Monday, October 12, 2015

Was a Supreme Court Justice Messing With Matt Drudge's Head

In a comment that is taking on a life of its own, during an appearance on Alex Jones’s Infowars.
Matt Drudge said:
[On the future of digital copyright] I had a Supreme Court justice tell me to my face it’s over for me. He said,"Matt, it’s over for you. They’ve got the votes now to enforce copyright law. You’re out of there. They’re gonna make it so headlines–you can’t even use headlines."

You thought Obamacare was shocking… wait until these copyright laws work their way up, and the Supreme Court decides you cannot have a website with news headlines linking across the board. Then that will end for me. 
It is difficult for me to see why any major news organization would have a problem with headlines and links being copied.

Links drive traffic. And Matt Drudge is at the top of the traffic driving list. He is driving major traffic to all the top news media outlets. It is extremely valuable traffic. In fact, any day of the week, all day long, I would pay Drudge $5,000 for every link that he would put up to this site and I would still make money.

That said, maybe there is some insane news media outfit that would like to see Drudge knocked out in the hopes they would gain ALL his traffic. But that doesn't make good sense. Drudge links to mostly major news organizations that Drudge visitors are not likely to go to on their own.

Further, the prohibiting of links and headlines, would also be a problem for Google search engines.

Now, Hillary Clinton, and some other politicians might want Drudge knocked off, but I don't think the crony designers of the trade bill do, so I really doubt it is going to happen.



  1. Yeah, I agree. I don't think that will happen any time soon. It would kill many more sites than just Drudge.

  2. You can't force people to read Drudge but you can tax them if they don't?

  3. Insane thought pattern. In another medium, this could prevent speech for someone to say "go over there to Starbucks, they've got a great coffee there." That's in effect a link. Or, someone creates a billboard that notes "read the USA Today article about Barack Obama." How can that be copyright protected?

  4. I've come to the conclusion there is news and other things that are written that aren't supposed to be read. Linking to them is what gets people like Drudge disliked. That story that got buried by the mainstream media, that government document that's public but nobody is supposed to read. Drudge can bring those things out in front of people with his links. They aren't supposed to be in front. They are just supposed to be there for the record, not for people to read and think about.

    So if they can change the copyright law to prevent direct linking there is better control over information. Drudge could write something and cite the source, maybe link the front page, but then has to search it out himself. Most won't do that. It's much easier to call something a conspiracy theory when the appropriate sources can't be readily at hand.

  5. Lately I'm experiencing problems getting Drudge to come up. In fact for 2or 3 days now, it won't come when I click onto Drudge. Is the government already messing with them? I know the president hates them. And since they got away with targeting conservatives using the IRS--is it any wonder this thought comes to mind?