Making Content More Valuable or Stealing Revenue?

TechDirt has an interesting look at the short history of complaints over meta content delivery and traffic generation. Looking at everything from complaints over Google's Print program to RSS companies delivering ads on someone else's content the article begs the question, where should the line be drawn? One of the examples, Jason Calacanis of Weblogs Inc., even chimed in as one of the first few comments.

Comments

I'm gonna sue Mozilla

[Harmonious Botch]

Let's get to the root here. If this works, I'm going to sue Mozilla - maker of Firefox - because their program presents my blog to people. Ahh..no I'm going to sue Microsoft for making IE which does the same thing. And they have more money.

Re:I'm gonna sue Mozilla

[GradiusCVK]

As easy as it is to jump on the fair use bandwagon, taking that stance is an uphill battle... if it weren't, this matter would have been settled once and for all long ago. The fact of the matter is, these companies really are making money as a direct result of other people's work, even if they are "adding value" in some way... and are doing so without direct compensation. Whether increased traffic counts as compensation is a fuzzy matter at best. It would be MUCH more effective for the really popular news aggregators and so forth to whole-heartedly comply with those content-producers that are upset about this.... simply remove the offending material. One might argue that this wouldn't work if every one of these content-producers made the same requests, but I am pretty sure that most would not... after all, there is an undeniable benefit these producers receive from these services, whether it is direct enough to count legally or not.

Re:I'm gonna sue Mozilla

[AdamKG]

What? Why should content aggregators (or anyone) have to take proactive steps to avoid stepping on people's toes when they put it online in syndicated RSS feeds, which have the effective purpose of being aggregated?

If they were really so upset over having their content show up in other places on the interwebs, my question is, why don't the content producers remove the offending material? After all, that would be the most immediate and effective action if you don't want people 'stealing' your revenue.

The tendency to litigate indicates to me that the outrage is simply faked- they're after money like every other trigger-happy lawyer.

Re:I'm gonna sue Mozilla

[GradiusCVK]

Why should content aggregators (or anyone) have to take proactive steps to avoid stepping on people's toes when they put it online in syndicated RSS feeds, which have the effective purpose of being aggregated?

This is the exact type of argument that I believe cannot win without an unnecessarily long legal battle. Consider an analogy; record companies sell licenses to radio stations allowing them to distribute music... radio stations provide the music over the air for all to hear for free in some aggregated block of music programming time (really simple syndication), and they make money through ads. The record companies are happy with this because the radio stations both pay for the right to play the music, and drive spending by promoting the music... it's win-win, with a doubleplusbig win for the record company which effectively gets paid twice.

However, what if some third-party radio station starts recording the music that other stations are playing, organizing it, then playing it over the air without the original radio station's ads, but with it's own ads. This goes far beyond mere peer-to-peer music sharing (which I feel is truly a boon for record companies that they are failing to recognize)... this third party is making a significant profit off of this work, without any reimbursement to any of the original parties involved. I think even the most ardent supporter of copy-left can recognize that this activity is at the very least illegal, if not outright unethical. This is effectively the legal reason why "content aggregators ... have to take proactive steps to avoid stepping on people's toes".

If they were really so upset over having their content show up in other places on the interwebs, my question is, why don't the content producers remove the offending material?

This statement is tantamount to saying "why doesn't the legal radio station go off the air."

Of course, this analogy fails in one unique way... in this case, the "radio station" (the Google News) is actually encouraging and facilitating people to listen to the radio station which legally played the song. While this is probably not a good legal defense for the illegal station's actions, it is certainly a benefit to the legal radio station, which will lose some potential listeners to the aggregator station, but will gain many actual listeners thanks to the free advertising.

The tendency to litigate indicates to me that the outrage is simply faked- they're after money like every other trigger-happy lawyer.

Of course you are correct here... the "legal" radio station has nothing to be really outraged about... it is making more money than it would have otherwise. However, the fact remains that the "illegal" radio station is breaking the law, and because lawyers and companies love money, the legal station will sue they hell out of the illegal station, hoping to strike a deal where the illegal station will continue to advertise for free, but will also pay the legal station licensing fees. This is doubleplusgood for the legal station as well. Now the legal radio station is basically a useless middleman which has contracts ensuring it continues to get paid for no reason.

Really, these content aggregators haven't got much of a leg to stand on except the fair use angle (since they aren't providing the entire item, just the most important parts summarized)... and as we all know fair use is no longer protected the way it should be. In all, these guys will have an incredibly hard time defending this. The easiest and most effective way out is simply to end the free advertising for those content producers which no longer want the increased revenue (due to free advertising). When put in those terms, I would guess that very few content producers actually fall into that category.

Re:I'm gonna sue Mozilla

[JasonKChapman]

This is the exact type of argument that I believe cannot win without an unnecessarily long legal battle. Consider an analogy; record companies sell licenses to radio stations allowing them to distribute music... radio stations provide the music over the air for all to hear for free in some aggregated block of music programming time (really simple syndication), and they make money through ads. The record companies are happy with this because the radio stations both pay for the right to play the music, and drive spending by promoting the music... it's win-win, with a doubleplusbig win for the record company which effectively gets paid twice.

This analogy falls apart sooner than you state, though. The RSS feed is already stripped down to content only. If the radio station were somehow putting out a separate stream of nothing but the music, without chatter or ads, that would be equivalent to an RSS feed.

RSS feeds don't currently match existing models. In the publishing model, to get reprint rights for a print article, you go to the rights holder and pay for a license. There's a gate-keeping function in place at which the rights holder can collect revenue.

In the broadcast model, the ads and source ID are inserted directly into the stream. The equivalent of a republisher in this model would be a restaurant or retail store that replays that stream in their establishment. Technically, they're supposed to pay a license fee to do so, such as when a sports bar shows events. There's no gate-keeping function, but then again, the ads are inserted into the stream.

If content producers want to match those models, they'll have to match the mechanism of those models. They can either insert text-based, editorial-style ads directly into the stream (similar to "sponsored results" in search engine results), or they can use a feed mechanism that includes authentication to provide some kind of gate-keeping function at which revenue can be collected for subscriptions.

Outside of those solutions, forget it. The Internet will continue to do what the Internet does. If you put a free, unrestricted feed of your content out there, it's going to be out there. If you want the traffic to come to your site, limit your feed to "teaser" portions of the articles including a linkback to the original. Otherwise, just accept it. "You can't stop the signal, Mal."

BY-NC

[Wellington Grey]

How do you define ... non-commercial use in this context?

This is the question I've always had with creative commons: just what counts as non-commercial? If I take a BY-NC image off flickr, and want to use it in my blog, is that OK? What if I have google ads on my blog? Is that still OK? Does it make any difference if I'm actually making a profit or not? I've gone so far as to email some of the CC lawyers about this issue, and there seems to be no clear answer.

-Grey

Re:BY-NC

[aussie_a]

Non-commercial depends on how much money you have, how big the business is that provided the content under the license, and whether or not they're bored.

where should the line be drawn?

[Threni]

It's my browser - I'll decide. I'll decide if I want to block ads, look at RSS feeds, remix data from multiple sites into one Firefox tab etc. That's one of the things content providers have to deal with - that once the content is out there, it's usable by anyone in any way. It's not like they can do anything about it.

Re:where should the line be drawn?

[ajs318]

Then download and build xPDF (or kPDF or gPDF). There's a patch you can apply which disables the disabling of copying and pasting.

Weblogs' Logic

[giafly]

If we allow folks to sell advertising against our FULL content then we will lose 90% of our revenue. People will republish Engadget and Autoblog, call it an RSS reader, and sell ads against it - Jason Calacanis of Weblogs via Techdirt

No, no, no! The downside is that you lose part of your potential revenue, not your actual revenue. The upside is that more people learn about you and you therefore get more visitors and more revenue. One of the issues is where this balance lies.

No, it raises the question

[Xanni]

Maybe a slash coder could add something to red-flag Slashdot editors when the phrase "begs the question" appears in a summary?

http://begthequestion.info/

Association is important.

[meburke]

A lot of money has been invested in creating messages to be disseminated across the 'Net. Additional money has bee invested in making these messages attractive, and in enhancing the reputation of the creators and authors. Now some sleazeball desseminates the message at a lower tier, and packs it with adds, thus diminishing the value of the original investment on one hand, and possibly marginally increasing the value on the other. I can see the points on both sides. Unfortunately, once the vehicle has left the showroom it gets scratches.

Hmmm... Suppose Bob takes a great picture of a pretty girl in a bikini and uses it to promote his photography. Suppose a notorious porn site uses only the headshot portion and even provides a link back to Bob's site.

On the other hand, suppose a site that is a directory for photographers uses Bob's picture to provide a link to his photography site.

Somehow I would think it's appropriate for Bob to be able to get the picture removed from the site that makes him look like a pornographer, but that means he also has the right to get it removed from the directory if he wishes.

Bob should have the right to control his picture, but unfortunately, it has left the showroom.

Keep in mind, we have a different situation if one or the other downstream sites has purchased the right to use the picture as they see fit.

Hmmm. If I purchase a print of Bob's picture, do I have the right to cut it up, paint over it and make derivative art? (Maybe, it depends on my written agreement with Bob.) I certainly have the right to take a picture of it and keep it in my insurance records to record my household goods. Do I have a right to make copies and give it to my friends, even if some of them actually go out and buy signed print later on? (That would be enhancing the value, wouldn't it?) If I don't charge for it, it's not a commercial venture, right?

Sorry, folks, but I think the author should retain the rights.

It's obviously stealing

[Digital Vomit]

It's obviously stealing revenue. I mean, I've got over $200,000,000.00 in a box at home that I've saved (I mean, stolen) because of piracy. All those media cartels are right: pirates have collectively stolen trillions of dollars from them over the past few decades. Check under your beds; you'll probably find a big box of money like I did.

I think it works like this:

• For every mp3 you download, $2 appears under your bed.
• For every movie you download, $20 appears under your bed.
• For every half-hour of television you download, $5 appears under your bed.
• For every game you download, $50 appears under your bed.
• For every book you download, $10 appears under your bed (upwards of $100 or more if it's a textbook or reference book).
• For every video clip of a movie or TV show you see online, $0.25 appears under your bed.

Try it (not that I am advocating stealing, mind you). It's amazing! And all this money is coming straight out of the bank accounts of various media cartels. I think it has something to do with that "voodoo economics" I heard about a few years back.

I don't know why it doesn't work when you steal shows or movies over the TV, or music over the radio. Maybe because it's older technology and the media cartels put anti-theft technology in it, and with computers they have yet to do so because that's newer technology.

Oh, crap. I just thought of something. I just posted this on Slashdot! Now thousands of people will be stealing it from me! That's what I get for posting my two cents worth of intellectual property. :(

I'm begging you to stop using "begs the question"

[KutuluWare]

For the love of god, STOP ABUSING THIS TERM. I don't think I've once seen it used properly in my 4 years of reading /., and I doubt I missed much before that. Begging the question is a logical fallacy that invalidates the subsequent argument. This article raises a perfectly legitimate question that follows naturally from the preceding information.

Or, to put in in more /.-friendly terms: "Begs the question. You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Re:missing the point

[Gorshkov]

[blockquote]the point is, that a company like Google and its google of lawyers gets away with murder... if I started a company today that jsut copied books, videos and websites and displayed then on my URL... there would be a 3 second trial that would result in my hanging.[/blockquote]

I just bought myself a scanner. I'm going to get every book I can lay my hands on, and scan them into my computer system in it's entirety. Then I'm gonna open a kiosk downtown and, for the grand price of $1.99, I'm going to let anybody who wants to do a search on titles, authors, phrases - whatever they want.

When they get a match, my system will print out a list of all the stores in town that will sell them the book in question - and I'll even throw in the price of the book into the printout.

Now -just how bloody long do you think it will take for EVERY BOOKSTORE IN TOWN to be clamoring after me to make sure that I have their entire up-to-date pricelist?

About 30 seconds, max. Becuase I'm NOT "stealing their revenue". I'm NOT making money by illegally copying their content. I'm providing a service - and that service ENHANCES the value of their business, and will increase their sales.

The only judge what would even think about convicting me would be the one who just received the FOAD letter from the 37th publisher refusing to publish the gripping courtroom drama he's been writing since collage.