STOP THE PRESSES!!!

Boston Globe owner threatens to shutdown newspaper

The Boston Globe management warned the newspaper's four unions Sunday that failure to reach a financial concession would force the company to file a notice to shut down, the Guild said in a statement.

The notice would allow The New York Times Co., which owns the Massachusetts newspaper, to close it in 60 days, the Globe reported.

The Times Co. is seeking $10 million from the Boston Newspaper Guild, $5 million from the mailers, $2.5 million from the delivery truck drivers and $2.2 million from the press operators, the Globe said.

The Guild, which is the main union, represents more than 600 editorial, advertising and business office workers, according to the Globe.

"We have provided our unions with a copy of a notice that we are prepared to file if we are unable to reach an agreement by the midnight [Sunday] deadline," Globe spokesman Robert Powers told the newspaper. "This notice is required under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, which requires 60 days advance notice before the closure of a business."

The Guild said the ultimatum was issued after it presented management with a proposal that exceeds the $10 million in cuts demanded.

"This tactic, while expected, is representative of the bullying manner in which the Times Co. has conducted itself during these negotiations," the Guild said in a statement.

"Despite the company's hostile tactics, we continue to negotiate in good faith and work diligently toward an acceptable outcome," it added.

In addition to the about $20 million in givebacks, another key disagreement was over a quest to eliminate job guarantees that affect about 450 union employees, the Globe reported. A Times spokeswoman told the newspaper early Monday that talks were continuing past deadline.

The negotiations follow a gloom outlook for the 137-year-old newspaper, which is expected to lose $85 million in 2009 if it does not make major cuts, according to the Times Co.

The Globe's profits have plummeted as newspaper readers and advertisers have shifted online.

Powers said filing a notice to shut down would be a difficult but necessary option.

"Unfortunately, given the state of the negotiations, it is one we must be prepared to take if negotiations are not successful," he said.

The developments come amid a raft of newspaper closings and cuts that have seen the end of print editions of The Rocky Mountain News in Denver, Colorado; The Seattle Post-Intelligencer; and The Christian Science Monitor.

The Rocky Mountain News shut down completely; both the Seattle paper and the Christian Science Monitor remain in online editions.

The company that owns the Chicago Sun-Times and 58 other newspapers and online sites said in late March that it had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Sun-Times Media Group, Inc. said it would continue to operate its newspapers and Web sites as usual while it improves its cost structure and stabilizes operations.

the Web Without Links?

Should you be sued for linking?

In an age where the web appears to be getting more and more open, with the rise of data portability and everybody sharing stuff with everybody else, it is fascinating to see that a newspaper publisher is suing another one that is linking to its content.

GateHouse Media Inc., which owns 125 Massachusetts newspapers as well as web properties like WickedLocal.com, sued the New York Times Co.. because its Boston.com-run website "Your Town Newton" was posting headlines and small article snippets from WickedLocal.com.

Now the snippets linked to the original site, but that was not good enough for GateHouse. The company claimed that this created confusion over where the content originated, and leads to readers missing out on advertisements from WickedLocal.com's front page.

It seemed that GateHouse was not considering the very real possibility that readers would never have made it to their site in the first place had Boston.com's site not driven them there. Then readers would be missing out on the ads on the article pages too, and frankly, I can't see how that would help GateHouse's cause. Boston.com offers its parent company's stance on the matter:

In a statement, New York Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said the company is simply doing what hundreds of other news sites already do -- aggregate headlines and snippets of relevant stories published elsewhere on the Web -- and believed GateHouse's lawsuit was without merit.

"Far from being illegal or improper, this practice of linking to sites is common and is familiar to anyone who has searched the Web," Mathis said. "It is fair and benefits both Web users and the originating site."

It was like GateHouse was not interested in expanding its web traffic. Traffic comes from links. And many, many sites drive traffic to other sites by doing exactly what Boston.com did. They show article titles and snippets and link to the original.

Ever looked at a Google SERP? Ever shared a link on Facebook? Ever browsed tech news on Techmeme? Digg? Most publications would love to be linked to via these venues.

The two sides have since settled this little argument, the terms of the settlement can be read here (adobe Acrobat reader required, you can get that here) . Under the terms of the settlement, the New New York Times Co. has agreed to remove all GateHouse feeds that contain headlines and ledes from Boston.com.

GateHouse will implement solutions that prevent the copying of its content from its sites and RSS feeds. "Nothing shall prevent either party from linking or deep-linking to the other party's websites," provided that the other conditions are met. The agreement of course applies to all of GateHouse's and the New York Times Co.'s properties.

So there you have it. It's settled, but the topic is still up for debate is it not? Who would've won this case? Fair use still exists right? As Paid Content points out though, the New York Times Co. is in no position to deal with a lengthy and costly legal battle.

To me, it still seems like GateHouse's loss. It should be interesting to see how much difference in traffic there is after losing the Boston.com links. Yes, they can still "link" to them, but I would imagine the rate of links will be drastically reduced. After this, I'd be surprised if they still wanted to link to them anyway.