Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AP Harasses Own Member Over AP Youtube Videos

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the mine-all-mine dept.

The Media 106

DrEldarion writes "The Associated Press, who has been acting very bipolar lately about Google News (they get paid by Google for their content, and then complain about Google 'stealing' that content), has another issue with not knowing what their association is up to: they set up a channel on Youtube, and then threatened an AP affiliate for embedding that content."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Car analogy (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27516415)

You pay a parking license to go to someone's garage, and then get towed for parking in someone's garage!

Re:Car analogy (1)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 5 years ago | (#27516579)

Can you rephrase that with an electronic media analogy?

Re:Car analogy (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27517059)

Imagine that you were trying to load a station wagon full of magnetic tapes into the library of congress. And a football field full of Volkswagon Beatles filled with hard disks races around you and charges you money for the privilege. Meanwhile, the hogshead of petrol that you bought a fortnight ago is running out while you wait.

Re:Car analogy (4, Funny)

rob1980 (941751) | more than 5 years ago | (#27516661)

Thank you, this discussion is now over. Everybody please exit the thread!

Yeah, well... (-1, Troll)

The Ultimate Fartkno (756456) | more than 5 years ago | (#27516421)

Jews.

Re:Yeah, well... (-1, Offtopic)

The Ultimate Fartkno (756456) | more than 5 years ago | (#27516453)

Goddammit. You forget to log out for two minutes and jerkface cow-orkers are trolling on your account. Status = currently punching a dick in the arm.

Re:Yeah, well... (3, Funny)

Norsefire (1494323) | more than 5 years ago | (#27516479)

Goddammit. You forget to log out for two minutes and jerkface co-workers are uploading AP owned media on your YouTube account and allowing embedding. Status = currently sending out cease and desist letters.

Re:Yeah, well... (-1, Offtopic)

Samschnooks (1415697) | more than 5 years ago | (#27516483)

Your coworker can't type either. Instead of typing News he missed and hit the 'J'. Geeze!

Your punching a Dick in the arm. Are you sure it was Dick? It could have been Sam or John.

Re:Yeah, well... (0, Offtopic)

M-RES (653754) | more than 5 years ago | (#27516507)

Or he could punching an Arm in the Dick - much more effective if you ask me! :o

Re:Yeah, well... (0, Offtopic)

kidde_valind (1060754) | more than 5 years ago | (#27516643)

Or he could punching an Arm in the Dick - much more effective if you ask me! :o

Intel however, has to date not yet managed to do this.

Re:Yeah, well... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27516509)

haha that will teach you to log out or lock your screen :)

The last tech I did this to forgot to log out of his MySpace account. So I turned him into a goatse fan for not logging out and for using MySpace.

WTF? (1)

portalcake625 (1488239) | more than 5 years ago | (#27516425)

If this is an attempt to steal money from Google, it certainly is stupid.

HUH? (2, Insightful)

GreenTech11 (1471589) | more than 5 years ago | (#27516429)

Who is Associated Press' tech consultant, they either need to listen to them, or actually hire one. They also need a lawyer who knows what that new fangled invention 'the Internet' is and also how people relate to it.

Signing its own death warrant (5, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 5 years ago | (#27516441)

None of these tactics will get people to buy more newspapers. I don't know what will, but I sure don't want Google to set a precedent for linking to asshats who can't be bothered to spend 3 minutes to edit their robots.txt if they hate it so much. But of course they won't do that. They don't want a solution, they just want money.

The problem is, as with organizations like the RIAA, once you pay them off, you just fund their lawyers to go after others who want to make use of fairuse. This is as big threat to a free internet as any national firewall or net neutrality.

Re:Signing its own death warrant (5, Insightful)

the_arrow (171557) | more than 5 years ago | (#27516533)

The problem is that AP doesn't want to stop Google from indexing them, they just want to be paid more.

Re:Signing its own death warrant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27517123)

Why? Should businesses be paid by the phone company for the privilege of listing their phone number in a phone book?

Re:Signing its own death warrant (4, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 5 years ago | (#27517745)

Interestingly enough, its generally the exact opposite. Companies pay to be listed in the yellow pages. White page listings are typically part of the standard phone service.

Yellow pages on the other hand are for pay listings. Its amusing that newspapers are getting pissed off that someone is giving them for free what they used to pay for.

The only thing they really have to bitch about is the fact that every one else is listed right next to them so they have to compete with other papers rather than knowing the person reading the article is probably only looking at their newspaper as it used to be.

Re:Signing its own death warrant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27527349)

You know, that's exactly what Google should do: continue offering newspapers to list their articles for free, but create an opt-in paid model... where the newspapers pay to have their articles indexed. Perhaps put those in a different place (Google Yellow News?)

Re:Signing its own death warrant (2)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 5 years ago | (#27517323)

And of course, presenting it as an IP rights issue as the AP have done makes it seem like AP have a god-given right to that extra cash.

Re:Signing its own death warrant (1)

FuzzyHead (86261) | more than 5 years ago | (#27517829)

And of course, presenting it as an IP rights issue as the AP have done makes it seem like AP have a god-given right to that extra cash.

You mean just like the RIAA/MPAA?

Re:Signing its own death warrant (1)

KillerBob (217953) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518219)

*nods* yup.

Quality of reporting is better at Reuters [reuters.com] too.

Re:Signing its own death warrant (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 5 years ago | (#27520987)

Pete Helmes: The Marxists are denying the people of Latin America their right to eat Mr. Chicken. And, they're denying Mr. Chicken his human right to franchise and make a profit.
Scott Dantley: Well, I sure as hell don't want some made-in-Moscow Mr. Cabbage Roll shoved down my throat against my will.
Bob Nixon: Absolutely. Those peasants deserve the dignity and human right to eat Mr. Chicken when and where they please.
Pete Helmes: And Jack, when that right is threatened in the Western Hemisphere, it becomes a national security issue for the United States of America. We're talking of the very survival of the entire concept of internationally franchised chicken, Jack!

Re:Signing its own death warrant (2, Funny)

InsertWittyNameHere (1438813) | more than 5 years ago | (#27517441)

The problem is that AP doesn't want to stop Google from indexing them, they just want to be paid more.

No, they just want Google, the young whippersnappers of the media world, to get off their lawn.

Re:Signing its own death warrant (4, Interesting)

lucas_picador (862520) | more than 5 years ago | (#27517451)

The problem is that AP doesn't want to stop Google from indexing them, they just want to be paid more.

Exactly. Like I said in the AP story two days ago:

It's even more ridiculous and pathological than that: the AP is simultaneously whining about how aggregators link to their articles and also about how search engines DON'T link to their articles. This is typical schizophrenia from an industry that is in hysterical denial because the world has changed and their business model no longer works. They can't even articulate what they want; they just want to go back to the way things used to be, when Mommy used to play with them and feed them all day. Embarrassingly infantile.

A friend of mine tells stories about her little brother, who used to hate taking a bath as a little kid, alternating between "I'm freezing!" and "It's burning my skin off!" every few seconds as excuses to try to get out of the tub.

Re:Signing its own death warrant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27519131)

And this, my friends, is the Slashdot post-remix. How you take one up-modded post from a previous story and turn it into two. Watch and learn.

Re:Signing its own death warrant (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27520899)

"I hate you!" [thud]
"I hate you.... because you're Google! [thud]
"Because you're stealing our content!" [thud]
"Because you make more money... and you've been paying us for our stories..." [thud]
"...and you bring us more traffic to our site...which increases our profits..." [thud]
"...and I really want to be more like you..." [thud]
"...and I'm really attracted to your site..." [thud]
"...and your skin is so soft..." [thud]
[thud]

Re:Signing its own death warrant (1)

isomeme (177414) | more than 5 years ago | (#27522325)

Perhaps we should extend the robots.txt format to support a price-to-index attribute.

Re:Signing its own death warrant (3, Insightful)

Alzheimers (467217) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518163)

None of these tactics will get people to buy more newspapers. I don't know what will

E-Paper readers and wireless delivery. Once the tech gets cheap enough to make a Kindle-like device "Free With Subscription" then the news media will finally catch up with the rest of the world.

And the trees will sleep a little easier at night.

Re:Signing its own death warrant (1)

Hotawa Hawk-eye (976755) | more than 5 years ago | (#27519375)

That'd be nice, although I'd like to have one reader that would accept delivery from multiple sources, rather than being required to have a "Boston Globe reader" and a separate "New York Times reader" etc.

Another alternative would be something I remember seeing in an episode of Babylon 5. Captain Sheridan went to the "Universe Today" terminal, placed yesterday's copy into a slot for recycling, and received his printed-on-demand copy (which I assume was customized to include just the sections in which he was interested) all in the span of a few seconds.

Re:Signing its own death warrant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27520845)

Welp, you're in luck then, since the Boston Globe won't be around much longer, you won't have to worry about buying their proprietary reader.

Re:Signing its own death warrant (1)

innocent_white_lamb (151825) | more than 5 years ago | (#27524531)

E-Paper readers and wireless delivery.
 
I doubt that. One of the advantages of a newspaper is its disposability. If you take it on the bus and leave it behind or it gets wet or dropped on the floor, no big deal. (Not to mention its uses for lining the bird cage and lining the floor while painting.)
 
Any wireless device will not have this, and I think it's a big part of the appeal of a newspaper. There's nothing there to keep track of or carry around, when you're done reading or tired of it you can just throw it away. Can't do that with your "free with subscription" device. Can't even spend 75c on the paper while waiting at the bus stop without planning ahead and bringing your evice with you.

Re:Signing its own death warrant (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#27526185)

E-Paper readers and wireless delivery. Once the tech gets cheap enough to make a Kindle-like device "Free With Subscription" then the news media will finally catch up with the rest of the world.

My local paper has a Twitter account [twitter.com] and posts links to new stories as they publish them online. I don't know how well it'll work out, but at least they're embracing new ideas.

Re:Signing its own death warrant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27518459)

Are you a complete Moron? The AP is nothing like the RIAA. The Associated Press doesn't sell newspapers. They could give a rat's ass about the decline in print media. They sell reporting and they sell it to just about every media outlet you partake (if someone like you even partakes of media). Any national or world news your local tv station, newspaper or website reports on is almost 99% guaranteed to be an AP story, unless you are in a very large market.

Re:Signing its own death warrant (1)

Verdatum (1257828) | more than 5 years ago | (#27524999)

Greetings troll. The RIAA couldn't give a rat's ass about the decline in CD sales, so long as they get a taste of every digital copy of a song or album. They took too long to figure out a decent profit model for the online market, so they freaked out. AP took too long to figure a decent profit model for the online market, so now they're freaking out.

If print newspapers die, AP looses revenue unless it is able to enforce creative property rights on online formats.

Most local tv news stations and newspapers in this day and age are owned by parent companies (Hurst, News Corporation, etc.) and they can use those larger companies to get stories outside of the AP. I have no proof, but 99% sounds a bit off.

Re:Signing its own death warrant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27525229)

None of these tactics will get people to buy more newspapers. I don't know what will, but I sure don't want Google to set a precedent for linking to asshats who can't be bothered to spend 3 minutes to edit their robots.txt if they hate it so much. But of course they won't do that. They don't want a solution, they just want money.

The problem is, as with organizations like the RIAA, once you pay them off, you just fund their lawyers to go after others who want to make use of fairuse. This is as big threat to a free internet as any national firewall or net neutrality.

Except, as amazing as it sounds, it seems like the AP is even more incompetent than the RIAA.

No future.. (5, Insightful)

aurispector (530273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27516445)

I just can't see a future in these organizations suing the pants off of anyone and everyone in sight. It doesn't appear to do anyone any good, not even the rights-holders benefit in the end since they just turn themselves into litigation businesses. If this isn't a reason for far-reaching copyright reform, I don't know what is.

Re:No future.. (1)

MadKeithV (102058) | more than 5 years ago | (#27516815)

I can see a future for these organizations. It's just not a very pretty one.

Re:No future.. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27516973)

If this isn't a reason for far-reaching copyright reform, I don't know what is.

True but be careful what you wish for. There are some extremely rich vested interests who would like nothing more than to be given the chance to find additional revenue streams by legal manipulation.

That's a problem with ill-gotten gains in general - they give additional financial leverage to the very people you don't want to give it to.

Contrast that with how capitalism should work - people who are most productive accumulate resources that expands their influence.

Re:No future.. (1)

aurispector (530273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518429)

You aren't kidding.

Contrast that with how capitalism should work - people who are most productive accumulate resources that expands their influence.

Don't you mean "expands their productivity"? Expanding influence is what we have now.

Re:No future.. (2, Insightful)

pbhj (607776) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518993)

Contrast that with how capitalism should work - people who are most productive accumulate resources that expands their influence.

Capitalism is about people with capital having the most influence. @aurispector, they may also choose to expand productivity to develop that influence but that's not necessarily the case. Consider OPEC, often they can increase their influence by lowering production of a high demand product.

Nor is capitalism about those who are the most productive. It is about those with the most capital, or other source of power, increasing their capital. Sure a by-product can be increased financial efficiency in production within a given company but overall I think it's bad for society.

Re:No future.. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27519739)

Capitalism is not necessarily harmful for society, nor is communism; in practice both are indeed deleterious due to the fact that they are always co-opted into some form of oligarchy.

Re:No future.. (1)

aurispector (530273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27521245)

Capitalism is not necessarily harmful for society, nor is communism; in practice both are indeed deleterious due to the fact that they are always co-opted into some form of oligarchy.

To group capitalism with communism is naive in the extreme.

Uncontrolled capitalism may have deleterious aspects, but it's nothing compared to a system which essentially denies the right to personal property. Capitalism in it's simplest form, in which an entrepreneur using his profits to expand is business, harnesses an individual's self interest and ambitions and rewards initiative and effort. Communism has no such mechanism.

Communism has never been used as anything but a cover for dictatorship, and completely ignores human nature. The communist manifesto is nothing but a collection of misguided dreaming.

Re:No future.. (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 5 years ago | (#27522921)

Humans are social animals. Humans have progressed from cave dwellers by working together for common goals, not by hoarding property. This is a recent invention in human history.

Re:No future.. (1)

aurispector (530273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523047)

You have to be kidding me. I'm certainly not advocating people take self-interest to an extreme. There's obvious benefits to cooperation and healthy market competition helps keep the excesses in check, but consider this: one guy goes out and works his ass off and hustles every day of his life while another guy sits on his ass all day. Why should we have a system where the busy guy supports the lazy guy? I don't mind paying into a system that provides support for those that can't help themselves, but when did you become my problem?

Re:No future.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27523249)

I am sure you don't sit at a comfortable desk all day, while millions of others support you and your lifestyle. Actually, I am quite sure you do.

Re:No future.. (1)

aurispector (530273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523455)

And I'm quite sure you're a fucking moron. I'm sure you know it too, or you wouldn't have posted as an A/C.

How you concocted the fantasy that others support me is beyond my understanding. You may come up with some bizarre geopolitical reasons, but the fact is if I didn't work by ass off every day I'd be homeless. This is exactly how it should be.

Did I mention that you're a fucking moron?

Re:No future.. (1)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523541)

The funny thing is, the GP can be read both as an endorsement of socialism, and as a criticism. It just depends on whether you equate "lazy" with "done climbing" or "looking for a foothold".

But given the context, he's obviously anti-social -- one of these "trickle downers". Just as some rivers need dredging every now and then, and clearing of reeds and other obstructions, the "trickle down" just needs a little push. That's what government is for.

Re:No future.. (1)

aurispector (530273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27524211)

Anti-social? Let me paint you a picture: I'm a dentist. I took out very large student loans to become a dentist and I'll be paying them back for decades. I worked extremely hard to get through school and work extremely hard now. I'm proud to provide high quality care for my patients. I've had occasion to work in offices where the majority of patients are on welfare. Very often they're wearing nicer clothes and driving much nicer cars than I do, meaning they're lying to the state to stay on welfare. They pay nothing out of pocket for their dental care, while they state reimburses me very little for working on them. As a group, they're far less likely to take care of themselve - most dental issues are preventable - and far more likely to blame me if something goes wrong. They often fail to show for scheduled appointments and are statistically far more likely to sue for damages regardless of cause.

Basically my taxes fund these losers and because it's so galling that I no longer accept the welfare insurance. If this makes me anti-social I'm glad to wear the label, but I strongly suspect you lack the real life experience to understand why.

Re:No future.. (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 5 years ago | (#27524777)

If you despise these welfare clients so much, why do you serve them ? I've always been of the attitude that if a client isn't worthy of your time, you should ditch them. Are you so desperate for business that you can't afford to skip bad clients ? By allowing yourself to be abused (by clients, by the state insurance system), you are perpetuating the problem for yourself and every other practitioner.

Give them an appointment 18 months away, let them bounce around until they find someone pathetic enough to cope with them. You can then focus on clients that are worth your time and attention.

If I took every single crappy gig people flung at my head, I'd be broke, bitter and genocidal. Oh, wait... I already am!

Re:No future.. (1)

aurispector (530273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27525571)

As I said - I don't. The shame of it is that some of them are decent people that deserve help, but the system is just so broken and abused. So, I'm not quite broke, only a little bitter and genocidal only on bad days. At least I was able to exercise some choice in the matter. Now I'm merely stuck listening to adolescent idiots that think everything should be free and that taxing away half my income is a good idea.

Re:No future.. (1)

HiThere (15173) | more than 5 years ago | (#27524805)

You don't know what you're talking about. Either that, or you've adopted a popular media definition of communism.

Now it's true that the philosophical descendants of Marx+Lenin were all dictatorial, that isn't the origin of communism. We can't really trace the origin of communism, but it predates the Roman Empire, and is probably the ancestral form of human government. The problem is that it doesn't scale. It works fine in a family. Acceptably in a small village. Poorly in a large village. And unacceptably poorly in any larger group.

I still have trouble placing it in the same category with Capitalism, though that's nearly as ancient. Possibly even more so. OTOH neither works acceptably well for large groups of humans. Unrestricted capitalism would be quite likely to result in nearly everyone dying...either that or revolt and redistribution of wealth. (Both scenarios have happened in the past. Both are rare because unrestricted capitalism is generally either a myth or an acknowledged falsehood.)

Marx was quite correct when he pointed out the problems with the loosely restricted capitalism that was dominant in his day. His solutions may not have been plausible, with their own inherent problems (blame Lenin for the dictatorship), but the problems he recognized were real.

Neither approach is a valid one for our own times when the value of labor is decreasing. Classically all people could provide valuable labor at, e.g., digging ditches, or as conscript warriors. The value of such labor has been decreasing, and is set to soon decrease rapidly. Either that, or we won't solve the energy crisis and will lose our civilization. In such case we must expect a die-off of over 90%...and I don't expect it to be peaceful. Presuming that we solve the energy crisis we face automation. Increasingly intelligent automation. Already we are using automated soldiers on a minor scale. Expect that to increase, and then consider what constraints that removes from arbitrary centralized government. And that most people won't contribute anything positive to the economy.

We already have laws that allow corporations to own other corporations. I don't know if the laws allow a mesh of corporations to own each other, but they may. If so, we are set for capital owning itself, with no human involvement. Is this really what we want? On what basis do you say yes or no? Don't you support capitalism?

Re:No future.. (1)

Miseph (979059) | more than 5 years ago | (#27519785)

"Capitalism is about people with capital having the most influence."

Not quite. I think the word you are looking for is actually "plutocracy". One could say that the latter logically follows from the former*, but that doesn't make them the same thing.

"@aurispector, they may also choose to expand productivity to develop that influence but that's not necessarily the case. Consider OPEC, often they can increase their influence by lowering production of a high demand product."

This is a critical flaw in capitalism: it only works properly when a certain set of very specific conditions** are met. I'll leave it to the reader to figure out if those conditions are ever met, or even could be.

"Nor is capitalism about those who are the most productive. It is about those with the most capital, or other source of power, increasing their capital. Sure a by-product can be increased financial efficiency in production within a given company but overall I think it's bad for society."

What? Capital is gained precisely by increasing production and decreasing cost. Your statement of how capitalism works is completely wrong on its face.

*One could also say that plutocracy is the only form of government the world has ever known, with or without capitalism.

**Including, but not limited to: resources must be scarce but never absent, there must be absolutely no form of collusion by any parties at any level of the system (ie. no labor unions, guilds or trade organizations... this covers both Teamsters and OPEC), there must be absolutely no barriers to entry in the market, there can be no government interference in business for any reason, nobody can cheat or violate laws (which probably can't exist) and all parties must have unlimited power to negotiate prices on all things including labor.

Re:No future.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27520949)

"What? Capital is gained precisely by increasing production and decreasing cost. Your statement of how capitalism works is completely wrong on its face."
Nah, nowadays most capital is gained by investments and speculations. And it isn't true for anyone without any money to invest. Effectivity on the other hand is mostly gained according to your statement (well not allways true), and it is one good way to increase capital and the best thing about capitalism, but far it's is unfortunatly not the most common.

"**Including, but not limited to: resources must be scarce but never absent, there must be absolutely no form of collusion by any parties at any level of the system (ie. no labor unions, guilds or trade organizations... this covers both Teamsters and OPEC), there must be absolutely no barriers to entry in the market, there can be no government interference in business for any reason, nobody can cheat or violate laws (which probably can't exist) and all parties must have unlimited power to negotiate prices on all things including labor."
That means that we can not have starving or homeless people, if we have, they can't possibly have anything to negotiate with, hence no marketeconomy, with by the way we doesn't have anywhere in the world.

Re:No future.. (1)

pbhj (607776) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523963)

I'd prepared a very humorous, insightful and engaging response and my browser arsed up on me .. so this'll have to do.

"Capitalism is about people with capital having the most influence."

Not quite. I think the word you are looking for is actually "plutocracy". One could say that the latter logically follows from the former*, but that doesn't make them the same thing.

Plutocracy is a dominant twist within our society which has a largely capitalist fabric but does not (as you go on to say) reflect a true capitalism. Just as no truly communist society has emerged. Western society is as capitalist (with it's social welfare and bailouts, etc.) as Soviet Russia was communist.

"Nor is capitalism about those who are the most productive. It is about those with the most capital, or other source of power, increasing their capital. Sure a by-product can be increased financial efficiency in production within a given company but overall I think it's bad for society."

What? Capital is gained precisely by increasing production and decreasing cost. Your statement of how capitalism works is completely wrong on its face.

I was looking at an individual level. If you have a lot of money, you may have been productive to get it, you may not. But once you have that wealth you can sit on your arse and let other peoples demand for your money generate more wealth for you. A capitalist plutocrat doesn't need to work, his money "works" for him increasing his power as it does so such that he can order society to keep himself in his position.

What concerns me most about capitalism is that the scarcity value of people is low. In a truly capitalist society you work people to death because they're plentiful and as one of the plutocrats you can force people to generate wealth (by their productivity, not yours) for you simply because of their demand for life sustaining resources (food, healthcare, clean water, shelter). Consider Dubai as an example (http://digg.com/d1oA2o; an excellent article in The Independent).

Re:No future.. (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 5 years ago | (#27521569)

That's rediculous.

The AP does ONE THING. It licenses news stories to other people to broadcast/print. The sole reason for its existence is to license out content.

That means... anyone who doesn't pay the licensing fees and uses the content is liable to get sued.

Now in this case it's stupid because the party getting the cease and desist was an AP subscriber and also within his legal rights to share an AP video. To me this sounds more like a left hand not knowing what the right is doing.

But if anything the AP is actually the business mdoel that will survive this change in business model because they're consolidated. They make their money from giving the same news to thousands of other sites which can reproduce it as they see fit. There's a reason that country music station has an AP subscription--it's a nice cheap and accessible way for them to offer news without a news department. Personally I think this is an excellent way to run things. Does every city paper REALLY need an international news beureau? Focus on the business that is local and profitable and then add the AP coverage on top of that.

Without licensing deals the AP has no income. So to say that they shouldn't be protecting their licensing deals in principle is rediculous. This was one case of an AP executive overstepping their reach. After all as the article said it's strange that this ONE station is being picked out for notice when thousands of websites are also doing it and not receiving any trouble at all.

Big companies make mistakes. Non-story if you ask me.

Nothing more exciting than Big Org gets confused (5, Insightful)

khakipuce (625944) | more than 5 years ago | (#27516451)

It's bound to happen, set up a department to check web content and they will find your own content apparently copied. Tracing that back through to some original poster and then identifying that poster as legitimate or not is going to be difficult.

Anyone who has worked in a medium to large organisation will know how hard it is to find out what someone in the same building is doing, let alone some affiliate.

Re:Nothing more exciting than Big Org gets confuse (5, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 5 years ago | (#27516573)

Tracing that back through to some original poster and then identifying that poster as legitimate or not is going to be difficult

You'd think that somewhere near the top of the list of "authorised users" would be "Our Own Goddamn YouTube channel". That part shouldn't have been difficult. That the group checking for infringement weren't aware of the legit YouTube channel, and didn't comprehend what embedding it meant, suggests that the group looking for infringements is on more of a "shoot first, don't ask questions" approach. We take it for granted that fair use is dead, but having a department seemingly set up to block all use is beyond a joke.

Re:Nothing more exciting than Big Org gets confuse (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27516773)

Tracing that back through to some original poster and then identifying that poster as legitimate or not is going to be difficult.

the AP was the poster you dumbfuck. why bother commenting on something you haven't even read, much less comprehended.

Re:Nothing more exciting than Big Org gets confuse (1)

daveywest (937112) | more than 5 years ago | (#27519257)

I once interviewed for a job at a MLM's headquarters. One of the major responsibilities was to make sure the independent reps weren't implying they were the real company on the web. Considering the size of the AP, I don't find it unreasonable that they would employ someone to search for copyright infringement.

Have we learned nothing!? (4, Insightful)

mc1138 (718275) | more than 5 years ago | (#27516527)

If the RIAA has taught us anything, no one likes strong arm tactics and poorly thought out legal maneuvering. Seriously, suing an affiliate? That will really help them turn around the economic slump by attracting a large customer base. Seriously, give me a break.

Re:Have we learned nothing!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27516897)

this isn't insightful. no one is getting sued. they received a cease-and-desist letter. i know reading the article is beyond you. even the summary requires a few seconds of attention. but, shit man, the goddamn headline even made it clear that this wasn't about a lawsuit.

is there some rule that the first 20 retards that comment get modded insightful?

Re:Have we learned nothing!? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27516945)

A C&D is the first step that is required for suing someone. It's a required first step. You don't send C&D's unless you intend on following it up with a lawsuit if they don't cease and desist.

But then, this is Slashdot. Where any and every Anonymous Coward has to chime in, whether or not they know anything about the subject matter...oh, wait...damn...

Re:Have we learned nothing!? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 5 years ago | (#27517905)

Are you serious?

I've sent cease and desist letters with the only intention being to get them to stop.

Perhaps in your world thats the only reason to do it, fortunately not everyone lives in that world.

Besides, if they do stop, there is no next step so it doesn't matter what the next step may be, there is no law suit.

Re:Have we learned nothing!? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27519371)

And if they don't stop.. then what do you do? Send another C&D letter?

Re:Have we learned nothing!? (1)

mundanetechnomancer (1343739) | more than 5 years ago | (#27519519)

But if they don't, your next step is lawsuit, or let them walk all over you. C&D's are just legal-speak for "cut the shit out or we'll take you to court." So i would say that they certainly show "intend on following it up with a lawsuit if they don't cease and desist."

Re:Have we learned nothing!? (1)

mc1138 (718275) | more than 5 years ago | (#27519103)

You're right, but as the other people that replied to you pointed out a C&D letter is the prelude to a lawsuit. My bigger point was that the strong arm reactionary tactics that seem to be increasingly common have not shown to produce desired results. Though that being said I don't have a window into the financial information of the RIAA and others, for all I know it is making them more money. But I doubt it.

Re:Have we learned nothing!? (1)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 5 years ago | (#27522411)

I think the issue is that these companies don't realize how they're endangering their own reputations with these kinds of mass-litigation campaigns.

In most companies ordinary company employees don't go sending out C&D letters - or filing lawsuits. If somebody notices something amiss it goes way up the chain of command. Most likely the CEO would personally approve an action like this with input from counsel before taking this kind of step.

The problem is that when a company decides to get agreesive with litigation the CEO can't handle every case personally. Some department gets created to handle the litigation, and now you have people with a few years experience running google searches and firing off letters to anything that comes up as a hit. Litigation becomes a thoughtless exercise since it needs to be cheap to execute. You can't sustain a mass-litigation campaign if you actually take the time to thoroughly investigate every suspicious website before sending out a C&D letter.

Companies need to reserve litigation and heavy-handed letters for serious offenses, and companies need to control these carefully. Some 25-year-old who has been working for the company for a year shouldn't be sending out C&D letters with maybe only one level of oversight.

To me this kind of conduct is like having a neighborhood watch program where you hire teenagers from the neighborhood and issue them AK47s. You're going to have problems...

This can only be a good thing... (4, Insightful)

castironpigeon (1056188) | more than 5 years ago | (#27516675)

Necessity is the mother of invention. There'd be no changing a broken system if crises like this didn't come up and stress it. I'm curious to see how much further this can go (in general, not just regarding AP) before some really big shit hits the fan.

Re:This can only be a good thing... (1)

Captian Spazzz (1506193) | more than 5 years ago | (#27517755)

Necessity may be the mother of invention but laziness is the father.

Nothing better will come along until they find a way that's easier "for them". Inevitably however that system will be hard "for us".

This is how we get crap like DRM and such.

AP calls for free money from Google (4, Insightful)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#27516721)

The Associated Press has asked the government to examine Google News and other content aggregators [today.com] , claiming they contribute insufficiently to their income.

"The newspapers put their content up on the web for free and then Google, the freeloading bastards, tell people where to find it. We told them to pay up or stop using our stuff, and they said OK, they'd stop using our stuff!

"We need federal regulation to bring back balance, 'balance' defined as being able to make them give us money because we want it. You'd think the Internet wasn't invented to give news agencies and record companies free money!"

The press group argues that traffic from search engines doesn't make up the cost of producing the content. "Ad revenue has collapsed, so search engine traffic doesn't bring in enough views to pay for itself. Our inability to sell ads is clearly Google's problem."

The AP suggests the exploration of new models that "require fair acknowledgement of the value that our content creates, both on our own site through advertising and 'at the edges' in the world of search and aggregation. Basically, they should just give us money because we want it. And the music industry too. How about a bailout? Go on, gi's it."

Re:AP calls for free money from Google (0)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 5 years ago | (#27516853)

The problem is that the AP produce newspapers, which are physical objects and so can be sold and are too cheaply produced in bulk to be worth copying, now they are trying to get money for producing on-line content and do not seem to know how the internet works, and how to make money from it

So their solution is to try and sue people, and get the government to protect their flawed business model ...

Re:AP calls for free money from Google (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 5 years ago | (#27516927)

That's just it. They get ad revenue when people visit their sites. Google news drives customers to their sites producing ad revenue. However since theAP likes to print the same article in every newspaper and only a handful benefit from google news the AP want google to make up the difference.

Re:AP calls for free money from Google (2, Insightful)

digitig (1056110) | more than 5 years ago | (#27517169)

The problem is that the AP produce newspapers

That's a bit of news I'd missed. Since when? Which newspapers do AP produce?

Re:AP calls for free money from Google (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27521031)

In theory none of them.

In practice, just about all of them.

That's part of what's killing newspapers, they all carry the *exact* same articles, because they rely pretty much completely on the AP for their content.

ex - news sys admin (2, Insightful)

star3am (1151041) | more than 5 years ago | (#27516757)

these guys got their heads so far up their own arses, they don't have a clue. Nothing will fix their current financial crisis, they brought it on themselves. Thriving on bad news, and candy coating it just to make another buck from a news paper. Serves them right, assholes

Re:ex - news sys admin (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27516877)

Mod parent +5 Hindsightful.

Re:ex - news sys admin (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518165)

Hmm.. I think you are one of the first people I've encountered to suggest that it was anything other than just the internet. At first I blew off your opinion, but now that I think about it , you might be right. The newspapers content was designed to maximize revenue under a different climate where all news was difficult to find. So they needed sensational news to sell and stupid human interest stories to cover up the lack of actual news. When news became more widely available through the internet and cable news networks, they didn't change their cliched format.

The who, what and where are now easily found out. They need to focus on the why and how. Which they've traditionally ignored, in addition to removing the traditional filter they've had in editing peoples remarks. Let the idiots sound like idiots, and don't be afraid to let sane people call them idiots. They need to change the style as well. The news in Perioa should be differently presented than the news in New York.

Re:ex - news sys admin (1)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | more than 5 years ago | (#27521873)

I wasn't even paying attention, but that's precisely what happened to them. They're still reporting my grandparents' news. And quite frankly, I don't care. They so rarely talk about anything I care about that I've basically never paid attention to them. When they attempt to talk about something I care about, they muck it up so badly that the result is useless or worse than useless by being outright misleading. If they can avoid that trap, by some miracle, they still screw it up by reporting just the facts (for those rare instances when they do report the facts, rather than "living the story"), instead of setting the facts in context by quoting relevant statistics.

So, I read slashdot. Huh. Go figure.

Re:ex - news sys admin (1)

star3am (1151041) | more than 5 years ago | (#27522593)

> So, I read slashdot. Huh. Go figure. Summs it up perfectly ;)

Obama N1GG3R (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27516777)

Subject says it all: Apes of Africa [resist.com]

Ominous (5, Insightful)

agorist_apostle (1491899) | more than 5 years ago | (#27516779)

It worries me when the free flow of political and economic information is going to start becoming the newest IP/DRM battleground because people who produce information simply cannot wrap their minds around the idea that information is now cheaply and easily reproducible and their old business models are defunct. All sorts of de facto censorship could very easily occur now under the guide of "protecting their business," especially given the tight mingling of media companies, the government, banks, etc.

Re:Ominous (4, Interesting)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 5 years ago | (#27517593)

Let's hope that these organizations all go bankrupt before that. I heard once that often in repressive situations, no reform or anything like that really happens until the progenitors are all removed from power and sometimes that only happens when they die of old age. So how long do we need to wait for people who grew up with the internet and free information to come into positions of power? I'm in my early 30s and I was surfing bbs' while growing up, so maybe another ten years or so, so when people like me are in their 40s?

Re:Ominous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27517877)

So we're going to be left with just the likes of DailyKos and FreeRepublic? God help us all.

Re:Ominous (1)

agorist_apostle (1491899) | more than 5 years ago | (#27517997)

That's an excellent point...I'm in my late 30s, grew up around computers and electronics, too, so I think you're probably right. The problem is still that some people look at information exchange and propagation and see nothing but $$$, like those aholes who try to make money off of freeware or think of the worst cockamamie schemes to extract dollars from people. One thing that gives me a lot of hope is the growth of social computing, like Facebook, which I see as leading the general public to being fully interconnected, something which can't happen unless the DRM/IP issues start going away. They will see obstacles put in their path and then demand to know why those obstacles have been placed there and more people will start questioning why we have DRM/IP. A couple of years ago, I had a conversation with an acquaintance who's basically stereotypical hillbilly auto mechanic. He'd figured out how to hack his hardware to record "copy protected" DVDs. It's when the mindset that it's possible to do something like that and the will to do it spreads that we will see the end of our current broken system, not when "IP" holders dribble a little free content out now and then or we have a few philosophers make arcane aguments over the morality of bottling up information.

There's always been a free flow of information... (1)

gillbates (106458) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518583)

Even in colonial times.

One person bought a newspaper, and then proceeded to tell the story to all of his friends, associates, etc...

It wasn't until the small-town atmosphere went away that newspapers were able to become the big businesses they are (were?!) today. News readership requires a *certain level* of interaction - too much, and no one reads the stories; too little, and there's no point in reading the stories (with whom would you discuss the news?). The problem is that getting the mix right is more art than science, so when someone reproduces their stories, they err on the side of retaining control; they attempt to shut the copiers down.

Re:Ominous (2, Insightful)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 5 years ago | (#27520965)

people who produce information simply cannot wrap their minds around the idea that information is now cheaply and easily reproducible and their old business models are defunct

I'm not disagreeing with you, and not trying to troll, but from the perspective of the people running news agencies or the AP, what is the new business model they should shift to?

Whether we like it or not, it takes money to cover the news and more money--though less and less lately--to deliver it. Turning it over to bloggers won't help; the majority of blogs are only commentary on news posted by other entities, and the occasional investigative blog entry, while important, is so far in the minority as to preclude them from being viable alternatives. Plus there's even less accountability for a blogger than there is for a reporter at a mainstream news outlet; at least they have to worry about their job if they really screw the pooch on their work.

In this particular case for example, I think it's essentially greed on the AP's part (and for the record I think their campaigns against Google News are IDIOTIC). However, for the sake of argument let's assume that they're actually reacting to profits lowering enough that it's going to impact their ability to cover and report on news. How do they change their business model? Increasing prices might work for a little while, except that if anybody is hurting more than the AP itself it would be the news agencies buying AP feeds. There's only so much more money you can extract from them before their "new business model" of ad-supported content fails them, they go down and you have even less revenue than you started with.

They could try to change to a subscription model. Then again, most people aren't going to go for it after they've had such a long period of essentially free news now. Plus, it's basically the model that customers are moving AWAY from by ditching their subscriptions to get their news online.

Consolidation seems like a viable option, but I personally feel there's already been far too much consolidation in news agencies. Is this really an area we wanted even as much consolidation as we have, much less more? And more to the point, if you're telling any individual business owner that his business model no longer works and his only choice is to go out of business, you're not going to get a very good reaction--even if it's ultimately good for his industry.

So yes, right now they're probably just being greedy fucks; they can probably absorb less revenues for quite some time without it having to impact their services. But not forever--so what IS the business model they should be advancing?

I don't like the way this is going any more than you do, but it's easy to comment from the sidelines and a much tougher situation if you're actually faced with it.

Re:Ominous (1)

atomic-penguin (100835) | more than 5 years ago | (#27521719)

In this particular case for example, I think it's essentially greed on the AP's part (and for the record I think their campaigns against Google News are IDIOTIC).

The original poster cannot read. The Associated Press is not going after Google, which is one of their customers who PAYS them for content. However I guess it became a frequently asked question by Google News users [pcmag.com] . The person pointing the finger at Google for stealing content is Rupert Murdoch [pcmag.com] . Rupert Murdoch is the very old CEO and chairman of News Corp./Fox, whom I speculate is somewhat ignorant of the intarwebs in his ripe old age of 78. Furthermore, I am pretty sure he is not a spokesman for the Associated Press.

Gordian Knot (1)

srussia (884021) | more than 5 years ago | (#27516971)

Situations like this (and all sorts of permutations seem to crop up everyday) really illustrate how much of a Gordian Knot IP is.

You all know what the solution is.

Solution (3, Funny)

BitterAndDrunk (799378) | more than 5 years ago | (#27517155)

Flash Gordian?
Flash - a-ah - saviour of the universe
Flash - a-ah - he'll save everyone of us

*ducks*

Re:Gordian Knot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27517175)

Unfortunately finding a brave enough Alexander to cut this tangle isn't going to be easy.

Re:Gordian Knot (1)

Weedhopper (168515) | more than 5 years ago | (#27522099)

Maim kill burn, maim kill burn?

Charlie Rose (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27517149)

Anyone see the CEO on Charlie Rose last night?

Rose asked him for details on how he was planning on executing the control that he said they wanted.

His response was long, but the most important part was one word: Beacon

He wants to "embed a beacon" in the news to let them know where it is being used.

Um. Good luck with that...

Re:Charlie Rose (2, Funny)

disccomp (1454521) | more than 5 years ago | (#27517951)

Yeah, then they could just Google their "beacon" and find all the sites that posted their article; hey, maybe then Google could start charging THEM for search.

Clear solution (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 5 years ago | (#27517295)

Clearly, any business that doesn't want to get sued needs to stay far away from AP. Clearly it's become dangerous to do business with them.

I guess if the AP wants to stay in the news business, they'd better start shopping for a printing press.

since this is new policy for the AP... (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 5 years ago | (#27517599)

This is clearly some ladder-climbing scheme by some jr. executive.

When the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, it's time to cut them both off.

Re:since this is new policy for the AP... (2, Insightful)

JustOK (667959) | more than 5 years ago | (#27520861)

Seems like each hand thinks it's the only one.

Breaking news, the orginization is too big... (1)

johnny cashed (590023) | more than 5 years ago | (#27517795)

So big in fact, the right hand doesn't know what the left one is up to.

Slavery, Plain and Simple (2, Insightful)

kenp2002 (545495) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518189)

When it became illegal to own people those that depend on slavery found new ways to own, not people, but everything about the person.

Own his land, you own him.
Bury him in debt and own his debt, you own him.

Throughout history people have alwasy sought ways to make slaves of their neighbors, now in the 21st century the method is:

Own his thoughts, you own him.

Thought crime is the new tool to make slaves of people; how dare the slaves think without permission. Think only what we tell you to think. We people exist for the benefit of the master, in this case businesses.

Goverment as king, business as the fiefs, the executives as the lords, and we the people have become intellectual share croppers; and have been returned to our proper place as slaves\pesants\serfs... Steal from the pesants and profit, steal from the master and suffer his wrath... The knights have been replaced with lawyers and history repeats itself...

get it straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27520769)

the youtube video thing is pretty funny, but

has anyone seen AP take shots at google? lines like

"The Associated Press, who has been acting very bipolar lately about Google News (they get paid by Google for their content, and then complain about Google "stealing" that content)"

i just can't find anything to back that up. of course they're upset over sites stealing content, but i can't find any stories that have them pointing fingers at google. it seems like news site guess-making and bad writing (shame slashdot for front paging that).

the only one that seems to be naming google is murdoch, and he's not affiliated with the AP

AP isn't very aware of current events (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27528867)

I don't think the AP are bad people, however they have some very "by the book" people who don't do the research.

Case in point, employee benefits that are useless to employees who don't live in the lower 48.

This is just more of the same failed to do the research. The AP member in question probably got C&D'ed by someone looking for AP content to send C&D's to, without checking to see if that content was approved or not.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?