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!

Consortium To Share Ad Revenue From Stolen Stories

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the mandatory-licensure-is-next dept.

The Media 94

Hugh Pickens writes "Erick Schonfeld has an interesting story in TechCrunch about a consortium of publishers including Reuters, the Magazine Publishers of America, and Politico that plans to take a new approach towards the proliferation of splogs (spam blogs) and other sites which republish the entire feed of news sites and blogs, often without attribution or links. For any post or page which takes a full copy of a publisher's work, the Fair Syndication Consortium thinks the ad networks should pay a portion of the ad revenues being generated by those sites. Rather than go after these sites one at a time, the Fair Syndication Consortium wants to negotiate directly with the ad networks which serve ads on these sites: DoubleClick, Google's AdSense, and Yahoo. One precedent for this type of approach is YouTube's Content ID program, which splits revenues between YouTube and the media companies whose videos are being reused online. How would the ad networks know that the content in question belongs to the publisher? Attributor would keep track of it all and manage the requests for payment. The consortium is open to any publisher to join, including bloggers. It may not be the perfect solution but 'it is certainly better than sending out thousands of takedown notices' writes Schonfeld."

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

fp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27670527)

you can all share the joy of eating out my asshole, you faggots.

sounds like a very reasonable solution (4, Insightful)

Presto Vivace (882157) | more than 5 years ago | (#27670591)

I wish them well.

Re:sounds like a very reasonable solution (2, Insightful)

carlzum (832868) | more than 5 years ago | (#27671387)

Agreed. My knee-jerk reaction was "how dare they!", but after reading the article it sounds like a more realistic approach than the AP has taken [informationweek.com] . "Spam Blogs" republish work with the intent of generating ad revenue. Ad networks should direct that revenue to the authors. It's in their best interest, failing to compensate the authors will push them to take a hardline stance against news aggregators, and ultimately deter them from investing in new content.

Re:sounds like a very reasonable solution (1)

Presto Vivace (882157) | more than 5 years ago | (#27671501)

I entertain the faint hope that sharing revenue would discourage splogs.

Re:sounds like a very reasonable solution (2, Insightful)

antic (29198) | more than 5 years ago | (#27671855)

How? If their revenue dropped 50%, they'd just double their efforts. They're using scrapers, so it costs them nothing to harvest more content.

Look at spam. If the amount of clicking recipients halves, the spammers double their mailing list to compensate as their cost-per-message is still virtually nothing.

It's not the right solution.

Re:sounds like a very reasonable solution (1)

dov_0 (1438253) | more than 5 years ago | (#27672053)

How? If their revenue dropped 50%, they'd just double their efforts. They're using scrapers, so it costs them nothing to harvest more content.

So. The sploggers double their efforts. The publishers income goes up in line with the sploggers. Who cares?

Re:sounds like a very reasonable solution (1)

TorKlingberg (599697) | more than 5 years ago | (#27673677)

Wouldn't they double their efforts anyway? Do spammers stop when they made "enough" money?

Re:sounds like a very reasonable solution (3, Insightful)

grcumb (781340) | more than 5 years ago | (#27671523)

Agreed. My knee-jerk reaction was "how dare they!", but after reading the article it sounds like a more realistic approach than the AP has taken [informationweek.com] .

I don't think the solution is bad in principle. I'm sure that in practice, however, it would be terrible.

Among the potential problems:

  • Creation of an RIAA-like organisation which, not coincidentally, requires a certain amount of the funds it recoups in order to manage its own operations.
  • Legitimacy granted by advertisers to such an organisation would encourage all parties to 'simplify' payments to such 'rights managers'.
  • For small blog authors, chasing up these revenues would be onerous. Larger distributors of web content, on the other hand, would benefit from this. Yet another mechanism to keep the small guy in his place.
  • Nonetheless, membership in such an organisation (because of course, authors would have to register to be eligible for repayment) would become a requirement.

Put simply, I'm worried about mission creep. A good idea becomes an institution, and we see the little guy suffering once again because large organisations prefer to deal with large organisations.

Most - but not all - organisations handling royalty payments are built in such a way that small fry don't get a fair shake. They have a relatively small voice in policy decisions, and inevitably get shouted down by corporate interests.

This group may claim to speak on behalf of bloggers like me whose content gets copied all the time, but I can't see it working out to my benefit. All I can see is yet another group empowering themselves at my expense.

Re:sounds like a very reasonable solution (1)

carlzum (832868) | more than 5 years ago | (#27671591)

I have the same concerns about the slippery slope this could create. I like the idea in theory though. I'd rather ad networks share revenue generated under the current system instead of publishers adopting the MPAA's and RIAA's approach of demanding full control of distribution. That seems to be the direction the AP is heading.

Re:sounds like a very reasonable solution (1)

steelfood (895457) | more than 5 years ago | (#27675409)

You just have to get enough bloggers to join, and the ability for members to have a say on the affairs of the organization. At least when it comes down to the important issues, the mob of bloggers will be heard. Or even if bloggers get marginalized within the structure of the organization, if they suddenly leave or threaten to leave in protest, it will diminish the legitimacy of the organization. It should be fairly obvious that bloggers can organize and take action pretty damn quickly.

However, if there were no bloggers in the organization, or too few, to begin with, it wouldn't be an effective tactic. So this is reliant on the number of bloggers participating reaching a critical mass.

Re:sounds like a very reasonable solution (1)

zotz (3951) | more than 5 years ago | (#27673063)

So long as they don't try to have it both ways.

Collect revenue for the ad companies and then sue the others and collect again.

(well they could get it wrong in other ways too. there is so much foolishness in the system currently, i imagine it will be hard to get something right. Perhaps what these big industry players need to do is make their own industry equivalent of statutory licenses for their content and place all of their content into such a system. ???)

drew

Re:sounds like a very reasonable solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27683257)

All of my content (2,000+ articles in an online industry journal) is being stolen, day after day, by sites in China. They scrape the screen (can't hide HTML, BTDT), then post it to their own and hundreds of other Chinese sites in English, then translate it into Chinese. They delete all of the copyright notifications and insert their own. Then Google scans all of these "news" sites and ranks their links far above my original. So explain to me again how this is supposed to help? I still get 200,000+ loyal visitors each month, but this is slow death by a thousand cuts. It's only a matter of time.

advertising tax.. no wait... (5, Insightful)

powerspike (729889) | more than 5 years ago | (#27670607)

Maybe the RIAA should take a look at them. Give away your goods for free, and get somebody else to pay for it, i don't think the RIAA have though of that one yet have they?
I've had this happen to me previously on a few websites, the easy way to fix it? don't put your entire story into the feeds... seems pretty simple enough, just put in a exert and force them to link back to the original site.

Re:advertising tax.. no wait... (1)

nathan.fulton (1160807) | more than 5 years ago | (#27670823)

The time it takes me to write some simple REGEX the time it takes you to write a good article.

Re:advertising tax.. no wait... (1)

adavies42 (746183) | more than 5 years ago | (#27671193)

html escape fail

Re:advertising tax.. no wait... (1)

Xaoswolf (524554) | more than 5 years ago | (#27671407)

Or do what pages like geekologie.com do, just put links to other articles on your site within keywords in each post. If they only pull the RSS, then each stolen article will link to two or three of your own posts.

Or you can also set up your RSS to only syncdicate an excerpt with a link to read more...

, or even better, include ads in the rss, so when it is ripped off, it includes your own ads.

Re:advertising tax.. no wait... (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 5 years ago | (#27671531)

the easy way to fix it? don't put your entire story into the feeds... seems pretty simple enough, just put in a exert and force them to link back to the original site.

This breaks the purpose of the feeds, though, which is to allow your site's readers to read your content in the environment of their choice (e.g. aggregated with content from other sites they visit regularly). This may not matter much to you, but you can be sure there are people who will be really pissed off by it. Obviously, in the end, it's up to you whether to offer useful feeds or not, but don't be surprised if there are people who skip reading your site because of this.

Another option you may not have considered is to put your own adverts in the feed (this is what slashdot does, for example). That way, if one of these sites grabs your content without being careful about it, you end up earning from their hits as well as your own.

Re:advertising tax.. no wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27674819)

Dude - have you never heard of imeem.com - this model, but applied to music has been the imeem's whole business model for the past few years.

Instead of sharing tracks by p2p, you can upload to the site and then the artists get 50% of the ad revenue for plays generated by the tracks.

What is it with these organizations lately (3, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27670633)

that are trying (as often as not, illegally) to charge one party for the transgressions of another? If it's a voluntary program, that may be one thing, but otherwise it is just a crock. It is not legally possible to enter into a contract with another party, and thereby obligate a third party without their consent (or even knowledge).

Re:What is it with these organizations lately (5, Interesting)

rde (17364) | more than 5 years ago | (#27670729)

That's not what they're doing; it says this clearly in TFA (and, indeed, the summary). What they're asking for is a cut of the revenues that would be paid by the ad companies to the aggregator. Yes, the ad company would be handing over the cash (or its virtual equivalent), but the cash they'd be handing over would be taken from the account of whomever ran the page.

Sounds like a damn fine idea to me, with one possible caveat; it would legitimise the practise, as they aggregators would essentially be paying for the privilege of doing nothing. One could look at this as an 'everybody wins' situation; the original sites get money, the aggregator gets money, the ad company gets clicks. However, it essentially amounts to 'money for nothing' on the part of the aggregator. It also allows them to say to anyone who complains 'just join the alliance', giving them, if not the moral high ground, then at least a position that isn't below sea level.

Re:What is it with these organizations lately (2, Insightful)

nathan.fulton (1160807) | more than 5 years ago | (#27670767)

Yes, because the DMCA doesn't give the content owner and other choices...~

Re:What is it with these organizations lately (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 5 years ago | (#27671651)

Take a look around the "blackhat" forums some time, scrapers are looking specificly for overseas hosting and there's companies popping up whos main selling point is that they ignore DMCA complaints.

Re:What is it with these organizations lately (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27670985)

That's not what they are doing, but that is what has been proposed by a lot of others, in other similar situations.

And in this case I agree, I am against it as it legitimizes the practice.

Re:What is it with these organizations lately (2, Insightful)

Joebert (946227) | more than 5 years ago | (#27671659)

Sounds like a damn fine idea to me, with one possible caveat;

You forgot the part where advertising companies start holding earnings for 90 days to make sure none of these requests come in against the publishers funds.

The article I'm guessing doesn't bring that part up, but you know it's bound to happen.

Re:What is it with these organizations lately (1)

steelfood (895457) | more than 5 years ago | (#27675453)

Aggregators provide the service of aggregation. That's not getting something for nothing. The question is, how much should an aggregator get for this service?

Re:What is it with these organizations lately (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 5 years ago | (#27677617)

My rule of thumb is that any group which can not survive without the other is adding cost instead of value.

Content providers can survive without aggreators, but aggregators can not survive without content providers.

Re:What is it with these organizations lately (1)

socketwiz (792252) | more than 5 years ago | (#27676165)

It also allows them to say to anyone who complains 'just join the alliance'...

For the HORDE!!!

Re:What is it with these organizations lately (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 5 years ago | (#27671115)

The ad network would just have to modify the contract with the ad publishers: if the content on your page is copyrighted by somebody else according to attributor.com we may pay a portion of your income to the original owner, or something like that. If you don't like it don't publish their ads. I do have couple of issues with the whole idea though:

1. Will attributor.com guarantee no false positives, i.e. legitimate blogs being deprived of income on their own original content because a sentence or two matches some article, or perhaps quotes it on purpose, or a visitor (perhaps the original owner of the article, which creates a potential for abuse) posts a comment with a cut and paste copy of the article? Will the ad publisher be notified of each infringement and given a chance to dispute it?

2. If they can get a "percentage" of the income, why not make it 100%? It seems like they are not really as interested in stopping the spammers as in making money by effectively turning spammers into affiliates and sharing income with them. I guess if that makes more business sense for them fine but it won't reduce the number of internet polluters, instead it will legitimize them

Re:What is it with these organizations lately (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27672189)

Exactly. It appears that they want to legitimize the practice, on the condition that THEY make some money off of it. I don't think this is really in the interest of the original content providers.

Is it so hard to (2, Interesting)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 5 years ago | (#27670637)

make a crawler. Have it go through all the usual channels (digg/slashdot/all_the_major_aggregated_news sites/etc) comparing text of recent stories to what the linked-to websites list. Have it send DMCA notices automatically based on Who is information.

Then offer them embedded links, infact offer it on the story page itself just like youtube offers embedded lins. It will bring up the text/video with the added feature of automatically providing links to updates on the story and stuff of that nature without the blogger doing anymore work. Ads still be served by the originating news source. Both sides win.

Or is this unimplementable?

Re:Is it so hard to (1)

AlHunt (982887) | more than 5 years ago | (#27670685)

>Have it send DMCA notices automatically based on Who is information.

Automated DMCA notices? I think I want a live person to have to take time out of their day to actually send these things. Unless I can have my robo-attorney respond.

Re:Is it so hard to (2, Interesting)

nathan.fulton (1160807) | more than 5 years ago | (#27670801)

>I think I want a live person to have to take time out of their day to actually send these things.

Too late. Lawyers do that work.

>Unless I can have my robo-attorney respond.

In all seriousness, a service that provides "I comply" and "I don't comply because...(generate content based on user input using yes/no questions or check boxes or something)" would be an interesting service -- even if ultimately an unpractical and kinda-stupid way of dealing with notices. Perhaps as an educational tool for people who are not lawyers but are in positions where they have to be able to read and interpret DMCA take down notices and then explain them toe superiors/clients/etc.

Re:Is it so hard to (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 5 years ago | (#27671573)

make a crawler. [...] Have it send DMCA notices automatically based on Who is information.

Yes. Sending DMCA notices cannot be automated as a person must affirm that they have reasonable grounds to believe the content of them is correct, with the possibility that if they are wrong (e.g. signing the notice without taking reasonable steps to check accuracy) they can be in for jail time. You do not want to automate DMCA notice sending.

Re:Is it so hard to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27674029)

You do not want to automate DMCA notice sending.

Never stopped them before [slashdot.org] .

Two Evils (5, Insightful)

nathan.fulton (1160807) | more than 5 years ago | (#27670655)

On the one hand, blatant plagiarism for the purpose of generating income is not-cool. On the other hand, I'm not too gung-ho about this idea.

Here's why: The law sucks. It sucks for a reason. Even under the DMCA, there's a process. It may be a POS that needs to be thrown out, but it provides FAR more freedom to publish than this system does. This is the equivalent of the RIAA asking to get all of the advertising revenue generated by all torrent tracking sites, as well as access to the revenues generated by the viruses that were hidden in their works. Seriously, this system is so incredibly easy to exploit:
1) Join the Consortium for Justice and Happy Fun Days
2) publish something
3) encourage others to re-publish it (probably pretty easy -- esp. smaller news sits with specialties, just figure out what they like and fabricate a story)
4) Contact google/yahoo/etc.
5) PROFIT

People will stop ripping off content and start ripping off (very real) advertising income for small and medium sized blogs. Either this happens because of the lack of control, or the entire thing will require a huge bureaucracy that makes it no better or worse than the DMCA -- and so you're not really solving any problems.

It's not a bad idea... I just don't think it will work.

Re:Two Evils (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27670819)

On the one hand, blatant plagiarism for the purpose of generating income is not-cool. On the other hand, I'm not too gung-ho about this idea.

Here's why: The law sucks. It sucks for a reason. Even under the DMCA, there's a process. It may be a POS that needs to be thrown out, but it provides FAR more freedom to publish than this system does. This is the equivalent of the RIAA asking to get all of the advertising revenue generated by all torrent tracking sites, as well as access to the revenues generated by the viruses that were hidden in their works. Seriously, this system is so incredibly easy to exploit:

1) Join the Consortium for Justice and Happy Fun Days
2) publish something
3) encourage others to re-publish it (probably pretty easy -- esp. smaller news sits with specialties, just figure out what they like and fabricate a story)
4) Contact google/yahoo/etc.
5) PROFIT

People will stop ripping off content and start ripping off (very real) advertising income for small and medium sized blogs. Either this happens because of the lack of control, or the entire thing will require a huge bureaucracy that makes it no better or worse than the DMCA -- and so you're not really solving any problems.

It's not a bad idea... I just don't think it will work.

I see you have copied the content from the comment I am now posting. With enough manipulation (say, if I owned the site I was posting it on) I could backdate this post to a few hours before you stole it from me. I think my buddies in the Consortium will back me up on this.

Re:Two Evils (1)

mkiwi (585287) | more than 5 years ago | (#27670837)

...This is the equivalent of the RIAA asking to get all of the advertising revenue generated by all torrent tracking sites...

I don't think this is the case because the torrent sites are not actually supplying the content. In this case, not only are the "bad" sites supplying the content, but they're making money off of it. They are themselves the infringing party. If the two parties were major corporations, you could bet there would be a problem regardless of whether there were any ads or not.

If the publishers can make a contractual deal, more power to them- I agree that something other than DMCA needs to be done here.

I know this isn't a very popular view on slashdot, but some type of compromise (maybe not this one), needs to be reached in order to prevent lazy bums from making money off of a plagiarized article.

Re:Two Evils (1)

Xtravar (725372) | more than 5 years ago | (#27670843)

2) publish something

I may or may not agree with your point, but I think that if the grand total is that more information is published, it's a good thing!

If I am a content provider, I will benefit from publishing UNIQUE content, because unique content will rise to the top of the content shit pool, since more sites will aggregate it. It'll actually cause competition and raise humanity's awareness through the intertubes.

Am I am being hopelessly optimistic? Probably.

Re:Two Evils (2, Interesting)

PopeGumby (1125507) | more than 5 years ago | (#27671271)

Except its not more information, its just the same information, repeated ad nauseum. Once you have written something, and someone takes a direct copy, how does the average user discern who wrote it, and who copied it?

Re:Two Evils (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 5 years ago | (#27672273)

Once you have written something, and someone takes a direct copy, how does the average user discern who wrote it, and who copied it?

Well, if someone makes a direct copy, you just look at the copyright statement at the bottom...

Hmm... that actually seems OK (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#27671733)

Actually I would be totally OK with the RIAA (or at least content groups) getting money from torrent promoters that ran ads, as long as any content creator could join in for a cut. Heck, you could use daily seed and tracker figures to divide up the revenue fairly.

What bothers me is when media companies ask for cuts of things like blank media on the grounds they MIGHT be used to copy. If you can show clear evidence that a torrent tracker site is listing your stuff and gaining revenue as a result of users seeking it - by all means go ahead and suck away some of the ad revenue, you deserve it.

It's actually a model where over time media companies might actually encourage torrent sites as revenue grows from them - they probably would make more money than Hulu is making considering the total lack of infrastructure and bandwidth costs on the part of the media company! I'm not sure ad offset from Hulu substantially offsets that.

Wish the RIAA would try that... (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#27674111)

This is the equivalent of the RIAA asking to get all of the advertising revenue generated by all torrent tracking sites

Wish the RIAA would actually try this, instead of trying to stop copyright violations by beating up on a few weaker members of the herd in the hope it scares the bulls.

Splog? (2)

glasnt (1171735) | more than 5 years ago | (#27670681)

Why not go all out and say "spist" (spam list), "spost" (spam post) or "spread" (spam thread).

Re:Splog? (1)

nathan.fulton (1160807) | more than 5 years ago | (#27670725)

Spock (spam proof of concept)

Re:Splog? (1)

Larryish (1215510) | more than 5 years ago | (#27672277)

Don't forget "spit" (spammy shit).

third solution? (5, Interesting)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 5 years ago | (#27670683)

The slashdot summary discusses two hypothetical solutions: (1) Send out thousands of DMCA takedown notices. (2) Negotiate with ad networks for a percentage of ad revenue. I'd suggest (3) fix broken search engines that send users to cut-and-paste sites. I'm really tired of doing searches on search engines and finding hundreds of hits that all turn out to be cut-and-paste pages taken from the same Wikipedia article. They may be perfectly legal, if they comply with Wikipedia's license, and therefore solutions 1 and 2 won't work at all. Google already has various proprietary and secret algorithms for detecting which web sites are trying to game page rank. Shouldn't it be pretty straightforward to come up with a list of thousands of utterly legal, and yet utterly useless, domains that do nothing but cut and paste other people's contents?

Re:third solution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27670751)

Here's a fourth and natural solution: If people don't want to pay for what you do, do something else. If the world wants what you do, people will line up to pay you to do it. Apparently the world wants services that link to stories. If your service has value, prove it--quit.

Re:third solution? (2, Informative)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 5 years ago | (#27670815)

If the complaining companies submit the pages with new material to search engines as it gets published, the engine could use timestamps to quickly know if it was the first submitted. If you don't actively submit your material and get it timestamped, and it matches something else, you lose to anyone that did. It could go one step further and check the repeat sites for links back to the original. If a site repeatedly has no link it gets buried deeper in search results.

I don't know much about how search engines work so please correct me if I'm saying something unintelligent.

Re:third solution? (1)

setagllib (753300) | more than 5 years ago | (#27671023)

You don't normally submit to search engines, they'll find your page via links at their own pace. There is a lot of sophistication in optimising this process already, but indeed it does not guarantee that the first page found is the first place its content was published.

Re:third solution? (1)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 5 years ago | (#27671151)

So then the question is whether it would be a problem if active submission were an option. Frequent submissions found to be copies could get you ignored in the future, but considering spam websites exist because they are cheap to set up, it might not do much good.

Re:third solution? (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 5 years ago | (#27670941)

It's not necessarily just search engines that send traffic to these sites though so while 3 would be nice, it can't be a complete solution.

Re:third solution? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27671029)

Except that these cut-and-paste sites are serving Google AdWords. If giving these leeches more hits makes Google money, why would Google filter them out of their search results? For fuck's sake, Google actively encourages (and profits from) domain parking.

Re:third solution? (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 5 years ago | (#27672897)

Google care to the extent that people might choose to use another search engine that provides more relevant results.

Re:third solution? (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 5 years ago | (#27673291)

Google care to the extent that people might choose to use another search engine that provides more relevant results.

Can you suggest one? (Not being snarky. Getting tired of Wiki-ripoffs, Splogs, and Expert's Exchange hits)

Re:third solution? (1)

Geminii (954348) | more than 5 years ago | (#27671539)

Better solution: Host news reposters on sites which are not subject to takedown notices. Watch content providers continue to struggle with the concept that once it's out on the net, it's effectively free to the entire planet.

Re:third solution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27671739)

Thanks for posting that. Google has been increasingly getting less useful for me, as there is considerably more dross to wade through. But in one sense, it's not profitable for google to change things, as they are a monopoly and removing pages decreases clicks on ads from those pages. Just my .02.

Easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27676827)

We already have CustomizeGoogle with a static domain filter for search results, and domains listed in AdblockPlus filters. Hook these two up and you're good.

Take permits many; money more. (3, Funny)

v1 (525388) | more than 5 years ago | (#27670809)

god this reminds me of a quote [imdb.com] from a star trek movie...

McCoy: How much and how soon?
Alien: How soon is now. How much is, where?
McCoy: Somewhere in the Mutara sector.
Alien: Oh, Mutara restricted! Take permits many; money more.
McCoy: There aren't gonna be any damned permits! How can you get a permit to do a damned illegal thing? Look, price you name, money I got.

Follow the money (1)

thered2001 (1257950) | more than 5 years ago | (#27670935)

After reading about so many IP and content protection schemes for so many years, we may be witnessing a trend which makes sense commercially. Someone needs to pay for all this 'free' stuff, somehow, somewhere. Why not have the money flow overhead? Content owner to 'borrowers': just hand over some money and no-one gets hurt.

Go after the ad networks (1)

RockMFR (1022315) | more than 5 years ago | (#27670975)

If I was a publisher, I would sue the ad networks that make this all possible, rather than cooperate with them.

Re:Go after the ad networks (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27671133)

Except that now the ad networks and the search engines are the same entity. Oops. You just sued one of your major sources of traffic.

Re:Go after the ad networks (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#27674055)

Oops. You just sued one of your major sources of traffic.

If the search engines start retaliating that just increases the damages they have to pay.

Re:Go after the ad networks (1)

PopeGumby (1125507) | more than 5 years ago | (#27671291)

And if you were a recording company, you would sue the torrent sites that make all the copying possible?

Sounds familiar...

Re:Go after the ad networks (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 5 years ago | (#27671457)

sue for what? they aren't serving out your copyrighted material or linking to copyrighted material.

Re:Go after the ad networks (1)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 5 years ago | (#27671873)

They exist exclusively to facilitate the serving of your copyrighted material. If I were to rent a server in some country with no copyright laws, host a bunch of movies on it, then host a front end somewhere in a first world country linking to a redirect on the back-end server (not directly to the file), would you expect the front end to escape litigation?

Re:Go after the ad networks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27673949)

Isn't that close to what the Pirate Bay does? A front end linking people to copyrighted content.

Re:Go after the ad networks (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 5 years ago | (#27740657)

your page is linking, the ad networks do no such thing, they happen to be embedded into the same page that includes infringing content but there is no relation. The ad networks do not exist for this purpose, they happen to gain from it like any other domain squat or key word squat.

Is This Profitable? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27670989)

Are these copy-cat websites actually profitable?

Re:Is This Profitable? (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 5 years ago | (#27671323)

Not any more. But if you can steal their revenue without having to do much work, who cares if they're profitable?

What no RIAA lawyers? (1)

gearloos (816828) | more than 5 years ago | (#27671057)

Wow, I guess all the RIAA Lawyers had their head stuck up their ass and didn't hear the phone call.

Ahem... (3, Insightful)

clinko (232501) | more than 5 years ago | (#27671109)

How it works: [attributor.com]
"Attributor scans billions of web sites, blogs and social networks on a continuous basis to find copies of your content across the web."

Another example:
Just like when attributor [attributor.com] copies another site's design [secureserver.net] and embeds a remote site's image [godaddy.com] .

Re:Ahem... (2, Funny)

clinko (232501) | more than 5 years ago | (#27671153)

For good measure:

Their Photo [attributor.com] vs.

Rihanna's photo [google.com]

not going to happen, sorry. (1)

Veni Vidi Dormi (975178) | more than 5 years ago | (#27671131)

not gonna happen. change your business model yo.

TogetherinParis (-1, Offtopic)

TogetherinParis (936714) | more than 5 years ago | (#27671249)

Here's a list of the more important things I've done in my life: Coined "Inclusive" and "Inclusive Democracy" concepts from math term. Original creator of "Lights On! Tampa!" art display/contest. Proposed "Floating Riverwalk" for Tampa Proposed "Water Taxi" for Tampa Proposed Lee Roy Selmon Expressway 43 bridge extension to St. Pete w/rail link, civilian air port use for Mac Dill Field. Developed pheromone chewing gum cure for delinquency, criminal behavior, drug addiction and sexual perversion. Proposed GA's HOPE Scholarship Program (precursor to Bright Futures), college for millions. Proposed "Don't ask, Don't tell", Law & Rule Obeying Gays in the Military executive order & 1st thing timing Proposed Tuskeegee Presidential Apologies and generous NIH Victim Restitutions. Presidential advisor to President Bubba "Bill" Clinton, Hillary Clinton 1972 Presidential advisor to Presidents George W. & G. H. W. Bush, 1971 (George H.W. Bush led the plumbers in killing JFK & many others) Wrote poems for Dead Poets Society (& sax solo) lyrics "Light and Day" Spotless Mind Stories, characters, speeches for Braveheart, Independence Day, Armageddon, Deep Impact, Titanic, Good Will Hunting (I wrote the notes/problems in the film), Cast Away, LOR, Wag the Dog, Lost in Translation, V for Vendetta, Juno, Forrest Gump, Night at the Museum, Shawshank Redeption, The Matrix I, II), Austin Powers, Green Mile, Cast Away, Gladiator, Mystic River, 300, Galaxy Quest, Vanilla Sky, A Beautiful Mind, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Simpsons Movie, etc.. And TV shows: Morning Edition, Touched by an Angel, Bones, Justice, House, Lost, Numbers, and Fringe (of course). Found three ways to mitigate hurricanes (saved Houston from Ike flooding), potential treatment for autoimmune disease and cancer. Invented the port doubler for laptops, a room temperature superconductor, artificial gills. Every story was stolen. Writers have invaded my home, my campsite, even my hotel room to feel around and rob my creativity. From Star Wars to Kings and 3 trillion dollars in ticket sales in between, nobody knows how to do anything anywhere except steal. This is a nice idea, but until you plow back and dig out what is recorded already, justice will suffer. The worst murderers in history, Bush & his death squad plumbers, escaped the judgement of history. What could be worse for poor Justice?

Re:TogetherinParis (1)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 5 years ago | (#27671877)

Oh shit it's the timecube guy!

Some people (1)

71thumper (107491) | more than 5 years ago | (#27671763)

Strenuously argue that the RIAA is evil and that copying music is not an issue...through a myriad of excuses.

Why is this any different? Music, news...one can make all the same arguments.

And honestly...talking about "how to tinker with your feeds to make it tougher..." is just another form of DRM, isn't it?

Something to think about.

Re:Some people (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 5 years ago | (#27672921)

Reuters etc already make their news available free of charge on their website, so why read it on another site?

Sites which gather articles from various sources and provide a brief summary together with a link to the original article, like Slashdot for example, are useful, but copying the whole article word for word without attribution and claiming it as your own is not.

Attributor: another bot to block... (1)

adnonsense (826530) | more than 5 years ago | (#27672061)

So, "Attributor constantly scans billions of web pages to find copies of your content across the Internet"? Apparently at least partially in stealth mode [johannburkard.de] . Me, I've long been tired of the myriad bots whose owners believe they have a legitimate reason to trample all over my site for their commercial gain... Haven't seen this one yet but I am sure it will get a "friendly" reception when it arrives.

Xanadu (1)

johnkzin (917611) | more than 5 years ago | (#27672159)

Sounds a little bit (not a lot, but sort of) like they're trying to re-invent the wheel that was already invented in Project Xanadu ...

I don't see how this can work (2, Insightful)

z80kid (711852) | more than 5 years ago | (#27673185)

I don't see how this can work.

If I'm looking at this right, we have three entities involved: The original publisher, the infringing site, and the advertiser who buys space from the infringing site.

Now I sympathize with the original publisher who was ripped off. But his case is against the infringing site - not the advertiser. I can't imagine that the publisher could ever take successful legal action against an advertiser without first taking action against the the actual infringer. That leaves the advertiser mostly in the clear.

So what incentive does the advertiser have to get involved? These publishers are essentially telling them "I want you to pay me instead of your client for each instance where I claim your client ripped me off." That opens up a big legal can of worms for the advertiser, as well as imposing more overhead on his operations. And for what gain to the advertiser?

Re:I don't see how this can work (1)

NeoSkandranon (515696) | more than 5 years ago | (#27673487)

The gain is: Your (the advertiser's) network of ad serving doesn't become commonly associated with spam and worthless content because you stop doing business with sites that cause these kinds of issues.

Re:I don't see how this can work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27673993)

Maybe if I were a news aggregator I would want to switch to an advertiser who implements this system rather than worry about DMCA notices.

Actually, if a deal like this is struck I might be tempted to start a news aggregation site, since there would then be a clearly legal method to do so. If a business can create new ways for others to do business that is quite often a path to success.

I don't know that it's so much more overhead, really. Services like Google adwords already do some site analysis to determine what ads to display.

Re:I don't see how this can work (1)

z80kid (711852) | more than 5 years ago | (#27674537)

Why post AC? This was actually an insightful and relevant answer.

I'm not convinced that the spam blogs actually want to become legit. But someone running a blog and wanting some insurance against infringement suits might take to an advertiser with this model.

As for the overhead though, analyzing a site for possible infringement is a bit more trouble than looking for advertiser related keywords. It would like involve some human work. Then there's the subject of what should be paid for and what is fair use (which we all know doesn't exist in the publisher's worlds). And there are enough disputes out there over advertising payments as it is. Once the advertiser has apportion revenue between three parties instead of two, there's going to be a lot more griping.

On that last issue alone I'd expect to see many websites dump participating advertisers for non-participating ones.

Re:I don't see how this can work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27674041)

I imagine it might work because the infringer becomes an (un)fair user less susceptible to takedown. The advertiser gets a little peace of mind that they will be able to keep advertising on the formerly infringing aggregator.

Re:I don't see how this can work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27675629)

If I read between the lines correctly, if the advertiser does not cooperate, then the publisher can tell the advertising network to remove the ads under the DMCA and will loose it's mon$$y for serving the ad as a result

Tortious Interference? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 5 years ago | (#27673369)

I'm not a Lawyer, but if A and B have a contract where B gives A money, and C convinces B to give C a portion of that money, isn't that close to Tortious Interference?

Slashdot will quit linking to Physorg? (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#27674031)

Or maybe Physorg will start attributing their content properly including links to the original stories.

Misidentification (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 5 years ago | (#27674679)

Attributor would keep track of it all and manage the requests for payment.

If I were running a website with advertising on it I'd be worried about the accuracy of Attributor's attributions. How often would I lose money due to false positives? How often would I lose money due to fair-use citations?

I don't trust these kinds of systems, and I wouldn't want my revenue to depend upon them.

I wonder how much less money Slashdot would make through Google Ads if its stories were run through Attributor.

fairsyndiation= fairshare.com + advertising? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27675531)

I like this approach, it is certainly a lot more intelligent then what music industry did. These guys seem to have their toes in everything (text/image/video). As a small time publisher myself I'd love to see a fully integrated solution to content tracking and monetization. Their fairshare.com solution is still having growing issues but is a great way to see what is going on with the text content. Now I need that for images :)

Legalize spam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27676733)

and filesharers go to jail. Just fucking great.

As a writer... (1)

Nyphur (514992) | more than 4 years ago | (#27686033)

As a writer, I will agree that something needs to be done about this. I was gutted the first time I saw an article of mine copy-pasted on a dozen blogs. Now that it happens every week, I've gotten used to it. The most irritating part is that often when looking for an old article I've done, the scrape sites come up higher on google than my actual article. However, getting the advertisers to hand over a portion of the revenue could do more harm than good by legitimising the process of webscraping (which is, as someone above put it, a way to get "money for nothing"). Even if they hand over all the revenue, there will always be alternate advertisers for them to switch to. I wouldn't like to see my articles reprinted elsewhere with porn ads and flashing "YOU HAVE WON" scams slapped all over it.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?