Slashdot Mirror
AP to Charge Members to Post Content Online
oboreruhito writes "The Associated Press has announced that, effective Jan. 1 2006, it 'will begin charging newspapers and broadcasters to post its stories, photos and other content online.' The article says online portals that are already subscribed to an online service won't be affected; the change is that newspapers and broadcasters, which have had the privilege of posting online at no extra charge over their usual licensing fees for print or TV, now have to pay extra. How will this affect sites like Google News and Fark?"
Why would it affect fark? They just link to em...
OMG F1R57 P057!
How will this affect sites like Google News and Fark?
My guess is not much at all. It's the sites that Google and Fark link to that will need to pay the AP. If the number of AP newswire sites drops, it will most likely be made up for by homebrewed stories citing the AP newsfeed as a source.
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
Google might be affected a little, but anyone that is paying the AP to carry the story will still have it posted, and google (or fark) could get to it that way.
Depending on how much they are charging, though it might force other sites to start charging online subscruption fees, as a large amount of free news will not be there anymore...
By MICHAEL LIEDTKE
Associated Press
Just think. In the future, it would have cost the Sun Sentinal to print this "story" stating that the AP will be charging to post their stories...
Not so sure about Google and Fark which are purely online, but it seems logical that traditional newspapers will pass on the cost to their print subscribers.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
Still, this has been a long time in coming. Popular sites like drudge/google news linking pictures from the AP wires, AFP, and other sources are:
#1: Not liscencing the content, which is exactly what the AP's et alls standard business practice is,
#2: Actually costing money due to bandwidth.
I don't think it's going to be long untill the major wires actually close their content to subscribers only. It would be a sad day for me, as I love getting my news hot off the wire, but I can understand why the AP/Reuters/AFP/UPI would do it.
"Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
"About 300 commercial Web sites, including popular destinations such as Yahoo, AOL and MSN, already have been buying AP content, said Jane Seagrave, the news cooperative's director of new media markets."
Most of the commercial web-sites are already buying content. It'll be mostly small-time portals and bloggers who'll be really affected. Think of all the blogs cross-posting APs content.
Also, bloggers who post APs content on there websites might be discouraged to do that henceforth. Imagine, if bloggers are not allowed to link content to AP/reuters or other authentic news sources -- blogging might suffer.
Hell, even slashdot carries AP articles. Will Slashdot be affected ??
--
All your content are belong to us.
Why do slashdot articles end with inane questions that obviously aren't interesting or useful? They just drive discussion away from actual article. Instead, we have a whole page of people agreeing that this almost has almost no impact on Google or Fark.
(Yeah, yeah, offtopic.)
GET YOUR WEAPONS READY! --DR.LIGHT
The AP has had RSS feeds for some time - just never made a big deal of it.
I TE=APW EB&SECTION=HOMEL DHEADS.rss?SITE=A PWEB&SECTION=HOMES HEADS.rss?SITE=APWE B&SECTION=HOME
check it out:
http://hosted.ap.org/lineups/TOPHEADS.rss?S
http://hosted.ap.org/lineups/WOR
http://hosted.ap.org/lineups/U
I wonder how long these will stay up...
Maybe the AP will have explicit notifications in each story proudly proclaiming that
[It's just about that way already anyway.]
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Mod Parent Up.
If the wires are pay per view, the only news reported will be news that someone wants you to see, paid for by the interest the news best serves.
Poster might be going for funny, but I think there is lots of insight into that statement.
It will force news gathering and dissamation away from central media sources to a more distributed outlets that are harder to manipulate and have more direct accountability as a whole. It will also bring more individuality and integrity to the news process.
... and if the big media industry dies becasue of it, then that is their problem, not mine.
I can't count how many times I've seen the same old garbage re-hashed by diferent reporters who didn't know a damn thing about the story other than what the AP report told them. Hell, why didn't they just cut out the middleman and let me read the AP story myself without all the spin and personal BS opinions.
The truth is, what this is really about is the media industry living in a wet-dream that says "nobody should get reliable news free of charge, tracking, or advertizements" - well I hate to tell them this, but they can and they should
Does anyone know whether Yahoo pays AP for their photos off the wire? For years I've been using the "news photos" link from news.yahoo.com to see up-to-date photos. Do you think this free service will end now?
But all the stories I come across (OK, a lot...) are the same, i.e. identical, all with the (AP) tag at the end. So what difference would it make if they disappeared to an extent? AP must be losing money H over F to try this stunt.
Market forces correct a lot of stupidity, and they'll correct this as well. I for one welcome our new more diverse media, which will result.
--Mike--