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."

Comments

And so the AP pulls the trigger...

[roc97007]

...with the gun in their own mouth. If this goes through, it'll be the last nail in the coffin of classic news.

Re:And so the AP pulls the trigger...

[0123456]

I keep hearing this, but what do you plan on replacing traditional news with?

Nothing?

There's maybe one news story a week that I actually care about outside my own community, so I honestly can't see what I'd miss if 'traditional news' vanished tomorrow. Do I really need to know that the new Celebrity Chainsaw Massacre competitor has a bit of a cold today, or read regurgitated press releases that I could find direct on the web?

Re:And so the AP pulls the trigger...

[hedwards]

Granted there's a lot of crap out there. But it costs a lot of money to have somebody camped out at town hall in case something happens, likewise for covering congressional issues at the state and federal level. Not to mention all the investigation and work it takes to uncover a story and separate it from the stories that don't pan out.

The bigger issue you're pointing at is the 24 hour news cycle, even with all the technology and resources available, there just isn't 164 hours worth of news each week. Even if you discount for the commercial breaks, there's more time than there is news to cover.

Ultimately, the scariest thing is that we won't know what we're missing because nobody will be there to dig it up.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Getting Modded into the Ground

[Pojut]

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.

Re:Even better:

[NiceGeek]

"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.

Re:Even better:

[hairyfeet]

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.