is tragically incorrect. The Times legal department in no way represents the Times newsroom or the developers who made Snow Fall. Reporters and developers love tools that let them tell stories like Snow Fall more quickly and inexpensively. There is only one reason the NY Times hasn't made another story like Snow Fall in the last 5 months: It's too damn expensive and time-consuming to replicate in a one-off way.

I work with hundreds of newspapers and a dozen or so have contacted me to ask how they could use Scroll Kit's technology in the past few days. In fact, one of my larger top-100 newspaper clients signed up to use Scroll Kit this week. They won't be the only ones.

In case you haven't noticed, newspapers need to find new ways of making money. And they needed it yesterday. Folks trying to monetize newspapers aren't worried about someone copying their article to demonstrate a use case (hell, this event probably drove meaningful traffic to the original), they're worried that they're not going to be able to stay in business. If you were like any digital director around the country, you didn't give a shit about copyright infringement. You only salivated over all the cool things you could be making and monetizing. Since most newspapers have no way of creating a Snow Fall type of article themselves, they'll use Scroll Kit, they'll use it at scale, and they'll sell premium ad units to monetize these articles in a more effective way than normal content. From my viewpoint, that's a real positive for those of us trying to keep journalism alive. All the surrounding conversation about copyright infringement is just so completely missing the point that it might as well be arguing about the right way to polish the brass on the Titanic.

2 comments

finally! someone in this mess says something of substance!

jeremymims said:

> I work with hundreds of newspapers and

> a dozen or so have contacted me to ask

> how they could use Scroll Kit's technology

> in the past few days. In fact,

> one of my larger top-100 newspaper clients

> signed up to use Scroll Kit this week.

> They won't be the only ones.

looks like scrollkit's gambit, as misguided as it was, actually _worked_ for them. :+)

-bowerbird

p.s. and maybe _i've_ made a mistake calling it "misguided". in one sense, sure, it was stupid to use copyrighted content from a protective source. but can anyone honestly argue that the brouhaha didn't get extra juice because it was "snow fall"? would an example based on "pride and prejudice" have garnered so much attention? yeah, right... i mean, i thought cody was a bit crazy because it seemed like he expected praise for scrollkit and he ended up with a shitstorm instead. but maybe, just maybe, he was crazy like a fox, and knew that a shitstorm was exactly what he needed right now.

So, the ends justify the means and it's all good because at least his startup got some publicity? Even if the "publicity" turns out to be a net win, what a terrible way to conduct yourself.
oh, puleeze. it's not as if they drowned orphan children.

they merely copied some text and pictures and stuff, and not for the purpose of "stealing" it, but to do a demo...

it's entirely possible a jury -- if it'd come to that -- would have ruled that what they did constituted fair use.

it hardly qualifies as "a terrible way to conduct yourself." indeed, in my opinion, such a charge borders on ludicrous.

plus recall, in america, you're innocent until proven guilty.

-bowerbird

Ease off on the rhetoric. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I don't think anyone did anything illegal and, for what it's worth, I thought the Times' lawyering was dumb and hamfisted at best.

But there was a right way for scroll kit to handle this and there was the wrong, easy way they chose. They could've said "Have you been blown away by features like The New York Times' 'Snowfall' or Pitchfork's cover stories? We'd like to show you Scroll Kit." And then put together their own demo video with their own work without a smarmy "it took us an hour to do what the Times did in months".

It's classless and low. But they got the publicity they wanted and seem to have a fan in you. Hoo ray.

OP here! Awesome stuff @jeremymims. Thanks for the insights.

"All the surrounding conversation about copyright infringement is just so completely missing the point" <- I completely agree, and that is my point. Scrollkit made a big deal out of the copyright issue, and that wasn't needed. At best they ended up with muddling noise- I think they could have taken their demo, pitched it to a few high-profile newsrooms, then made a big deal about changing the way XXX company delivers news. Instead, they had a very public spat with someone they should have been announcing a partnership with. If I had to pick one, I'd pick the former.

If this mess has landed Scrollkit a few customers, great. I suspect they could land more if they work with media companies instead of trashing their legal departments on a blog post :-p