Daily Times' Unethical Re-Publication Policy

Every time I read a Daily Times article under the banner of "Daily Times Monitor," I instantly become suspicious. Perhaps this is unfair, but the newspaper does have a habit of participating in some rather questionable policies when it comes to the reproduction of third party newspaper articles as evidenced by our earlier posts on the topic which can be viewed here, here and here.

Today's Daily Times has an article under the title of "Pakistan drives Taliban into trap." The first paragraph reads:

"LAHORE: Afghanistan and Pakistan’s ongoing military offensive in the Tribal Areas is chasing Taliban across the border, where they are being intercepted by a United States-Afghan security initiative, a US commander said, according to a report in The Washington Times on Friday."

I located the Washington Times article which is titled "Pakistan drives militants into trap" and the first paragraph of this article reads:

JALALABAD, Afghanistan| Pakistan's ongoing military offensive in its northwest tribal areas is chasing insurgents across the border, where they are being intercepted by a U.S.-Afghan security initiative, a U.S. commander says.

Notice the subtle differences starting from the title.

For the next seven paragraphs, the Daily Times reproduces the Washington Times article in the exact order, with minor changes such as "militants" becoming "terrorists" in paragraph 3.

But then things start getting interesting as the Daily Times arbitrarily starts leaving out whole passages from the original article. The omissions in full are listed at the end of this post.

It has always been my suspicion that the Daily Times does not license these articles from the parent publications, and imagines that using the Daily Times Monitor moniker somehow allows it to get around Copyright law. It doesn't. The only fair use of the article would be for the Daily Times to refer to the Washington Times article without reprinting the content, which is the practice adopted my most newspapers.

The Washington Times makes things easier for us by listing an online link to its syndication service. Unfortunately this site does not list the charges for daily or weekly newspapers, however, what it does provide us with, is a copy of the Terms of Use Content License Agreement.

So let's assume that the Daily Times legally purchased the article from Washington Times, it would then be bound by a similar Terms of Use Content License Agreement. The Agreement clearly states that:

You shall not modify, edit, change or alter in any manner the Content, or create any derivative works therefrom, including translation of the Content.

Well, the Daily Times did modify the content and that too pretty substantially. This leads me to believe that even if they did purchase the article (which I HIGHLY doubt) they violated the License Agreement.

Now let's assume that the Daily Times sought prior consent from the Washington Times regarding the changes and omissions to the article. It still doesn't clear the Daily Times.

The Daily Times fails to mention the name of the writer Jason Motlagh, and the contributor Sara A. Carter. The original piece was not from a wire piece, it was a news paper article and it is the moral right of the writer to be attributed whenever and where ever the article is published. This right is enshrined in the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, of which Pakistan is a signatory and therefore Daily Times act of not attributing the article to its author is a direct violation of the law.

The Daily Times is a visible national newspaper, headed by a respected editor and bank rolled by a rich and famous businessman and politician. Surely, they can spend a few thousand dollars in legally purchasing content, especially if they are incapable with coming up with content of their own. Worst of all, even when they steal they manage to screw up the simple task of reproducing - notice the mention of Afghanistan and Pakistan in the opening paragraph of the article. Imbeciles.

List of Omissions:

• Pakistan has faced mounting U.S. pressure to reassert control over its Federally Administered Tribal Areas, which have long served as a sanctuary for Afghan Taliban and al Qaeda.

  Since August, the Pakistan Army and Frontier Corps have waged a grinding offensive in Bajaur Agency, a lawless region about half the size of Rhode Island that is suspected to be a hide-out for al Qaeda's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri.
  

• Several areas in Bajaur have been subject to "cordon-search and clearance operations,"[Nadeem Kiani, Pakistan Embassy spokesman in Washington] said. The "Bajaur operation is progressing well regardless of [the] gathering threat on our eastern borders or harsh winter weather."
  

• Bajaur is adjacent to Kunar province, currently the most violent in Afghanistan.

  A host of insurgent groups, led by the Hezb-e-Islami of former Afghan mujahedeen chief Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, are operating in the region. He was a CIA-funded proxy during the war against the Soviets in the 1980s.

  Fighting in Kunar has been concentrated in the Korengal Valley. In July, nine U.S. soldiers were killed and a base was almost overrun in nearby Wanat village, the biggest single loss of American life to date. The 2008 U.S. death toll of U.S. troops in Afghanistan was 151, the highest since the war began in 2001.
  

• Several bridges and a paved road are to be built along the Kunar river to better integrate the area, and an additional 400 Afghan border police are to be trained and equipped.

  The arrival of hundreds of reinforcements from the 10th Mountain Division will make this easier, Col. Spiszer said, enabling him to monitor stretches of border where insurgents still regularly cross over from Bajaur.

  "Now I can't stop everybody from getting in, but hundreds more U.S. and Afghan forces is going to make a big difference," he said.