Slashdot Mirror
Google News to Host Wire Service Stories
knhasan writes to tell us that Google has just announced a new program in which they will host wire news stories directly on their site. This is widely believed to be the first concrete fallout from recent troubles with Agence France Presse (who sued Google for alleged copyright infringement) among other wire services. "The new feature unveiled Friday is called 'duplicate detection,' which lets Google News identify the original source of a story that may appear in tens or hundreds of news outlet Web sites. If the source story is from one of the four news service agencies that Google has licensing agreements with, Google will display the story on a page that it hosts."
So we can finally stop getting the same story posted over and over? (hint, digg and /.)
If their stories are decent, I'm moving over there....
First news story on Google wire service: Agence France Presse cuts off nose. To spite face suspected.
Letter To Iran
A website that cares about duplicate detection! It's as if they understand that readers don't want to read the same story again and again and again! I wish I could think of another website that would benefit from this technology!
I can has sig?
From a consumer standpoint, I really like this move.
It seems to be completely random which site a given story will point to and there are times when I click through to a news item and I'm immediately skeptical of the source site. If a news vendor isn't doing any sort of value-add, I don't see why I should get sent to bob's scraped wire site versus a trusted major news source.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
I am sad :(
Checkmate. Google owns the news. Game over for your local paper. I predicted this many years ago.
It's about time.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
So, there won't be duplicates.
Which means that in order to attract people to YOUR news site, you'll have to ADD something. Either background research, interviews, commentary, etc.
Sure, the commentary might not be "better". It will probably still be biased. But the facts should appear more consistently now.
So the original news by default is theirs? Hopefully there won't be the same for other services.
VirtualWorldsHub.com - News, forums, resources
i didnt even know they had ever existed before google. And they should also know that i will probably forget them in a short while since they are not on google anymore. they lost enormous exposure to pursue some petty cash compared to what the exposure would have brought.
they can shove their copyright up their "butté" now - for its probably useful for only doing that compared to what it might have been.
Read radical news here
the UPSTO has just received a patent application from some Dr. McLeod for a "method and apparatus to discriminate identical story submissions in news sites, in which there can be only one".
I don't know why I'm posting so much today, but anyway.
This is very useful. As far as I can tell, it only means that you won't get a billion copies of the same AP, Reuters, etc. press release that many papers, because they have cut their staff, print in lieu of actually doing their own research. This is fantastic news, and will hopefully be another reward for smaller newspapers who do actually do something instead of print ads for car dealerships. If the Sasquatch Press has a Middle Eastern correspondent, their journalist's work will not be lost in the spam flood of AP articles. Of course, the Sasquatch Press won't have such a correspondent, but they may indeed have one for Sasquatch City -- who probably knows a hell of a lot more than the AP reporter airlifted in when the Sasquatch Robots gain consciousness.
Protect your liberties. Donate to the ACLU
Why should google redirect you to joe random's copy of the same AP story when they can display it themselves?
In a similar fashion, froogle/google products (and google in general) has a similar situation with dozens of e-commerce (often shitty osCommerce based) stores selling the same stuff from the same supplier, drop shippers, etc. Since google is an information company, they probably don't need to worry ... yet.
If this helps kills off websites that add no value, then good riddance.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Actually why didn't Google do this in the first place? Agence France Presse was within it's rights, but Google going with what it's presenting now would have kept the problem from arising to begin with. If not Agence France Presse then it would have been someone else sooner or later.
I made a similar suggestion to Google a year ago. I was looking for a different source on a story and Google kept showing the same headline story for several pages. They were all different news hosts, but it was the same article. It was very annoying. I'm likely not the only person though.
captcha: imbecile, how very appropriate
If the Sasquatch Press has a Middle Eastern correspondent, their journalist's work will not be lost in the spam flood of AP articles.
You're absolutely right. I'm Stormy Flowers, Editor in Chief of the (Toenail Sands, OR) Sasquatch Press. Nobody knows the Sasquatch Robot story like we do, but there's no reason we can't branch out in to Middle East coverage. I'm sending the ever-reliable Bruce Foggins out to Iraq on the next available C-17.
Thanks for thinking of the Sasquatch Press!
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Try reading. It's easier than being stupid. Let me explain.
Not true. Being stupid is easier. No explanation required.
paintball
http://lbn.threat.tv/apple_ipod_nano_exclusive_pre view.swf
Exclusive video of the new iPod Nano, looks very real - I can't wait!!!
The newspaper I was working for when I predicted this is still available at its vestigal domain name here where I helped set it up.
At the end of a meeting to review a very expensive (>100K$) demographic survey in 1992, I spoke my mind. I told him a number of things, including that the toxic ink on dead tree business model wouldn't last forever, that communities were more important that forums, that the Internet wouldn't be male dominated forever and that user generated content was more important than expert generated content. He thought I was a flake. It cost me my job to tell him what I really thought, and I was right. It cost him >100K to hear what the demographer thought he wanted to hear.
I don't regret it at all. He was an idiot too and he deserved to miss out on the .boom billions he could have had.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Really? Where are the court rulings that what Google was doing was illegal? There's only one I'm aware of, in Belgium, that is under appeal.
http://watching-eyes.blogspot.com/
This is great news for independent sources that actually publish original content. They won't have as much copycat content to go up against.
I use goggle news. My main beef with it is for a major news stories, I see there is about 1,000 plus articles. However, when I pull up the full list of them and start clicking some of them to read more of the story, they are all the EXACT same thing. I would love it if they detect the dupes and just one link to the major wire services and the others are NOT reprinted wire stuff. I like to get more details and there is usually local paper that does it own story with more details, but it gets buried in 1,000 links of the same story from the wires.
I'm sad to see google giving in a situation that is obviously a matter of fair use.
However, unless the wire services are getting a fairly substantial *percentage* of the ad revenue they are the ones who are ending up as the losers. Sure had google merely licensed the content it would have been a victory for the wire services but the whole original detection bit is a stroke of genius. It may look like a nice gesture but the net effect will be to greatly reduce the value newspapers get from hosting wire service stories on their sites and thus reduce the number of clients for the wire services.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
The community is the people. The forum is the place where they meet. More to my point a forum is usually a place where the few educate or entertain the many, while in a community everyone participates, even if it's just to set the limit of what they'll tolerate before they leave.
Help stamp out iliturcy.