AP and 28 News Groups To Collect Fees From Aggregators

RightHaven by Frosty+Piss · 2012-01-05 13:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

I'm sure they will have worked out the bugs that RightHaven have, and continue down that same road..

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.

Re:RightHaven by wiedzmin · 2012-01-05 13:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

First thing I thought of, when I saw "NewsRight". That, and Einstein's definition of insanity.

--
Bow before me, for I am root.
Re:RightHaven by alexborges · 2012-01-05 14:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well I think its time they collect. AP, NYT and news agencies have people on the ground and they pay them to provide info. We as a free society (not the US only, all of occident), need this kind of setup to get information. Even if its slanted, at least the payment is for info itself, not for the slant.
If we leave this market untouched, then all we are going to hear about, is whatever advertisers are willing to pay for.... think about it.

--
NO SIG
Re:RightHaven by wagnerrp · 2012-01-05 18:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why is it time they collect? I'd actually like to see some analysis that compared gained traffic from click-throughs, to lost traffic that only read the summary on the aggregator. Let the aggregators disconnect those participating news sites, and see who gets hurt more by the separation.
Re:RightHaven by Jane+Q.+Public · 2012-01-05 21:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

"If we leave this market untouched, then all we are going to hear about, is whatever advertisers are willing to pay for.... think about it."
Uh... I hate to be the one to break this to you, but that has been the way TV has always worked -- and newspapers, too, for a couple of hundred years, at least.

So you think that suddenly this is an insufficient model for making a profit? Or what?

Agregators are not doing anything wrong, if all they are doing is giving a summary, and a link to the original source. It is EXTREMELY clear that this constitutes "fair use".
Re:RightHaven by TrekkieGod · 2012-01-06 01:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well I think its time they collect. AP, NYT and news agencies have people on the ground and they pay them to provide info. We as a free society (not the US only, all of occident), need this kind of setup to get information. Even if its slanted, at least the payment is for info itself, not for the slant.
If you want to pay to support these guys, then get a subscription. Aggregators are just providing summaries with links back to the their websites with the full story. I really want Google to just delist all these guys from news.google.com in response. "Well, we're not going to pay you guys, but if you feel that it's unfair for us to grab this content from you, that's fine, we'll stop." Then they can immediately watch their page hits fall by 40% at least.
If anything, the news websites should pay aggregators to please include them.

--
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

RSS as Fair Use by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-05 13:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is covered under Fair Use as one of the provision is reporting the news. Most RSS only provides a small snippet, enough to cover the basics of the story and is not subject to copyright.

Re:RSS as Fair Use by nurb432 · 2012-01-05 13:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

And in a few weeks it wont matter. All they have to do is point a finger in your general direction and you are 'disappeared'. Then you have to pay lots of money to fight your way back online.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Re:RSS as Fair Use by Amouth · 2012-01-05 13:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

i think the aggregators should just be fair and delist these people.. you don't want them showing your content - fine.. rather than them learning how to use robots.txt just stop crawling them completely.. i'm sure that be great for their traffic streams.

--
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Re:RSS as Fair Use by Darkness404 · 2012-01-05 14:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

He was still a US citizen who was assassinated without any chance for a fair trial.

We are no longer free when the president can be judge, jury and executioner. Was al-Awlaki a bad person? Of course. Was Ted Bundy a bad person? Of course. The difference is Ted Bundy was lawfully tried (and then executed), there was no trial for al-Awlaki, instead he was assassinated without any chance for a defense and without any basic rights expected in a "free" nation.

Keep in mind that al-Awlaki wasn't killed by soldiers trying to apprehend him (as those behind the killing of Bin Laden says that the soldiers were trying to capture him alive when he attempted to shoot them) but instead was assassinated by a drone.

We now live in a world that simply by order of the president, any US citizen can be killed without trial and without evidence and without any defense. That, is a very disturbing reality.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Re:RSS as Fair Use by Darkness404 · 2012-01-05 15:09 · Score: 4, Informative

I never said that only US citizens had rights, but rather that it is most shocking that someone would kill their own citizens. I believe that the bill of rights expressed in the US Constitution are some of the most basic human rights that everyone has and that they are absolute.

Every leader kills citizens of different countries in war (I'm not justifying war, or the killing of anyone, but rather stating a fact), it is only dictators who kill their own citizens under the pretense of "war". And my post was drawing attention to this point, not saying that non US citizens had no rights.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Re:RSS as Fair Use by brit74 · 2012-01-05 15:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

I have to admit that I'm not terribly concerned by al-Awlaki's assassination. Although I agree with Nursie - one of the things that struck me in all this talk is how US citizens are supposed to have certain rights to trial, while we're not concerned with other people in the world having that right. Kill an American citizen without a trial: That's terrible and we can't stop talking about it. Kill a citizen of another country: It doesn't even warrant comment or concern. It's obvious that if al-Awlaki had been Canadian or French or Egyptian or Pakistani, we wouldn't bat an eyelash. I just think it's a weird contradiction for people to get on their soapbox simply because he was American.

> "it is only dictators who kill their own citizens under the pretense of "war""
Somehow, I don't believe that. It's obvious that he was a soldier in a war against the United States. I'd bet money that Americans were also killed by Americans in World War 2 - afterall, there were some German-Americans who went and fought on the side of the Nazis to "defend the homeland".
Re:RSS as Fair Use by ScrewMaster · 2012-01-05 15:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

He was still a US citizen who...

We now live in a world that simply by order of the president, any US citizen...
You know one of the reasons the rest of the world thinks you suck?
Yeah, that's it right there, only US citizens have rights in your eyes.
How you derived that nonsense from what the GP said is beyond me. Besides, we're in the process of criticizing ourselves in this thread and we don't need irrational comments from the foreign peanut gallery.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:RSS as Fair Use by Slur · 2012-01-05 16:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

As a person born in America but by no means inured to its culture, I can assure you it pisses me off equally that we hold people at Guantanamo Bay with no legal recourse and no rights of habeas corpus. It especially concerns me because these actions are diametrically-opposed to the ideals upon which this republic was founded, namely to protect powerless individuals from the tyranny of the powerful by a rigorous application of due process. And whose interests are really being considered?
One interesting thing I want to point out is that al-Awlaki would not have been assassinated if he was residing here, or in France, or in Britain, or in any country where the US wouldn't be able to act with impunity. These actions are reserved for places whose lawlessness we find convenient.
Now that the genie is out of the bottle, it's going to be really hard to get it back inside.

--
-- thinkyhead software and media
Re:RSS as Fair Use by martin-boundary · 2012-01-05 16:39 · Score: 4, Informative

You are dreaming. Murdoch's newspapers are the *customers*, not the producers (mostly).
The way it works is (very roughly): 1) news agencies have people on the ground taking pictures and writing the facts. 2) The news agencies sell the facts to newspapers and TV. 3) The aggregators republish the news from the online versions of newspapers.
Cut out 3), and 1) + 2) is the same as it's always been, even before the internet existed. Even if you cut out 2), say if Murdoch goes belly up, then 1) can still sell the facts to 3), which is what TFA is about.
Re:RSS as Fair Use by Mitreya · 2012-01-05 17:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

I have to admit that I'm not terribly concerned by al-Awlaki's assassination.
You should be.
Kill an American citizen without a trial: That's terrible and we can't stop talking about it. Kill a citizen of another country: It doesn't even warrant comment or concern.
You are drawing your own, unwarranted conclusions. Those of us that disagree are equally concerned about both events. The only difference is that they represent a disturbing progression. First, US drones targeted non-citizen (accused) "terrorists" and even used that as some sort of justifications (these are evil terrorists from another country!). Now, US drones can and do target citizen (accused) "terrorists". I can only assume that the rate of assassinations will increase, gradually moving on to people whom even you might be concerned about.
It's obvious that he was a soldier in a war against the United States.
Uhm... What war? Do you mean the "war on terror"? The one that hasn't really been declared, doesn't have any clear sides or battlefields? I have an idea -- why don't we start killing all those soldiers in the (drug) war against the United States. I mean, by your logic, all those drug users are "soldiers in the war against the United States". Some of the drug dealers even kill US citizens (I am pretty sure a lot more people die shot by drug dealers than from terrorists attacks). Also, maybe we want to start taking on all those soldiers in the "war on poverty".

Here's how the first call will go down.... by LVSlushdat · 2012-01-05 13:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

Newsright Salesdroid: Hello Google? I'm from Newsright, and I'm calling to set up your payment plan for aggregation of AP/Gannett news on your website..
Google: Say WHAT?? You've GOT to be kidding... We are NOT going to pay YOU!! In fact, YOU should be paying US to publicise YOU..
Newsright Salesdroid: If you don't pay, we sue..
Google: (sound of lots of laughter) Tell ya what.. Why don't we just NOT aggregate your content, that way we're happy/you're happy...
Newsright Salesdroid: Ummm... I guess that would be ok...
FAST FORWARD A MONTH..
Newsright CEO at management meeting to salesdroid on Google account: WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU DO??? Traffic to our clients is down 85%, and they are
PISSED... You're FIRED!!!!

--
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)

Re:Here's how the first call will go down.... by _recluso_ · 2012-01-05 13:33 · Score: 5, Informative

similar to what already happened in Belgium with a newspaper: Belgian Appeals Court Says Google Must Pay Up For Linking To Newspaper Websites

a few months later: Belgian Newspapers 'Give Permission' To Google To Return Them To Search Results

slashdot by bs0d3 · 2012-01-05 13:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

does this include slashdot?

Re:How a bout we try a little tenderness? by Anrego · 2012-01-05 13:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

The problem is that it's well within the content providers ability to block legitimate sites from aggregating their content (see: robots.txt). They don't want to do that. Instead they want the benifit, _and_ want those sites to pay them.

Re:First post by devent · 2012-01-05 13:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

Eh, not at all. The aggregators are using their right of fair use to aggregate news. They are not re-posting the original articles under their own name.

That is another example how cooperations are greedy and try to extend copyright at all costs. It depends on what NewsRight will actually do, because TFA doesn't know yet. But maybe then even Slashdot will be required to pay.

It's just beyond me, why the "... 28 co-investors, 30 additional companies taking part, and 800 news websites" are not coming together and start their own news aggregator web site. But than they have to produce something instead to resort to "lawsuits and threats of lawsuits".

--
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute

FUCK YOUR MOM, FUCK HER HARD by badboy_tw2002 · 2012-01-05 13:42 · Score: 5, Funny

I agree completely, migla. People should really spend more time digging in depth to find well thought out arguments instead of knee jerk reactions based on something as superficial as a title. Its not like a title is supposed to be some type of summary of the internal contents. They should probably just get rid of that box completely.

Re:First post by Microlith · 2012-01-05 13:48 · Score: 4, Informative

Don't forget this bit:

"We began working with Cisco in 2003 to help them establish a process for complying with our software licenses, and the initial changes were very promising," explained Brett Smith, licensing compliance engineer at the FSF. "Unfortunately, they never put in the effort that was necessary to finish the process, and now five years later we have still not seen a plan for compliance. As a result, we believe that legal action is the best way to restore the rights we grant to all users of our software."

They worked with Cisco/Linksys for five years prior to the suit. Cisco had ample time and help to comply with the GPL before the FSF filed suit. They then settled when Cisco finally decided to step up and be compliant, I don't believe the FSF sought damages or financial compensation.

So again, how are these similar?

Re:Isn't sharing the news the whole point of the A by GumphMaster · 2012-01-05 14:03 · Score: 4, Informative

Yes, it is, but the "traditional media" pay AP for that privilege and the argument is that so should the "new media" that publish these articles.

--
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button

Re:First post by JWSmythe · 2012-01-05 14:05 · Score: 5, Informative

It's covered by the RICO act (and other laws), and is known as extortion. It's basically summarized as, "I threaten to take legal action against you, if you don't pay me money."

They know perfectly well that Mr. Blogger, who may make hundreds a year, can't possibly defend himself against a single corporation who makes millions, or a group of corporations who make billions.

It's not even just the individual. They could take down Slashdot, as portions of the article are reused here. That *is* allowed by copyright law as fair use.

What these publishers are going to find out is, if they kill off the bloggers who are partially republishing their stories and providing links, the traffic to the original publication is going to drop. I won't say it would be huge. That all depends on the publication. How many people read the NY Times directly, and how many catch an interesting story on Slashdot and follow the link to the NY Times?

I strongly suspect that the average Mr. Blogger is not the target. They want the big fish with big money. Google News, Yahoo News, and other multi-million hit/day sites. I don't know, but I suspect, that they are already paying their tribute to the news corps for at least some of their feeds. This will severely impact mid-level news sites, who get tens of thousands of hits/day. They may make a few bucks at it from advertising, but that's a long way from being able to pay for feeds from AP, Reuters, UPI, etc. More often than not, the advertising revenue barely pays for their hosting.

As it's clear that they are litigious bastards, they will work their way down the ranks, until they're filing 100k "John Doe" lawsuits every week. It could very easily get to the point where if you posted more than a few words that could have been in another story, you owe or get shut down.

But, the litigious bastards will always win. Why? Because they have the money. They already own a decent portion of our political system, they can and will have laws changed in their favor. This has been proven time and time again. At very least, the litigious bastards can afford to keep it in court longer than you can.

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.

Re:How a bout we try a little tenderness? by migla · 2012-01-05 14:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

I don't contribute to the NPR. Mainly because it's not my NPR.

I did use to get bills for SVT when I had a TV, though, and the public service broadcasters SVT (here in Sweden) or YLE (in finland), like the BBC (I'd imagine) are in a whole other dimension of journalism compaired to any of the commercial offerings, being politically and commercially independent.

I'm not saying your points of 1 or 2 are wrong, but that the solution to a copyright economy which is/{should be} dying is for people with the means to pay for it, as in from each according to their abilities etc., because we all want information and an informed public and not to be playing silly ownership games with bits, don't we?

"Nationalise" or more appropriately "globalise" the AP.

We (as in people in general) should pay a fraction of a cent or whatever for the AP journalists to keep doing their job, IMO.

I'm not going to try to force it, but I just think it would be a sensible thing to do. We all benefit from the AP and the likes, don't we?

--
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.

Google+ Appears to Mitigate This by Araes · 2012-01-05 14:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

It seems that Google saw this coming, as there have been several stories in the last couple months about the fact that quotations, or wholesale reprints of articles posted by users on Google+ are being rated higher by the Google algorithm than the original articles. If this is actually true, and not just tinfoil hattery, then users may just become the routing mechanism for news while the official aggregator becomes a bit more barren. A similar mechanic may also work with sites like Twitter or Reddit if they are able to argue that they're not aggregating the news, and their users are just posting links to articles.

Re:SOPA by LostCluster · 2012-01-05 14:28 · Score: 4, Informative

SOPA is about the takedown of servers that house illegal content.. and the overreach is that they'll take out a whole service to punish for one piece of offending content. This is about the AP stepping up and selling a bundle of content suppliers for one price, essentially making a legal store so there's a right way to do it.

The hand that feeds me looks delicious! by mykos · 2012-01-05 14:45 · Score: 4, Funny

I'd like that with a side of golden goose, please.

I think this is absolutely necessary by JakartaDean · 2012-01-05 14:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

I read the news. A lot. The current system is broken. Look at sites like my.yahoo.com, which used to aggregate credible sources and provide links. I could choose a Reuters group, a Sports Illustrated group, Asia News, whatever. Clicking on a link would take me to a Reuters, eg, page. Now all the news links go to news.yahoo.com and give shit like this: http://news.yahoo.com/single-tuna-fetches-record-736k-japan-auction-040041043.html That's a yahoo.com page, with Yahoo links and ads all over it, with a small logo suggesting that the article came from AFP. Yahoo is eating AFP's lunch (and all the other people who do the work getting the news and writing it up). Parasitic is the best way to describe this. If this new venture can get good sources of news rewarded by collecting from aggregators then how does it make things worse? I'm completely in agreement with fair use; this ain't it.

--
The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)

Re:First post by mattventura · 2012-01-05 17:03 · Score: 4, Informative

He's talking about when the person that is threatened with a lawsuit was never doing anything illegal in the first place, but rather is just being pushed around by a company because they don't have the resources to go to court. If they did have the resources, they would be found innocent.

Shoot...I betcha is another motive... by ibsteve2u · 2012-01-05 22:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

There likely is an ulterior motive in this: Some of the media sources (uh...is Murdoch still on AP's board of directors?) and politicians (uh...all of 'em?) don't like the fact that it is so easy to prove that they're either lying now or lied at some point in the past. I.e., they'd like to eliminate your ability to pull both versions of "the truth" up and show them to the deluded.

You think the Wayback Machine will get an exemption?

I don't...guess if I'm right, that will tell you something.

There is another angle that involves creeping capitalism, the ability to hire unlimited numbers of lawyers, and the outright ownership of the highest court in the land: Once this precedent is set, how long before Google et al have to pay a fee to show previews and even links to content?

And finally...me, I'm not thrilled about a central clearinghouse for news distribution; the possibilities for censorship are absolutely disgusting.

--
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"

Slashdot Mirror

AP and 28 News Groups To Collect Fees From Aggregators

32 of 303 comments (clear)