Tag Archive | "SPH fail"

The Straits Times shoots itself in the foot

The Straits Times shoots itself in the foot

Tags: , , , , , , , ,


Anonymity is a sign of hidden agenda, ST letter writer claims. How true, how true…

By Don’t Tell You, So What?

Two days ago, on Jan. 30, The Straits Times published this letter by a certain Jeffrey Law in its broadsheet as well as its online version:

The gist of the letter? The letter writer claims that objective newspapers are here to stay because anything written by anonymous or pseudonymous contributors cannot be trusted.

 
 
 
 

Now check out The Straits Times report published today (Feb. 1) about the Singapore People’s Party:

Mmmmmm…

Hey! There is no reporter’s name, no byline, nothing whatsover! It is anonymous!

Therefore, using Jeffery Law’s superior logic endorsed by The Straits Times, ST’s coverage of SPP cannot be trusted.

 
 
 
 

How you feel right now:

SPH claims it does not benefit directly from reposts on STOMP?

SPH claims it does not benefit directly from reposts on STOMP?

Tags: , , , , , , ,


What incessant rubbish.

Here’s the story so far: Singapore Press Holdings is planning on suing the bejesus out of Yahoo! for reproducing at least 23 of its articles without permission.

SPH also claims the infringing acts by Yahoo! were “committed for financial gain”, as reported in this Dec. 29, 2011 article by Marcus Lim, The Straits Times’ Assistant News Editor:

 

 

But Yahoo! is not taking things lying down.

In its counter suit, Yahoo! is claiming that SPH’s STOMP reproduced two of its articles and a picture without permission between Oct. 26 and 28 this year.

However, acting as if it’s all okay, SPH is going into denial mode, as they “stressed that it did not receive any financial benefit directly attributable to the alleged infringement”.

 

 

Basically, SPH is claiming that they are innocent simply because:
1. STOMP is dependent on third-party, user-generated content, so SPH cannot be blamed if third-party users want to steal stuff from elsewhere.
2. Ignorance of the origins of material published in STOMP makes a good defence.
3. It’s not really stealing if they’re supposedly not making money off it.

 

 

For everyone’s information and benefit, STOMP makes money from advertisements. This is their advertising rate card:

 

 

So, if the argument is that content found on STOMP does not belong to SPH, pray tell, then why is SPH still making all the money from advertisements found on STOMP?

Even if SPH does not “benefit directly” from the reproduction of individual copyrighted material uploaded by third-party users, don’t they at least make money off STOMP indirectly but collectively, partly because STOMP as a platform has lax standards of verifying the source of materials posted?

Ipso facto, for SPH to claim that it does not “benefit directly” even though they have a financial interest in seeing STOMP aggregate eyeballs to up page views and derive more ad dollars eventually:

 

In other news, SPH has a knack for stealing stuff online: SPH stole from Red Sports, an online sports news outfit.