I understand their claim to copyright of recent material but the real reason so much of their information was used is bc we are talking about the, essentially h

I understand their claim to copyright of recent material but the real reason so much of their information was used is bc we are talking about the, essentially historical, NYT archives that date back to likely the early era of the newspaper itself. I don't think they should have a right to the records of people who lived before simply bc they underpaid, over worked human journalists to exploit their creativity - largely to make the "Newspaper Barons" rich. I don't think they ought to have implicit, automatic copyright on older stuff. How old is my only debate. What good is old news really? Real old is good for college papers but news from 4 years ago... who cares?