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.
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
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
"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.
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...
Dude the AP already gets money from the Govt for operations.
They can charge fees as soon as they give back ALL the money they have taken from the public.
Oh and covering a war? get your OWN ass over there and your own armor.. No you're not riding in the Tank with us nor will we waste bullets to keep your butts alive... OR we can charge you a fee for that.
Problem is our current leaders are too stupid to do this.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
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
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.
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.
All I am implying here is that if you have no problem with allowing two people to fill out paperwork to provide the same protections as marriage then you should have no problem allowing three people to fill out paperwork to provide the same protections as marriage, so long as they are all consenting adults.
I have no problem with either.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.