Usually newspapers are big defenders of free speech, but not the Washington Post. It gave Ian Shapira, one of its reporters, nearly 2000 words to complain that a website had ripped off his story. The problem was not that the website had plagiarized the piece. Shapira acknowledged that his story was credited and even linked to by the website, which was a major source of readers for the original article. However, Shapira is upset that the website may have made money off his work, because it sell ads based on viewership. In this case, the website piece based on Shapira's article drew 9,500 views. By way of response, Shapira wants "news organizations" to have the right to sue others that use their work without permission and profit from it. This is a fascinating proposal coming from a "news organization." Let's think this one through for a moment. First, Shapira does not even know that he was harmed by the website piece. It is entirely possible that more people viewed his piece on the Post's site as a result of the version appearing on the website. So, if Shapira had his way, fewer people might have seen his piece. That may be a good thing, but how does he benefit from this? There is a simple point that anyone who knows economics (taboo at the Post) would make. If people opt to read the piece on another website rather than the Post, then there must be some reason. Obviously they prefer something about this alternative venue. Perhaps the layout is better, the mix of articles is better, or maybe the person who wrote the spinoff piece for the website is a better writer. If the protectionist measure advocated in this piece succeeded in shutting down the competition, then there would be a clear loss to readers. This loss would likely dwarf the loss to consumers that the Post routinely whines about so loudly when anyone suggests a tariff on imports or any other barrier to trade. After all, those forms of protection rarely add more than 10-15 percent to the price of a product. In this case, the Post's proposal may make the product unavailable altogether. Yet again, we see that protectionism is just fine with "free traders." The only issue is who is being protected. Finally, let's consider what the enforcement of the Post's measure looks like. First who is a "news organization?" Is this a title that one registers for with the government? Does the Post get the title but not its website competitors? I suppose those big bucks dinners with lobbyists and policymakers really are worth something. As a practical matter, it would be an incredible affront to the first amendment if the Post and other major newspapers and established news outlets were given any special ability to sue under such an act, compared to websites or for that matter think tanks. (If someone takes the major findings of a CEPR paper and uses it for a newspaper article, should we able to sue, even if we are credited [often we're not]?) In reality, this proposal is a recipe for a vast legal morass that would result in the bullying of small websites by "news organizations" that could afford to hire high-powered lawyers. It is a protectionist measure that both carries high economic costs and is an obstacle to the exercise of free speech. There is one legitimate point in this piece: the current newspaper model is not viable. But rather than trying to save the horse and buggy industry by outlawing the automobile, how about trying to adapt. There are alternative ways to support news writing and other creative work that take advantage of the possibilities offered by the web, rather than trying to stifle them. Unfortunately the Post is not interested in alternatives to their business model (I've tried). The problem is that we have a creative class that is just not very creative. So instead we get the comical sight of a newspaper arguing against free speech.
--Dean Baker
