Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media News Your Rights Online

AP and 28 News Groups To Collect Fees From Aggregators 303

Posted by samzenpus
from the that-link-will-cost-you dept.
jjp9999 writes "The Associated Press is launching the NewsRight project to make aggregators pay for content. Some of the top names in the news industry are currently on board, including New York Times Co. and Washington Post Co, and they're currently negotiating with Gannett, Tribune, Cox and News Corp. The project will license original news from the media companies and collect royalties from aggregators. The use of lawsuits and threats of lawsuits are already on the agenda. NewsRight's first salesperson starts work this week."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AP and 28 News Groups To Collect Fees From Aggregators

Comments Filter:
  • RSS as Fair Use (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05, 2012 @08:10PM (#38605478)

    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.

  • First post (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sonamchauhan (587356) <sonamc@noSPam.gmail.com> on Thursday January 05, 2012 @08:13PM (#38605500) Journal

    NewsRight will target companies that “make heavy (and commercial) use of content originated elsewhere. They are being asked to become payers rather than free riders,” states Poynter.

    What's wrong with this model? Its similar to how the FSF sues large commercial GPL violators [wikipedia.org] because they breached copyright the FSF owned.

  • Re:RSS as Fair Use (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @08:14PM (#38605508) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • Re:First post (Score:2, Insightful)

    by GuruBuckaroo (833982) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @08:17PM (#38605518) Homepage
    I elected not to mod you down for one reason, and one reason only: Your post was well though out and insightful. I don't disagree with the content. But that "First Post" shit causes me to instantly devalue your input before even reading it. You're only hurting yourself.
  • Re:RSS as Fair Use (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Amouth (879122) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @08:27PM (#38605596)

    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.

  • by micheas (231635) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @08:31PM (#38605622) Homepage Journal
    Although polls show that that most Americans want socialism, they just don't want it called that. "Down with socialism, save medicare" is the cry of many Americans. Don't ask me how you explain to them that medicare is socialism.
  • by Anrego (830717) * on Thursday January 05, 2012 @08:34PM (#38605646)

    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:RSS as Fair Use (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05, 2012 @09:13PM (#38605874)

    Time for Google to have a big banner saying, "Interested in providing free news to the entire world? Give us your reports directly, as we no longer aggregate ___, ___, and ___."

  • Re:RightHaven (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alexborges (313924) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @09:29PM (#38605970)

    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.

  • by russotto (537200) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @09:32PM (#38605988) Journal

    NewsRight demands fees. Microsoft pays and pretends they're taking the moral high ground, in a complicated fashion that actually kicks the money back to them somehow. Other big aggregators tell them they'd rather just not include the content, and blacklist the NewsRight providers. Newsright finds some small 1-person website run by a disabled female veteran putting out news for the blind in a screen-reader friendly format, and sues her for One Millon Dollars. Streisand ensues, and Newsright crawls away with its tail between its legs. Meanwhile the members of Newsright cut side deals with the big aggregators and/or withdraw from the organization.

  • Re:RSS as Fair Use (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Darkness404 (1287218) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @09:41PM (#38606046)
    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.
  • Re:RSS as Fair Use (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nursie (632944) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @09:52PM (#38606102)

    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.

  • by JakartaDean (834076) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @09:53PM (#38606104) Journal
    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 [yahoo.com] 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.
  • Re:RSS as Fair Use (Score:5, Insightful)

    by brit74 (831798) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @10:21PM (#38606224)
    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".
  • by Bob9113 (14996) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @11:26PM (#38606638) Homepage

    Step back from the question of copyright in the Internet age, fair use, quantity displayed, etc. Think about the meta-concepts, and it just doesn't feel right.

    Here's how the free market that is all sunshine and puppies is supposed to work: Joe makes something that he thinks people will enjoy. He puts it out on the market, and asks for some price. Bill walks by and decides he'd like to have that thing. So he looks at the price, compares it to his perceived value, maybe makes a counter offer, eventually he gives Joe more than it cost Joe to make it, and gets a product that is worth more to Bill than it cost. They both win, and they both decide to do it of their own free will. They're both so pleased with the transaction that they start thinking of ways to make it happen again. Bill goes and collects more dollars (by starting his own thing-making operation). Joe uses that money to make more stuff (by going out and giving his dollars to other people who sell materials). It's this crazy self-catalyzing engine of productivity.

    Now we have content. Bill decides not to pay the creator, but to profit from the content. It may be legal, but he's making a profit without paying the person who put the stuff together in the first place. Meanwhile, Joe doesn't start where he should, either. Instead of thinking, "Gee, there's a whole new way to distribute news. Maybe I could find a new way to package and sell this stuff. Maybe make it easier for new guys who are going to compete with Bill. Might even be a disruptive competitor will come along, pay me for access through this new system, and put Bill out of business. I should put out a press release saying that I'm looking to develop new kinds of relationships with entrepreneurs who are willing to pay for privileged access." No, instead of trying to innovate and compete Bill into irrelevance, he sues. I figure this largely boils down to Joe not wanting to develop a new product or new customers, he wants to take money from the companies that already have a lot of it because it is easier.

    I can't see either side as being the noble bastion of what is in the best interests of advancing the progress of science and the useful arts. Seems like both sides are total ponces who should be tossed under the bus at earliest convenience. Bill not paying, and Joe not innovating -- they're both consigning themselves to certain death. If Bill were paying, Joe wouldn't be pissed off and looking for ways to sue. If Joe were coming up with ways to package and sell his media to partner distributors that was a value-add compared to scraping (and I can sit here and come up with half a dozen ways off the top of my head), he wouldn't be getting his lunch eaten by a total elimination of the operational principle that made copyright work (copying used to have a non-zero cost).

    Right? Wrong? They're both idiots, and neither side has come up with a remotely acceptable answer to this new reality. The sooner we can get over our addiction to what worked 20 years ago and come up with some new answers for funding the creators of content, the better. Until then, this whole mess is fundamentally broken and I would rather see both sides crash and burn, see what comes from the ashes, than continue the charade that something good can come of this.

  • Re:RSS as Fair Use (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Slur (61510) on Thursday January 05, 2012 @11:32PM (#38606662) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • Re:RSS as Fair Use (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05, 2012 @11:38PM (#38606684)

    It's obvious that he was a soldier in a war against the United States.

    It is obvious based on... what? What the U.S. media tells you? What the U.S. Government tells you? The conflict of interest in the executioner telling you that al-Awlaki was guilty and deserved to die should be obvious.

    Please note that, even though I've seen no evidence for it, I suspect he did more than just promote terrorist acts. I think it is reasonable to allege that he participated in murdering innocents. But it disturbs me our public servants are telling us to trust them, and that they don't need to provide any proof to show their actions were just.

    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".

    Although I don't doubt that, I have to admit I've not heard of any U.S. citizens of German heritage moving back to Germany to help fight on the Nazi's side of WWII. But if some did, they would have been on a recognized battlefield (instead of this vague and easily-abused `the entire world is the battlefield on the war on terror` declaration) and fighting in a declared war by both Germany & the U.S.. (Not an `authorized to use warlike-powers` situation.)

  • Re:RSS as Fair Use (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mitreya (579078) <mitreya@nOSPAM.gmail.com> on Friday January 06, 2012 @12:37AM (#38606938)
    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".

  • Re:RightHaven (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wagnerrp (1305589) on Friday January 06, 2012 @01:18AM (#38607132)

    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:First post (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06, 2012 @02:26AM (#38607372)

    That's the goal.

    The internet is a bane to their outdated business model where they are losing money as the upcoming generations under 35 have zero interest in newspapers or news on TV. They prefer to get their news online on their devices, this infuriates the big cartels because they dont have 100% control over the information.

    You can bet the fucking farm, and win that bet, that this NewsRight will be the new RIAA/MPAA goon group that will soon no longer be about enforcing copyright, or rights to their stories, but getting legislature passed, and attacking anyone who publishes news that isnt through them, and will go on a tirade about "Saving us from misinformation" when news that counters theirs get released.

    This is the beginning of something absolutely horrible. The MPAA and the RIAA were started under the same circumstances a long time ago. This will eventually become a lare legal presence for all of the major media players to attack everyone and do things, all while their names dont get put out there.

    In fact, the scariest part is, they are thousands of times more influential and powerful than the MPAA and the RIAA could ever hope to be.

    They can sway public opinion, they can control information itself over all the modern mediums, and that is their goal.

    We will soon (or maybe not if they get their way) have stories about NewsRight doing *AA style lawsuits where they sue people just for having blogs, they will take down any news aggregator site, regardless of their content being posted or not, and collecting royalties from "offenders" for companies or groups they do not represent.

    I'm calling it now.

  • Re:RightHaven (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06, 2012 @03:34AM (#38607606)

    Mod parent down. Yes, the major news media outlets suck. We've known this for a long, long time now. However, anybody who has more than a passing familiarity with Ethanol-fueled [slashdot.org] knows he's an idiot, as further evidenced by his continued use of terms like ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government) [wikipedia.org].

    Seriously, take a couple of minutes and read through his post history. It'll either make you chuckle or make you cry, maybe both. I'm not saying he isn't right on occasion, but as the old saying goes, "even a broken clock is right twice a day."

  • by ibsteve2u (1184603) on Friday January 06, 2012 @05:24AM (#38607970)
    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 [archive.org] 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.
  • Re:RightHaven (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TrekkieGod (627867) on Friday January 06, 2012 @08:27AM (#38608678) Homepage Journal

    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.

That does not compute.

Working...