First of all... google doesn't post AP stories. AP went after them years ago for republishing content they didn't pay for.
Second, why should google get money from their own ads for republishing AP content?
Third, google doesn't link to every website that has AP's story, just one. So of the 1000+ newspapers in the country that publish the AP story, one one gets the ad revenue from increased traffic. In this case, one newspaper makes a bundle, whereas the others see decreased traffic, all of which is determined by google. AP would prefer that a reader would go to their local newspaper's website, distributing the traffic.
AP doesn't publish content to readers; newspapers do. (trust me. This is a complicated business model.) AP is charging the people who publish their content and literally have been making millions off of (relatively) free information.
Finally, AP has always been a subscription based model, whereas the newspaper would pay by the number of newspapers published. It is just a sign of the times that paper newspapers are a dying breed, and online business is worth a whole lot more to everyone
Anyone else notice that there are no Associated Press stories on news.google.com either? There were AP stories in the first days of news.google.com, but they disappeared within the first week...
News agencies spend a lot of money to produce the news, which they sell to their customers (or members in the case of the AP). There are specific contracts with all of them about when their information can be republished.
Although there are no ads now, google could easily add some in the future, and make money off something they never paid for.
Also, although it is good for us, it takes the online reader to google, and not to the individual newspaper site. Newspapers don't make money off their news; they make it off their ads. By not even looking at their front page unless there is a story that google users like, it takes away business. And in the case of AFP and AP (and even Reuters), because the same story is published on hundreds of websites, whichever website google chooses to list wins, and the remaining websites which published that page lose.
News agencies are simply looking out for their hard-earned dollar. And freedom of information aside... someone has to pay for the news to be covered... without news agencies, their would be a very small amount of world/national content on TV or in a newspaper.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all... google doesn't post AP stories. AP went after them years ago for republishing content they didn't pay for.
Second, why should google get money from their own ads for republishing AP content?
Third, google doesn't link to every website that has AP's story, just one. So of the 1000+ newspapers in the country that publish the AP story, one one gets the ad revenue from increased traffic. In this case, one newspaper makes a bundle, whereas the others see decreased traffic, all of which is determined by google. AP would prefer that a reader would go to their local newspaper's website, distributing the traffic.
AP doesn't publish content to readers; newspapers do. (trust me. This is a complicated business model.) AP is charging the people who publish their content and literally have been making millions off of (relatively) free information.
Finally, AP has always been a subscription based model, whereas the newspaper would pay by the number of newspapers published. It is just a sign of the times that paper newspapers are a dying breed, and online business is worth a whole lot more to everyone
Anyone else notice that there are no Associated Press stories on news.google.com either? There were AP stories in the first days of news.google.com, but they disappeared within the first week...
News agencies spend a lot of money to produce the news, which they sell to their customers (or members in the case of the AP). There are specific contracts with all of them about when their information can be republished.
Although there are no ads now, google could easily add some in the future, and make money off something they never paid for.
Also, although it is good for us, it takes the online reader to google, and not to the individual newspaper site. Newspapers don't make money off their news; they make it off their ads. By not even looking at their front page unless there is a story that google users like, it takes away business. And in the case of AFP and AP (and even Reuters), because the same story is published on hundreds of websites, whichever website google chooses to list wins, and the remaining websites which published that page lose.
News agencies are simply looking out for their hard-earned dollar. And freedom of information aside... someone has to pay for the news to be covered... without news agencies, their would be a very small amount of world/national content on TV or in a newspaper.