Slashdot Mirror


AP Harasses Own Member Over AP Youtube Videos

DrEldarion writes "The Associated Press, who has been acting very bipolar lately about Google News (they get paid by Google for their content, and then complain about Google 'stealing' that content), has another issue with not knowing what their association is up to: they set up a channel on Youtube, and then threatened an AP affiliate for embedding that content."

31 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. Car analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You pay a parking license to go to someone's garage, and then get towed for parking in someone's garage!

    1. Re:Car analogy by rob1980 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thank you, this discussion is now over. Everybody please exit the thread!

    2. Re:Car analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Imagine that you were trying to load a station wagon full of magnetic tapes into the library of congress. And a football field full of Volkswagon Beatles filled with hard disks races around you and charges you money for the privilege. Meanwhile, the hogshead of petrol that you bought a fortnight ago is running out while you wait.

  2. HUH? by GreenTech11 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who is Associated Press' tech consultant, they either need to listen to them, or actually hire one. They also need a lawyer who knows what that new fangled invention 'the Internet' is and also how people relate to it.

    --
    Laughter is the best medicine, except if you have a broken rib.
  3. Signing its own death warrant by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    None of these tactics will get people to buy more newspapers. I don't know what will, but I sure don't want Google to set a precedent for linking to asshats who can't be bothered to spend 3 minutes to edit their robots.txt if they hate it so much. But of course they won't do that. They don't want a solution, they just want money.

    The problem is, as with organizations like the RIAA, once you pay them off, you just fund their lawyers to go after others who want to make use of fairuse. This is as big threat to a free internet as any national firewall or net neutrality.

    1. Re:Signing its own death warrant by the_arrow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that AP doesn't want to stop Google from indexing them, they just want to be paid more.

      --
      / The Arrow
      "How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
    2. Re:Signing its own death warrant by Sockatume · · Score: 2

      And of course, presenting it as an IP rights issue as the AP have done makes it seem like AP have a god-given right to that extra cash.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    3. Re:Signing its own death warrant by InsertWittyNameHere · · Score: 2, Funny

      The problem is that AP doesn't want to stop Google from indexing them, they just want to be paid more.

      No, they just want Google, the young whippersnappers of the media world, to get off their lawn.

    4. Re:Signing its own death warrant by lucas_picador · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem is that AP doesn't want to stop Google from indexing them, they just want to be paid more.

      Exactly. Like I said in the AP story two days ago:

      It's even more ridiculous and pathological than that: the AP is simultaneously whining about how aggregators link to their articles and also about how search engines DON'T link to their articles. This is typical schizophrenia from an industry that is in hysterical denial because the world has changed and their business model no longer works. They can't even articulate what they want; they just want to go back to the way things used to be, when Mommy used to play with them and feed them all day. Embarrassingly infantile.

      A friend of mine tells stories about her little brother, who used to hate taking a bath as a little kid, alternating between "I'm freezing!" and "It's burning my skin off!" every few seconds as excuses to try to get out of the tub.

    5. Re:Signing its own death warrant by BitZtream · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Interestingly enough, its generally the exact opposite. Companies pay to be listed in the yellow pages. White page listings are typically part of the standard phone service.

      Yellow pages on the other hand are for pay listings. Its amusing that newspapers are getting pissed off that someone is giving them for free what they used to pay for.

      The only thing they really have to bitch about is the fact that every one else is listed right next to them so they have to compete with other papers rather than knowing the person reading the article is probably only looking at their newspaper as it used to be.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    6. Re:Signing its own death warrant by Alzheimers · · Score: 3, Insightful

      None of these tactics will get people to buy more newspapers. I don't know what will

      E-Paper readers and wireless delivery. Once the tech gets cheap enough to make a Kindle-like device "Free With Subscription" then the news media will finally catch up with the rest of the world.

      And the trees will sleep a little easier at night.

    7. Re:Signing its own death warrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "I hate you!" [thud]
      "I hate you.... because you're Google! [thud]
      "Because you're stealing our content!" [thud]
      "Because you make more money... and you've been paying us for our stories..." [thud]
      "...and you bring us more traffic to our site...which increases our profits..." [thud]
      "...and I really want to be more like you..." [thud]
      "...and I'm really attracted to your site..." [thud]
      "...and your skin is so soft..." [thud]
      [thud]

  4. No future.. by aurispector · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I just can't see a future in these organizations suing the pants off of anyone and everyone in sight. It doesn't appear to do anyone any good, not even the rights-holders benefit in the end since they just turn themselves into litigation businesses. If this isn't a reason for far-reaching copyright reform, I don't know what is.

    --
    I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    1. Re:No future.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If this isn't a reason for far-reaching copyright reform, I don't know what is.

      True but be careful what you wish for. There are some extremely rich vested interests who would like nothing more than to be given the chance to find additional revenue streams by legal manipulation.

      That's a problem with ill-gotten gains in general - they give additional financial leverage to the very people you don't want to give it to.

      Contrast that with how capitalism should work - people who are most productive accumulate resources that expands their influence.

    2. Re:No future.. by pbhj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Contrast that with how capitalism should work - people who are most productive accumulate resources that expands their influence.

      Capitalism is about people with capital having the most influence. @aurispector, they may also choose to expand productivity to develop that influence but that's not necessarily the case. Consider OPEC, often they can increase their influence by lowering production of a high demand product.

      Nor is capitalism about those who are the most productive. It is about those with the most capital, or other source of power, increasing their capital. Sure a by-product can be increased financial efficiency in production within a given company but overall I think it's bad for society.

  5. Nothing more exciting than Big Org gets confused by khakipuce · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It's bound to happen, set up a department to check web content and they will find your own content apparently copied. Tracing that back through to some original poster and then identifying that poster as legitimate or not is going to be difficult.

    Anyone who has worked in a medium to large organisation will know how hard it is to find out what someone in the same building is doing, let alone some affiliate.

    --
    Art is the mathematics of emotion
  6. Re:Yeah, well... by Norsefire · · Score: 3, Funny

    Goddammit. You forget to log out for two minutes and jerkface co-workers are uploading AP owned media on your YouTube account and allowing embedding. Status = currently sending out cease and desist letters.

  7. Have we learned nothing!? by mc1138 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the RIAA has taught us anything, no one likes strong arm tactics and poorly thought out legal maneuvering. Seriously, suing an affiliate? That will really help them turn around the economic slump by attracting a large customer base. Seriously, give me a break.

    1. Re:Have we learned nothing!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      A C&D is the first step that is required for suing someone. It's a required first step. You don't send C&D's unless you intend on following it up with a lawsuit if they don't cease and desist.

      But then, this is Slashdot. Where any and every Anonymous Coward has to chime in, whether or not they know anything about the subject matter...oh, wait...damn...

  8. Re:Nothing more exciting than Big Org gets confuse by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tracing that back through to some original poster and then identifying that poster as legitimate or not is going to be difficult

    You'd think that somewhere near the top of the list of "authorised users" would be "Our Own Goddamn YouTube channel". That part shouldn't have been difficult. That the group checking for infringement weren't aware of the legit YouTube channel, and didn't comprehend what embedding it meant, suggests that the group looking for infringements is on more of a "shoot first, don't ask questions" approach. We take it for granted that fair use is dead, but having a department seemingly set up to block all use is beyond a joke.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  9. This can only be a good thing... by castironpigeon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Necessity is the mother of invention. There'd be no changing a broken system if crises like this didn't come up and stress it. I'm curious to see how much further this can go (in general, not just regarding AP) before some really big shit hits the fan.

    --
    mmmm...forbidden donut
  10. AP calls for free money from Google by David+Gerard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Associated Press has asked the government to examine Google News and other content aggregators, claiming they contribute insufficiently to their income.

    "The newspapers put their content up on the web for free and then Google, the freeloading bastards, tell people where to find it. We told them to pay up or stop using our stuff, and they said OK, they'd stop using our stuff!

    "We need federal regulation to bring back balance, 'balance' defined as being able to make them give us money because we want it. You'd think the Internet wasn't invented to give news agencies and record companies free money!"

    The press group argues that traffic from search engines doesn't make up the cost of producing the content. "Ad revenue has collapsed, so search engine traffic doesn't bring in enough views to pay for itself. Our inability to sell ads is clearly Google's problem."

    The AP suggests the exploration of new models that "require fair acknowledgement of the value that our content creates, both on our own site through advertising and 'at the edges' in the world of search and aggregation. Basically, they should just give us money because we want it. And the music industry too. How about a bailout? Go on, gi's it."

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
    1. Re:AP calls for free money from Google by digitig · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is that the AP produce newspapers

      That's a bit of news I'd missed. Since when? Which newspapers do AP produce?

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  11. ex - news sys admin by star3am · · Score: 2, Insightful

    these guys got their heads so far up their own arses, they don't have a clue. Nothing will fix their current financial crisis, they brought it on themselves. Thriving on bad news, and candy coating it just to make another buck from a news paper. Serves them right, assholes

  12. Ominous by agorist_apostle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It worries me when the free flow of political and economic information is going to start becoming the newest IP/DRM battleground because people who produce information simply cannot wrap their minds around the idea that information is now cheaply and easily reproducible and their old business models are defunct. All sorts of de facto censorship could very easily occur now under the guide of "protecting their business," especially given the tight mingling of media companies, the government, banks, etc.

    1. Re:Ominous by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Let's hope that these organizations all go bankrupt before that. I heard once that often in repressive situations, no reform or anything like that really happens until the progenitors are all removed from power and sometimes that only happens when they die of old age. So how long do we need to wait for people who grew up with the internet and free information to come into positions of power? I'm in my early 30s and I was surfing bbs' while growing up, so maybe another ten years or so, so when people like me are in their 40s?

      --
      Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
    2. Re:Ominous by Dhalka226 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      people who produce information simply cannot wrap their minds around the idea that information is now cheaply and easily reproducible and their old business models are defunct

      I'm not disagreeing with you, and not trying to troll, but from the perspective of the people running news agencies or the AP, what is the new business model they should shift to?

      Whether we like it or not, it takes money to cover the news and more money--though less and less lately--to deliver it. Turning it over to bloggers won't help; the majority of blogs are only commentary on news posted by other entities, and the occasional investigative blog entry, while important, is so far in the minority as to preclude them from being viable alternatives. Plus there's even less accountability for a blogger than there is for a reporter at a mainstream news outlet; at least they have to worry about their job if they really screw the pooch on their work.

      In this particular case for example, I think it's essentially greed on the AP's part (and for the record I think their campaigns against Google News are IDIOTIC). However, for the sake of argument let's assume that they're actually reacting to profits lowering enough that it's going to impact their ability to cover and report on news. How do they change their business model? Increasing prices might work for a little while, except that if anybody is hurting more than the AP itself it would be the news agencies buying AP feeds. There's only so much more money you can extract from them before their "new business model" of ad-supported content fails them, they go down and you have even less revenue than you started with.

      They could try to change to a subscription model. Then again, most people aren't going to go for it after they've had such a long period of essentially free news now. Plus, it's basically the model that customers are moving AWAY from by ditching their subscriptions to get their news online.

      Consolidation seems like a viable option, but I personally feel there's already been far too much consolidation in news agencies. Is this really an area we wanted even as much consolidation as we have, much less more? And more to the point, if you're telling any individual business owner that his business model no longer works and his only choice is to go out of business, you're not going to get a very good reaction--even if it's ultimately good for his industry.

      So yes, right now they're probably just being greedy fucks; they can probably absorb less revenues for quite some time without it having to impact their services. But not forever--so what IS the business model they should be advancing?

      I don't like the way this is going any more than you do, but it's easy to comment from the sidelines and a much tougher situation if you're actually faced with it.

  13. Solution by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 3, Funny
    Flash Gordian?
    Flash - a-ah - saviour of the universe
    Flash - a-ah - he'll save everyone of us

    *ducks*

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
  14. Re:Charlie Rose by disccomp · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah, then they could just Google their "beacon" and find all the sites that posted their article; hey, maybe then Google could start charging THEM for search.

  15. Slavery, Plain and Simple by kenp2002 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When it became illegal to own people those that depend on slavery found new ways to own, not people, but everything about the person.

    Own his land, you own him.
    Bury him in debt and own his debt, you own him.

    Throughout history people have alwasy sought ways to make slaves of their neighbors, now in the 21st century the method is:

    Own his thoughts, you own him.

    Thought crime is the new tool to make slaves of people; how dare the slaves think without permission. Think only what we tell you to think. We people exist for the benefit of the master, in this case businesses.

    Goverment as king, business as the fiefs, the executives as the lords, and we the people have become intellectual share croppers; and have been returned to our proper place as slaves\pesants\serfs... Steal from the pesants and profit, steal from the master and suffer his wrath... The knights have been replaced with lawyers and history repeats itself...

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
  16. Re:since this is new policy for the AP... by JustOK · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seems like each hand thinks it's the only one.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109