Enjoy these first two paragraphs, that's all you get of the entire NS article, by NS Press Department decree!

It would be wrong to call dairy farming a shit job. But workers on dairy farms do have to deal with vast quantities of manure. In fact, they inevitably end up breathing in a lot of dust consisting largely of dried manure, along with all the bacteria that grew in it. That sounds unhealthy, and in some ways it is, but it does have one benefit: dairy farmers are as much as five times less likely to develop lung cancer.

As strange as it sounds, epidemiologists are starting to uncover some unexpected links between our exposure to dirt and germs, and our risk of cancer later in life. Children who attend daycare in their first few months are much less likely to develop leukaemia than those who stay at home, for instance, while some tuberculosis vaccines reduce the risk of skin cancer. Such findings point towards a curious possibility.

In February 2008, the NS press office contacted Sott and requested that the main body of this article be removed from our site. We were accused of copyright infringement. The following is an email exchange between Sott and NS staff members. Judge for yourself the logic of the New Scientist's policies:
H,G (RBI-UK) wrote:

As part of our media monitoring, we have been notified that an original New Scientist article appears on http://www.sott.net/article/147941-Fighting-cancer-with-filth.

This appears to be without our consent.

All material that appears in New Scientist (both in print and online) is the copyright of Reed Business Information Ltd and its reproduction requires copyright permission in advance. As we have not granted permission for this article to be posted on your site I am asking that you remove it immediately. We reserve the right to take such action as we consider appropriate to protect such copyright. Please let me know under what authorisation you posted this article. We take such breaches of copyright very seriously and I look forward to hearing from you soon on this urgent matter.

Press Office
New Scientist
Lacon House, 84 Theobald's Rd, London, WC1X 8NS, UK
t: +44 (0)20 7611 1206
f: +44 (0)20 7611 1290
email: xxxxxxxx@rbi.co.uk

From: Joe [mailto:joe@sott.net]
Sent: 31 January 2008 19:05
To: H,G (RBI-UK);
Subject: Re: Copyright Infringement

Hi H,

the New Scientist article that appeared on Sott.net was reproduced under the provisions and requirements of European Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.

This directive (specifically in Articles 2 and 3) stipulates that EU member states must provide for the exclusive right for authors to authorise or prohibit direct or indirect, temporary or permanent reproduction by any means and in any form, in whole or in part of their work.

However, Chapter II (Exceptions and limitations) Article 5, subsection 3 (a) of Directive 2001/29/EC details the cases where exceptions or limitations to the Directive apply.

One such exception or limitation states that the original copyrighted work may be reproduced when:

"use [is] for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching or scientific research, as long as the source, including the author's name, is indicated, unless this turns out to be impossible and to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved;"

Sott.net is not a business. Its owners generate no direct income from copyrighted works reproduced on Sott.net. All content on Sott.net (copyright or original) is made freely available to the public in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, scientific and social justice issues.

We believe that our use of the New Scientist article conforms to the requirements of EU Directive 2001/21/EC and therefore does not constitute copyright infringement.

The full text of Directive 2001/29/EC can be read at this link

I hope this answers your question as to under what authorisation we reproduced the NS article. If however you have any further questions please feel free to contact me.

Kind regards
Joe Quinn
Editor, Sott.net

JMF (RBI-CMA) wrote:

Dear Joe,

Thanks for your response to Henry. The European Directive that you link to states that exceptions "shall only be applied in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder"

New Scientist operates under the laws of England - without checking I am unsure how this directive has been implemented in England - but I think reproducing our article in its entirety and without our permission impacts negatively on our subscription business. New Scientist is world-renowned for the quality of its writing and journalism. As an editor I am sure that you are aware of the high costs of producing such quality material, and we need to recoup those costs through subscription sales.

I'd therefore appreciate if you could remove the New Scientist article at:

Best wishes, J

Online Publisher
New Scientist

From: Joe [mailto:joe@sott.net]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: Copyright Infringement

Hi J,

I have to admit to being a little surprised by the short-sightedness of the New Scientist policy in this regard. If recouping costs through subscription sales is your mandate, and subscription sales rely heavily on advertising, then scrubbing the web of NS articles except those that appear on the NS site seems decidedly counterproductive.

If Sott.net were reproducing the entire NS subscription-only content every month then I could more easily understand this policy, but one article does not a magazine make.

Many of our readers purchase books and subscriptions to magazines that are referenced on our site and which they find particularly interesting. The reproduction of one article on Sott.net can but serve as an example to our readers of the quality of the NS' writing and journalism, and as a result contribute positively to NS subscriptions.

Regardless, it's your decision (or is it?). The article has been removed.

Joe Quinn
Editor, Signs of the Times

MF, J (RBI-CMA) wrote:


Many thanks for your quick response - I appreciate it.