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."
Why not simply make it a government agency and pay them with tax money? Obama would like that. We could call it "Ministry of Truth".
-=Maggie Leber=-
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Republican Sharron Angle more like, where she gives the questions to the reporters BEFORE they ask them back to her?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
In the true spirit of Slashdot, I won't bother reading the article but will provide my opinion, anyway. No, Slashdot won't have to pay any fees.
How about instead of copyrighting news, just put a donation link at the beginning of the story with a sentence reading, "Reporters who contributed to this story do not work for free. In order to continue enjoying reading stories like this, please consider a small donation to keep our business running. We appreciate you as a reader and thank you for your kind contribution!"
Maybe that would work better?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
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.
Living With a Nerd
Comment removed based on user account deletion
ASCAP exists to collect royalties for creative works. "News" articles are a collection of facts (at least that's what they are supposed to be), and those facts are not copyrightable. This is the reason in the old days news papers busted their asses trying to "scoop" on another. They knew once the information was out there, it was fair game for anyone to report on it.
Opinion columns, features, photos etc are a different matter. But simply reporting the fact that AP has cooked up a hair-brained scheme to try to extract money out of Google - and linking to your source for that "fact" - wouldn't require a royalty payment in any sane copyright law.
I don't care why you're posting AC
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
I couldn't think of a better name for a group of clueless individuals if I tired.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
The clearinghouse also intends to fight piracy by relying on a tracking system, called a “news registry,” that the AP began developing more than a year ago.
Besides detecting unauthorized use of content, the registry’s tagging system can provide insights about the people who are viewing content or the frequency with which a specific company or expert is mentioned in news coverage.
I value my privacy. My preferences are my opinions, my decisions, and my content. Perhaps they should be paying me for use of my preferences...after all I am the original content producer here!
We should start a new Slashdot and return control to the geeks. It actually wouldn't be that hard to get some users to
Spoken as someone who has no clue as to what the "Fairness Doctrine" was.
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.
reporting news outside the comfort of our homes does cost money. I don't like ASCAP because they usually go ape-shit over stuff like how many radios you have in your workplace or the radio station you play as your music on hold.
I do like the idea of a non-profit being a clearinghouse for news reports and media outlets including bloggers can become paying members and as such have access to the late-breaking news first. This can be done without threatening anyone's fair use rights, and allow reporters in the field to continue to have the necessary resources they need.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
American right give plenty of donations...oh okay?
Please provide FACTS to back up your assertions, and please tell us who participated, who ran the study, how many individuals were studied and how were the questions framed?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I'm pretty much convinced that the current generation of managers and corporate officers in media companies are just not capable of changing enough to forge a new business model in the internet age.
A while ago I would have predicted that they'd eventually have to give up their attempts to slow the change, or to find ways to keep their pay for content models working the same way, and eventually start experimenting to find something new or listen to their younger, more flexible peers.
Now, however, I'm thinking that they just can't change... change in their companies won't happen without a rollover of management, like in so many other organizations run by the "me" generation. They won't give up and they won't give in. They'll have to die off.
More to the point of the article, I predict if all news articles get charged for from the wire services, there'll be a period of rampant ignoring of the fee, followed by a period of cut and paste disguising of the origin of an article, or paraphrasing to hide a source, followed by independent sourcing of news from readers local to a story, and maybe eventually a new kind of news reporter, whose business model I don't know, but who travels the world collecting news to publish on the Internet.
Maybe in some part of all this we'll get back to unbiased, true news reporting and not political spin. I hope so.
Charging for news is a great way to drive readers to the BBC. That fine source of news makes its money through a mandatory fee and is, I believe, required by law to make its content available, at least to those who pay the fees, without further cost. Entering this kind of cartel would involve a big political debate.
If you haven't tried it, go to news.bbc.co.uk
-Gareth
But I feel entitled to recieve payment for my valuable intellectual property. Click here to read my comment, currently on special offer! Only £1 per view!
This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
So after whining that people are making money off of their work and they get nothing, they want to establish an agency, like others that have not actually helped those creating content, to make money off of them and they get nothing, plus they stop getting noticed.
Interesting. Maybe AP gets a cut, but then doesn't give any of that to the actual journalists. I see how this works.
Hey you, with the web browser! Are you looking at news?
No.
Well, you could use the web browser to look at news. Pay up, or we'll see you in court!
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.
It's about providing equal time over the airwaves in a discussion / debate. The true intent is political balance. Democrats know they can't compete with conservative content, so they at least attempt to lower them back down to their level, thus leveling the playing field.
But this FD cuts both ways. Let's say you have a talk radio show devoted to nothing but science, and they are discussing the age of the universe and evolution. Guess what, they have to provide equal time to the religious fundamentalist. So how do you like it now?
He/she said the 'AMERICAN RIGHT' meaning Conservatives/Republicans/Right not just any Americans as your article mentions.
If you want more, you can read the comment right above yours. I'm not here to spoon-feed you...oh enough of the condescending comments.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Nice to see you have the courage of your convictions, AC
This will not save the news business. Journalists do not create news; they just report it. They have a right to charge for use of their stories, but the actual events described belong to no one. That is, I could read the story and then report the same events in my own words.
Always someone has power over you. The thing to consider is this: Is the power good, or bad?
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
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.
It's pretty obvious how she knows the questions the reporters are going to ask - she's a Witch!
She even turned one of the reporters into a newt!
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
If the "social conservatives" are so concerned about protecting the "sanctity of marriage" that they don't want the homos gaying it all up, why aren't they concerned about the scourge of divorce ? Oh, right, they lost on that front decades ago.
It was a policy that allowed the side that controlled the broadcast media as a bunch of out of control nutjobs by selecting those representing the opposition for just such characteristics. Of course since the Fairness Doctrine was enforced by the government, many people thought that the nutjobs that the networks had on were actually representative of anyone who opposed the particular policy under discussion.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Newpapers have put up paywalls in the past, and it hasn't worked for them. Television news is free, not counting cable or satellite TV monthly fees, which are moot if you put up an antenna and receive a local station for free; are local TV stations going to start charging a fee to the community they serve, or shut down their news departments? The Boy Scouts of America were once sent a demand from ASCAP to pay a licensing fee for singing campfire songs; is the AP going to start sending licensing fee bills to people who are overheard discussing news storie they've read with others? Is it just me, or is this turning into a Free Speech issue?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Nice to see you not refute anything AC said.
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?
Yes! That's how the proposal works.
Reporting news takes time and costs money. The AP can't operate without an income. Traditionally it got its income from the newspapers that ran AP stories. It worked then. It doesn't work now. Why? Because sites like Slashdot can simply link to the AP report. They don't get a lot of revenue from this sort of thing. Slashdot does. Slashdot needs the AP a lot more than the AP needs Slashdot. They figure that the organisations that benefit from the service should pay for the service otherwise the service will no longer be viable. Is the service an anachronism that is no longer needed? Seems that if it were, Slashdot wouldn't be linking to their articles.
Glaring fact omission, editorializing, and every story has a major liberal slant to it.
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
He got better, though.
She even turned one of the reporters into a newt!
She got better.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
"They [the Rockefellers] control most of the important newspapers, magazines, and book publishing houses in the country, including the Curtis Publications, the Hearst Publications, Time, the New York Times, the Associated Press and many others." - J.L. Carmichael, The Elements of Economics
I think they got it right.
I remember the old days of the 70's before it was repealed. You had news, sports, and occasionally nutter shows that espoused crazy ideas. By crazy, I mean like Art Bell doesn't buy it crazy, the Truthers and Birthers of their day kind of crazy.
But the "public interest" of controversial ideas were rare. No radio station wanted to lose their license if they violated the Fairness Doctrine (that you must present an opposing view of a given subject) covering subjects of public interest. A Supreme Court decision granted "equal access" (requiring anyone wanting to rebut a topic access if an opposing view was not represented) under the Fairness rule, make it even more unlikely they would allow a talk show host cover an important issue.
While it never prevented free speech directly, it indirectly squashed it.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Have you asked him?
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Yet another yawn-inducing political thread that dominates the comments on the story.
This entire thread needs to be modded "-1 Offtopic".