Slashdot Mirror
AP Proposes ASCAP-Like Fees For the News
eldavojohn writes "Techdirt directed my attention to an article where the AP discussed pressure from new devices and mediums today giving them cause to create a clearinghouse for news — much like the music industry's ASCAP — to 'establish an enforcement and payment system.' You'll notice that the story I am linking to and quoting is an AP story ... would Slashdot then be required to pay these fees? We have seen DMCA take down notices and fee discussions before from the AP."
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Here in America, nobody believes in donating money; we are all supposed to be subverting each other, trying to extract as much money from each other as possible. Anything else is clearly "socialism."
Palm trees and 8
I'd classify it as flamebait by the sheer fact that the OP singled out a politician, rather than the general "politicians". That will automatically bring out other trolls against/shills for said politician.
Generalized absolutes are rarely the way to go, unless the topic is politics.
Living With a Nerd
Here in America, nobody believes in donating money; we are all supposed to be subverting each other, trying to extract as much money from each other as possible. Anything else is clearly "socialism."
From the studies I've seen, the American right give plenty of donations, it's the left who don't believe in donating money. I believe that's generally true across the West, and not really surprising as the right believe in personal responsibility whereas the left believe that 'the government ought to do something about that'.
"sex with adolescents, zoophilia,"
Because for one, by law adolescents cannot legally consent to a sexual relationship with an adult (depending on various states law)
and animals are incapable of consenting.
This is an old, tired, and idiotic argument.
I'd like to think this would encourage more of the smaller news websites to get actual reporters out there, rather than just being news aggregators. It would be a shot in the arm for the industry, create jobs, and provide us with more varied reporting instead of having the same story repeated 10k times.
Since they're comparing this to the fees that are charged by ASCAP, for say a bar to play recorded music for its patrons, I would imagine your assumption would be equivalent to a bar wanting to play Metallica for its patrons and instead of paying the $400 a year (and I'm just taking a stab at this, I think it depends on the size of the bar and frequency of music) they go out, put together a band, have them write their own music, record it for the bar and then the bar plays it for the patrons. Now, when you say that it would "provide us" then you would also be assuming that said bar would be okay with anyone playing this music in other bars or allow any individual to enjoy it without recouping their losses.
I don't think your assumption is very sound. In fact, I would wager Geeknet, Inc. would food up to a few grand a year to be a licensed news outlet or shut down Slashdot before it started taking on reporters that generate expenses in their footwork trying to find news. If Slashdot did start producing original news, it'd probably be best for them to try to join the AP news clearinghouse to recoup those costs.
I'm not saying it's a good thing, I just think your assumption of which way this will push websites, blogs, etc is grossly misguided. My predictions are either out of business or impose a new cost to do business.
My work here is dung.
The group marriage point still stands.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
I've seen many bloggers, especially big bloggers with lots of advertising, reproduce the lion's share of a story and add so little commentary that even the most pro-fair use judge would have to conclude that it is an illegal infringement.
The main problem the media will face is that there is already a large swath of the population that hates it. Unfortunately for the MSM, these aren't people who are poor high school students.
The fact that ignorance like yours still exists is stunning.
What does two people that are in love have ANYTHING to do with polygamy? What makes gay marriage comparable to polygamy, while heterosexual marriage isn't?
Signed,
Happily married heterosexual male whose marriage won't be ruined by two guys or gals tying the knot.
Living With a Nerd
Donations could work if micro-payments were fast, easy, and efficient: I get my news from all over the web, so it doesn't make sense for me to donate significant sums (say $10 or $25). But donating 10 cents with a quick click would not feel like a waste or a burden to me; I'd donate 10 cents on impulse all the time if I knew that it would actually end up in the intended recipient's pockets.
It's tough to be appropriately rewarding in such a sea of uncertainty and flux.
--Udo.
The people in power, the rich, already have complete control over the media. They don't need to grant the government control over it, because they already use it to control the government.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I once encountered one of those "where do you get your news" surveys, and one of the options was "conservative talk radio". I checked that one, and identified the stations as "NPR" and "BBC" - because they really are conservative. They're high-quality news, but they're biased.
They're not right-wingers like Limbaugh, they're Official Establishment News, and while they're not highly biased toward whichever Administration is currently in power, they're still clearly working for The Government. When the government puts out press releases, NPR covers them as if they're authoritative news and not just politics (though they might have commentators who are for or against the Administration's position, but still within the Administration's framing), and when the government wants them to say "enhanced interrogation" instead of "torture", that's what they say.
They do cover the arts a lot, but the Establishment really does like art and music, even though some right-wingers like Jesse Helms would like the National Endowment for the Arts limited to black velvet paintings of Elvis.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Why stop at the arbitrary "two people" ? When law defines marriage as between one man and one woman, the first and primary argument is that defining marriage between one man and one woman is arbitrary distinction that is an anachronism. However, historically, there is much more support for polygamy than there is for homosexual marriage.
Replace all the arguments for gay marriage with polygamous ones and they still stand. WHICH really shows what the agenda is. It isn't about defining marriage, it is about establishing something that never existed because of political advantage.
Lastly, I'm Libertarian. I don't think the government should define marriage at all, for anyone. Government has no business governing people's lives at that level. It is a holdover from the Roman Empire Theocracy. Further, it is a violation of Separation of Church and State.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
They are both related in that they are attempting to extend the traditional definition of marriage to include an arrangement between consenting adults not consisting of exactly one male and exactly one female.
Disclosure: I think the government should stop granting and recognizing marriages entirely and grant and recognize civil unions between any consenting adults who fill out the requisite paperwork. Then perhaps we can focus on more important issues.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Except when dealing with the AP. Glaring fact omission, editorializing, and every story has a major liberal slant to it. And those are the supposed unbiased news stories. They are worse than a NPR story. In fact if it says AP anywhere I won't read it, I know it's all fluff. What I would really like is some news, plain and simple, "This happened here today." Don't speculate, editorialize, or otherwise contaminate the original story. As you learn more print more, but it better damn well be factual. AP news is dead.
That's a serious problem, but worse is that there's pressure already on papers to not cover certain subjects because people don't want to hear about it. If they had to go out and ask for donations directly, I suspect that it would get even worse. As it is a paper doesn't have to be popular with every article, just contribute something of value over the aggregate of the years issues. With donations, I'm not so sure that would be the same method of doing business.
Just allow me to interject as someone who has a gay relative and who has been friends with gays his whole life gay marriage is NOT about any religious crap, it is about allowing people to have basic human rights. Let me give an example: I knew Chris and Robert for God, something like 15 years? Chris worked home health which is what my mom did before she retired, and everyone loves Chris. If you had a loved one dying of cancer you would literally fight to have Chris take care of them, because he worked his ass of to allow them to keep their dignity. Chris and Robert were together from 86-2003. They would still be together but a drunk plowed into Robert's car at 90MPH+, he lived for about 3 days before passing on. When Chris got home to plan the funeral he found Robert's estranged parents, who told Robert years ago "We don't want no faggot kid" cleaning out the house of everything that wasn't nailed down. The cops refused to do squat, because the place was in Robert's name and as his next of kin what was Robert's was now theirs. They BURNED anything they couldn't sell and sold everything else.
If gay marriage or hell even a state recognized civil union would have been allowed that dirtbag shit wouldn't have happened. I'm sure some will say "get a will" but not only is getting hit by a drunk or having relatives you hadn't seen in 30 years rob you not something most of us would even consider, the simple fact is I've seen friends with wills that were tied up in court for years by vulture relatives. The laws on surviving spouses are simply a MUCH better protection, and the level of precedent for surviving spouses means it is pretty much set in stone. You are married and die? The surviving spouse gets your stuff PERIOD. Don't want gay marriage? Then push for a legally binding civil union that offers the SAME protections as marriage. It is about basic human rights folks, and what is being done now is simply just as wrong as saying you can't be protected by the law because your choice is a Jew or black.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.