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.
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.
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.