Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Proposes ASCAP-Like Fees For the News

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the words-words-words dept.

Media 146

eldavojohn writes "Techdirt directed my attention to an article where the AP discussed pressure from new devices and mediums today giving them cause to create a clearinghouse for news — much like the music industry's ASCAP — to 'establish an enforcement and payment system.' You'll notice that the story I am linking to and quoting is an AP story ... would Slashdot then be required to pay these fees? We have seen DMCA take down notices and fee discussions before from the AP."

cancel ×

146 comments

Even better: (-1, Troll)

MaggieL (10193) | more than 3 years ago | (#33972662)

Why not simply make it a government agency and pay them with tax money? Obama would like that. We could call it "Ministry of Truth".

Re:Even better: (0, Troll)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#33972690)

Yes, because your right of center president is clearly exactly the type to set up a propaganda wing to gho with his massive, overbearing police state.

Get out of the pigpen once in a while Cletus.

Re:Even better: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33972928)

Get out of the pigpen once in a while Cletus.

Your mama likes the mud just as much as she likes ol' Cletus' hog so ol' Cletus ain't leavin' this here pig pen no time soon sonny. Less'n maybe you kin squeal like a pig in which case ol' Cletus'll learn you 'bout his hog.

Re:Even better: (-1, Flamebait)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 3 years ago | (#33972950)

Sorry, but the "right" and "left" lost their meaning in late 20th century. What you have in the US are two neocon parties, both authoritative, one with a populist theme and the other with a religious one. Neither is more "rightist" or "leftist" beyond the surface.

Both are strongly anti-personal rights. Dems do promote one particular alternative sexual variant they randomly picked among all the others -- just because it happened to be politically correct these days. How is homosexuality different from sex with adolescents, zoophilia, group marriage or such? And why they insist on people being not allowed to defend themselves? Or why they are against free speech even more than Repugnicants? Or the right to privacy -- Bush did illegally wiretap but at least tried to hide it, while Obama dares to claim it's the "right thing to do".

The US is going down the shitter very, very fast. And you can't even stop that by voting as there's not even a "lesser evil" anymore: there's just a populist-colored big evil and a religion-colored big evil.

Re:Even better: (3, Insightful)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 3 years ago | (#33972982)

"sex with adolescents, zoophilia,"

Because for one, by law adolescents cannot legally consent to a sexual relationship with an adult (depending on various states law)
and animals are incapable of consenting.
This is an old, tired, and idiotic argument.

Re:Even better: (0, Offtopic)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973064)

"sex with adolescents, zoophilia,"

Because for one, by law adolescents cannot legally consent to a sexual relationship with an adult (depending on various states law) and animals are incapable of consenting. This is an old, tired, and idiotic argument.

But what about adolescent zoophiliacs?

Re:Even better: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33973086)

by law adolescents cannot legally consent to a sexual relationship with an adult (depending on various states law)

Just to play Devil's advocate here, doesn't this mean that the inability to consent is merely an arbitrary limit that has nothing to do with actual capacity for consent? Especially since it differs state-by-state or country-by-country - for example, are 17-year-old North Dakotans somehow less capable of consent than 17-year-old South Dakotans?

Re:Even better: (0, Offtopic)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973314)

Just to play Devil's advocate here, doesn't this mean that the inability to consent is merely an arbitrary limit that has nothing to do with actual capacity for consent?

yes.

Especially since it differs state-by-state or country-by-country - for example, are 17-year-old North Dakotans somehow less capable of consent than 17-year-old South Dakotans?

This is where things get murky. States have the right to make their own laws regarding this topic, but at the same time it creates an arbitrary discrepancy not based on reality, but rather based on legislation.

Re:Even better: (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973422)

It's supposedly based upon the approximate age where an adolescent can fully comprehend such ideas as consequence and responsibility. However looking at the financial markets and the state of credit records across the Western world, there's quite a proportion of full adults who are incapable of planning further than the end of the day, never mind for the future of a child.

In short, it's totally arbitrary. However, there needs to be a cutoff somewhere to prevent those who would seek to influence the impressionable mind of an emotionally immature and insecure adolescent from being prayed upon by someone who has only their own short-term satisfaction on their mind. It's an imperfect system, but it's the best society has come up with so far.

Re:Even better: (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973506)

Just to play Devil's advocate here, doesn't this mean that the inability to consent is merely an arbitrary limit that has nothing to do with actual capacity for consent?

Not "nothing to do with actual capacity for consent" -- it's strongly positively correlated. But it's not 100% correlated, so different limits reflect varying preferences for type 1 errors over type 2 errors or vice versa. It's not ideal, but it seems to be better than any alternative anybody has come up with. "The perfect is the enemy of the good."

Re:Even better: (2, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973162)

The group marriage point still stands.

Re:Even better: (2, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973286)

The fact that ignorance like yours still exists is stunning.

What does two people that are in love have ANYTHING to do with polygamy? What makes gay marriage comparable to polygamy, while heterosexual marriage isn't?

Signed,

Happily married heterosexual male whose marriage won't be ruined by two guys or gals tying the knot.

Re:Even better: (2, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973744)

Why stop at the arbitrary "two people" ? When law defines marriage as between one man and one woman, the first and primary argument is that defining marriage between one man and one woman is arbitrary distinction that is an anachronism. However, historically, there is much more support for polygamy than there is for homosexual marriage.

Replace all the arguments for gay marriage with polygamous ones and they still stand. WHICH really shows what the agenda is. It isn't about defining marriage, it is about establishing something that never existed because of political advantage.

Lastly, I'm Libertarian. I don't think the government should define marriage at all, for anyone. Government has no business governing people's lives at that level. It is a holdover from the Roman Empire Theocracy. Further, it is a violation of Separation of Church and State.

Re:Even better: (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973876)

I agree with everything you say.

I think people should only be legally granted civil unions, while marriage should be "granted" solely by religious institutions.

Also, Polygamy doesn't bother me at all, so long as it is consentual and not forced ("consensual not forced" applies to almost everything, tho...so yeah...)

Re:Even better: (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973778)

What exactly am I ignorant of?

Signed,

Happily married heterosexual male whose marriage won't be ruined by two guys or gals tying the knot, or by two guys and a gal or two gals and a guy or four guys or the entire adult population of Walla Walla, WA.

Re:Even better: (0)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973842)

You said the group marriage point still stands...this implies that you equate homosexuality with polygamy.

Re:Even better: (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973974)

It implies that I think petitioning for government expansion of the definition of marriage to include two men is similar to petitioning for government expansion of the definition of marriage to include two men and a woman.

For the requisite car analogy - I do not equate motorized bicycles with hovercraft, but petitioning to have them classified as motor vehicles for the purpose of traffic laws would be similar.

Re:Even better: (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33974068)

My apologies, then...it sounded like you supported the OPs method of equating homosexual marriage to a variety of things it has nothing to do with (specifically the part regarding polygamy.)

Sorry again!

Re:Even better: (1)

Draknor (745036) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973358)

No more so than with heterosexual marriage.

"Gay marriage" is really about two consenting adults of the same sex wanting to share the same legal rights & responsibilities as two consenting adults of the opposite sex.

If you would like to lobby that (n>2) consenting adults should have the same legal rights as (n=2) consenting adults, by all means -- go for it! There are probably [small] groups out there lobbying for it.

But let's not pretend these are in any way related.

Re:Even better: (2, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973746)

They are both related in that they are attempting to extend the traditional definition of marriage to include an arrangement between consenting adults not consisting of exactly one male and exactly one female.

Disclosure: I think the government should stop granting and recognizing marriages entirely and grant and recognize civil unions between any consenting adults who fill out the requisite paperwork. Then perhaps we can focus on more important issues.

wow, talk about OT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33973812)

If the "social conservatives" are so concerned about protecting the "sanctity of marriage" that they don't want the homos gaying it all up, why aren't they concerned about the scourge of divorce ? Oh, right, they lost on that front decades ago.

Re:Even better: (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973918)

I'm not touching this sex/ child debate with a ten foot penis...... er, I mean... pole. ;-) Okay fine I'll touch it. Sex with children? Absolutely not. They lack the maturity level to give consent - that's why they have adults making decisions for them. Nudity? Fine. Sex with same sex? Cool. Sex with multiple wives or husbands? Also cool. I think the US Government overstepped its authority when it outlawed polygamy in Utah. (searches constitution). Yep the 10th gives UT supremacy in this area, and if they want to legalize polygamy they are allowed to do so.
.

>>>Feedback on this comment system?

It sucks. I hate this dynamic index and can't get back to the classic (plain text) index.

Re:Even better: (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33974142)

It sucks. I hate this dynamic index and can't get back to the classic (plain text) index.

I had that same problem this morning as well. Fixed it by logging out on my PC, logging in on my phone, changing the options, logging out on my phone, logging back in on my PC.

Re:Even better: (0, Offtopic)

Zeek40 (1017978) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973262)

So you're a homophobic libertarian?

Re:Even better: (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 3 years ago | (#33974260)

Conseravtive does not equal anti-personal rights

Re:Even better: (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 3 years ago | (#33974272)

The US is going down the shitter very, very fast. And you can't even stop that by voting as there's not even a "lesser evil" anymore: there's just a populist-colored big evil and a religion-colored big evil.

No one in this world can you trust. Not men, not women, not beasts.

[Points to sword]

This you can trust.

Replace sword with gun and we have our answer.
And it still counts as the riddle of steel.

What does Obama have to do with it? (0, Offtopic)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#33972732)

Republican Sharron Angle more like, where she gives the questions to the reporters BEFORE they ask them back to her? [mediaite.com]

Re:What does Obama have to do with it? (1, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#33972850)

Hey, is that different than stuff pulled by the Bush White House [wikipedia.org] ? Or for that matter, Alaska Senate candidate Joe Miller having his security team handcuff reporters for asking questions he didn't want to answer [alaskadispatch.com] ?

Re:What does Obama have to do with it? (0, Offtopic)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#33972932)

Man that article infuriated me, thanks for sharing! ;P

Re:What does Obama have to do with it? (0, Offtopic)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973082)

Hey, is that different than stuff pulled by the Bush White House [wikipedia.org] ? Or for that matter, Alaska Senate candidate Joe Miller having his security team handcuff reporters for asking questions he didn't want to answer [alaskadispatch.com] ?

Sure - they didn't have God, justice and the American way on their side.

How Angle answers their questions before they ask (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973762)

It's pretty obvious how she knows the questions the reporters are going to ask - she's a Witch!

She even turned one of the reporters into a newt!

Getting Modded into the Ground (4, Insightful)

Alaren (682568) | more than 3 years ago | (#33972876)

So, I would mod this up but we all know you're going to get modded straight to hell, no reason to waste the point.

Thing is, Obama would like that. Maybe not that specifically, but control over the media is something virtually all people in power would like to have, on the left or the right.

Of course they don't call it that. They call it fairness doctrine, or hate speech, or a matter of national security. They use words like obscene, or disingenuous, or simply "misleading." They get at the media through taxes, or through tax breaks, through limited access to key political figures or rules about campaign finance. They all want control! And to a certain extent, they have it, in a million tiny ways, for a million seemingly-innocuous reasons.

Stating the truth as boldly as you have brings out the partisan beast in people, but you're not far wrong. A neat little governmentally-mandated subsidy for the news media is a terrible idea, but the powers-that-be would likely eat it up.

Re:Getting Modded into the Ground (3, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33972914)

I'd classify it as flamebait by the sheer fact that the OP singled out a politician, rather than the general "politicians". That will automatically bring out other trolls against/shills for said politician.

Generalized absolutes are rarely the way to go, unless the topic is politics.

Re:Getting Modded into the Ground (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33973754)

Except when dealing with the AP. Glaring fact omission, editorializing, and every story has a major liberal slant to it. And those are the supposed unbiased news stories. They are worse than a NPR story. In fact if it says AP anywhere I won't read it, I know it's all fluff. What I would really like is some news, plain and simple, "This happened here today." Don't speculate, editorialize, or otherwise contaminate the original story. As you learn more print more, but it better damn well be factual. AP news is dead.

Re:Getting Modded into the Ground (1)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 3 years ago | (#33972998)

Spoken as someone who has no clue as to what the "Fairness Doctrine" was.

Re:Getting Modded into the Ground (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33973250)

It's about providing equal time over the airwaves in a discussion / debate. The true intent is political balance. Democrats know they can't compete with conservative content, so they at least attempt to lower them back down to their level, thus leveling the playing field.

But this FD cuts both ways. Let's say you have a talk radio show devoted to nothing but science, and they are discussing the age of the universe and evolution. Guess what, they have to provide equal time to the religious fundamentalist. So how do you like it now?

Re:Getting Modded into the Ground (1)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973450)

Nice to see you have the courage of your convictions, AC

Re:Getting Modded into the Ground (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973854)

It was a policy that allowed the side that controlled the broadcast media as a bunch of out of control nutjobs by selecting those representing the opposition for just such characteristics. Of course since the Fairness Doctrine was enforced by the government, many people thought that the nutjobs that the networks had on were actually representative of anyone who opposed the particular policy under discussion.

Re:Getting Modded into the Ground (2, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973544)

The people in power, the rich, already have complete control over the media. They don't need to grant the government control over it, because they already use it to control the government.

Re:Even better: (0, Offtopic)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 3 years ago | (#33972940)

I'm more worried about some extreme republicans (backed by the Tea Party BTW - I'm looking at you Joe Miller) that has expressed the desire to repeal the 17th amendment to get rid of the direct election of senators. Why try to distract us with your made of crap, when we have actual things to worry about?

Re:Even better: (1)

bornagainpenguin (1209106) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973044)

STOP GIVING THEM IDEAS! Hasn't it become abundantly clear by now that these types of asswipes don't know the difference between parody, satire and reality? In the UK they've happily spent the last decade using 1984 as a HOWTO for crissakes!

Re:Even better: (3, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973068)

Dude the AP already gets money from the Govt for operations.

They can charge fees as soon as they give back ALL the money they have taken from the public.

Oh and covering a war? get your OWN ass over there and your own armor.. No you're not riding in the Tank with us nor will we waste bullets to keep your butts alive... OR we can charge you a fee for that.

Problem is our current leaders are too stupid to do this.

Re:Even better: (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973488)

No, our current leaders are too smart to do that. Why alienate the media when you can feed them the news you want them to report?

Re:Even better: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33973418)

Considering the content of the the Associated Press these days, I think it would be fairer if they paid us to read it.

Re:Even better: (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973432)

Like PBS/NPR? Partially tax payer funded, and more truthful than any other news source.

Re:Even better: (1)

Schadrach (1042952) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973576)

Oh, now, every teabagger out there can tell you you're full of shit, NPR is part of the liberal controlled media and as such treats Obama as the messiah and hangs on his every word to fawn over it. The only truly factual news media is our friends at Fair and Balanced FOX News (Where more Americans get their news than any other source!), who have no liberal bias.

PBS/NPR biases (2, Insightful)

billstewart (78916) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973714)

I once encountered one of those "where do you get your news" surveys, and one of the options was "conservative talk radio". I checked that one, and identified the stations as "NPR" and "BBC" - because they really are conservative. They're high-quality news, but they're biased.

They're not right-wingers like Limbaugh, they're Official Establishment News, and while they're not highly biased toward whichever Administration is currently in power, they're still clearly working for The Government. When the government puts out press releases, NPR covers them as if they're authoritative news and not just politics (though they might have commentators who are for or against the Administration's position, but still within the Administration's framing), and when the government wants them to say "enhanced interrogation" instead of "torture", that's what they say.

They do cover the arts a lot, but the Establishment really does like art and music, even though some right-wingers like Jesse Helms would like the National Endowment for the Arts limited to black velvet paintings of Elvis.

And so the AP pulls the trigger... (4, Insightful)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 3 years ago | (#33972716)

...with the gun in their own mouth. If this goes through, it'll be the last nail in the coffin of classic news.

Re:And so the AP pulls the trigger... (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#33972834)

I wouldn't bet on that outcome; most people get their news from traditional news sources right now, and most of them would never perceive the fees that the AP wants to charge. This is a move by the AP to find new ways to extract money, that's all -- it is an attack on newer forms of news delivery, which might threaten the AP, before they become too popular.

Re:And so the AP pulls the trigger... (4, Interesting)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973230)

I keep hearing this, but what do you plan on replacing traditional news with? You may not have noticed, but all the bloggers and sites like Slashdot or Reddit? They're all aggregators. They don't investigate news in any traditional sense. They troll around newspaper and news sites and read stuff. If they're a full on aggregator like /. then they just post links to the stuff they read (or that people submitted to them). If they're a blogger then they write an opinion piece and share the info out. When a liberal or conservative blogger "breaks a story" it just means that they read it in some local newspaper. They were the first nationally read source to break the story, but mostly they didn't actually create it. With a very, very small number of exceptions (usually where some source calls a blogger and gives them info), these guys don't produce news. They consume it and regurgitate it at you (Which sounds really gross, I didn't necessarily mean that in a bad way).

If traditional news sources disappear, there will be no revolution where "new media" wanks will take over and do thing better and more accurately. They will have nothing to comment on. There will be no news for them to "break". Real investigative news requires a staff and a budget. You can't fly to Afghanistan to report on the ongoing war effort using the money you got from Google ad-sense this month. You can't run a month long investigate effort into discovering that the local government is embezzling the city retirement fund when you have to produce a new blog entry twice a day to pay the bandwidth bill.

Re:And so the AP pulls the trigger... (3, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973666)

I keep hearing this, but what do you plan on replacing traditional news with?

Nothing?

There's maybe one news story a week that I actually care about outside my own community, so I honestly can't see what I'd miss if 'traditional news' vanished tomorrow. Do I really need to know that the new Celebrity Chainsaw Massacre competitor has a bit of a cold today, or read regurgitated press releases that I could find direct on the web?

Re:And so the AP pulls the trigger... (3, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33974164)

Granted there's a lot of crap out there. But it costs a lot of money to have somebody camped out at town hall in case something happens, likewise for covering congressional issues at the state and federal level. Not to mention all the investigation and work it takes to uncover a story and separate it from the stories that don't pan out.

The bigger issue you're pointing at is the 24 hour news cycle, even with all the technology and resources available, there just isn't 164 hours worth of news each week. Even if you discount for the commercial breaks, there's more time than there is news to cover.

Ultimately, the scariest thing is that we won't know what we're missing because nobody will be there to dig it up.

Re:And so the AP pulls the trigger... (2, Insightful)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973948)

> I keep hearing this, but what do you plan on replacing traditional news with?

I don't plan on replacing it with anything. I'm saying that requiring payment for a service that has been ad supported for decades, at a time when distrust of said service has never been higher, is suicide. What replaces it, if anything, the market will decide.

Re:And so the AP pulls the trigger... (1)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 3 years ago | (#33974442)

I think the parent's point isn't that AP is good or bad, just that this doesn't sound like a good idea.

AP is making the same stupid mistake that others have made over and over again. At a 20% cut they don't want, whats coming to them, they want to be the App Store of News.

No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33972798)

In the true spirit of Slashdot, I won't bother reading the article but will provide my opinion, anyway. No, Slashdot won't have to pay any fees.

Donation Link needed (3, Interesting)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#33972826)

How about instead of copyrighting news, just put a donation link [paypal.com] at the beginning of the story with a sentence reading, "Reporters who contributed to this story do not work for free. In order to continue enjoying reading stories like this, please consider a small donation to keep our business running. We appreciate you as a reader and thank you for your kind contribution!"

Maybe that would work better?

Re:Donation Link needed (1, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#33972912)

Here in America, nobody believes in donating money; we are all supposed to be subverting each other, trying to extract as much money from each other as possible. Anything else is clearly "socialism."

Re:Donation Link needed (1, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#33972974)

Here in America, nobody believes in donating money; we are all supposed to be subverting each other, trying to extract as much money from each other as possible. Anything else is clearly "socialism."

From the studies I've seen, the American right give plenty of donations, it's the left who don't believe in donating money. I believe that's generally true across the West, and not really surprising as the right believe in personal responsibility whereas the left believe that 'the government ought to do something about that'.

Please provide links to studies (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973046)

American right give plenty of donations...oh okay?
Please provide FACTS to back up your assertions, and please tell us who participated, who ran the study, how many individuals were studied and how were the questions framed?

Re:Please provide links to studies (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33973284)

Most everybody participated. Americans give a HUGE amount to charity.

Here is one report:
http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/June/200706261522251CJsamohT0.8012354.html [america.gov]

If you want more you can google it yourself. I'm not here to spoon feed you because you've been too lazy to pay attention for the last several years.

Huh? (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973428)

He/she said the 'AMERICAN RIGHT' meaning Conservatives/Republicans/Right not just any Americans as your article mentions.

If you want more, you can read the comment right above yours. I'm not here to spoon-feed you...oh enough of the condescending comments.

Re:Huh? (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973594)

I'm not here to spoon-feed you...oh enough of the condescending comments.

Yet you apparently expect the rest of us to do that for you.

Re:Please provide links to studies (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33974290)

"Who really cares" by Arthur Brooks is the one people generally cite in recent times. I haven't had a chance to read it, but the explanation that he gave of his methods when I heard him on the radio caused me concern. There was no attempt to normalize for cost of living and he included donations to churches in the figure. At one point in the interview he compared a family of 4 living in South Dakota with one living in San Francisco with the same yearly income and complained that the folks in San Francisco were being stingy. He was comparing one of the lowest cost areas to live with one of the highest cost areas and complaining because the latter didn't donate as much. Well no shit Sherlock, people living in San Francisco have less disposable income for any given level of income.

The problem is that donations to Churches aren't donations so much as a voluntary fee for service. You get something rather directly as a result of a donation.

The other problem is that if you rely upon donations the way that a lot of conservatives would like, unpopular, but necessary causes get underfunded or receive no funding at all. Good luck trying to get any funding for domestic violence prevention funding that doesn't target men as the problem and women and children as the victims.

Re:Please provide links to studies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33973456)

There's a book [amazon.com] , published December 2007, that actually reports on it with several studies and research. Apparently has a very good appendix and list of notes on the research documenting it. Rated 4 stars at Amazon, with some good reviews of it.

So, there's your FACTS.

Re:Donation Link needed (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973106)

Here in America, nobody believes in donating money; we are all supposed to be subverting each other, trying to extract as much money from each other as possible. Anything else is clearly "socialism."

From the studies I've seen, the American right give plenty of donations, it's the left who don't believe in donating money. I believe that's generally true across the West, and not really surprising as the right believe in personal responsibility whereas the left believe that 'the government ought to do something about that'.

That seems to be a bit of a generalisation. Look at all the left wing organisations that run on donations.

Re:Donation Link needed (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973606)

That seems to be a bit of a generalisation. Look at all the left wing organisations that run on donations.

Don't a lot of them run on corporate donations and government funding? I know there's been a scandal in the UK recently because so many left-wing 'charities' turn out to get most of their funding from the taxpayer through the British government or the EU.

Re:Donation Link needed (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33974312)

Not any more than conservative organizations doing similar work. I'd need to see numbers, but the Bush administration was trying to beef that up and I wouldn't be surprised if there was now a disparity in favor of conservative organizations in the latter part of his Presidency.

Re:Donation Link needed (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973830)

>>>From the studies I've seen, the American right give plenty of donations

I'd like to see these studies too. Can you share the link? From what I've observed with shareware, pretty much everyone takes and does not donate, regardless of their politics.
.

>>>Feedback on this comment system?

It sucks. I hate this dynamic index and can't get back to the classic (plain text) index.

Re:Donation Link needed (1)

TheCodeFoundry (246594) | more than 3 years ago | (#33974206)

Seriously, can no one on Slashdot google anymore?

http://www.gordon.edu/ace/pdf/Spr07BRGrinols.pdf [gordon.edu]

2006 Arthur Brooks analyzed 10 datasets "such as the Panel Survey of Income Dynamics (University of Michigan Survey Research Center), the SOcial Capital Community Benchmark Survey (collaborative of American universities with Roper Center for Public Opinion Research), America Gives (Center on Philanthropy of Indiana University) and 7 others"

His 4 main conclusions are in the PDF above.

Re:Donation Link needed (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 3 years ago | (#33974212)

I think a distinction needs to be drawn between donating to a cause (charity) and donating for goods or services provided. When I donate to a charity I don't expect anything in return. I also am selective about who I donate to - the reason they are collecting the money has to line up with my own beliefs. Donating for a good or service just doesn't feel right. Why should I donate to you? What are you doing with the money? If you think (as the seller) the thing has some value, but a price on it and I can decide if I think the price is worth it. If you put a price of zero on the thing, then that is what you are going to get. I mean, nobody goes to the store and voluntarily pays more than the price asked, do they?

Re:Donation Link needed (2, Informative)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973128)

Donations do not work well like this. They work well for massive fundraising, but as for a steady income? Forget about it. The product (the new story) is consumed and forgotten about. When I ran my own forum for my own niche interest, if I needed to upgrade something, I put out the word, and I would say only 1 or 2 users stepped up and gave 90+% of the donation money, and the others either gave nothing or cheaped out the other 10%. As the site got bigger (more followers), one would think it got better but it actually got worse, it was as if everyone thought "There is so many people here, someone else will probably donate what's needed." And these were all for expenses running the site (didn't even cover that, but it was a hobby so okay). For a paying job, no way, everyone needs a painless way to give, and the guy working shouldn't be begging for income.

That is why advertising is attractive, because everyone, in essence, is paying toward something. But that too has been subverted (and really, with pop-ups, rightly so). Also the problem with advertising is that as it becomes ever more ubiquitous but the amount of advertisers paying for adverts stay roughly the same, the value of each individual advertistisement will be driven down. More and more people playing for the same size pie and all that. Also, something will eventually have to be bought down the line, be it a coffee or a car, to make it pay. You can't run the whole world on adverts, subsidizing people's cars or houses (as some on /. apparently assume imo going by some posts). The amount spent on advertising gets tacked right back onto the product (obvious is you ever compared to Walmart brands to the brand names) so the freebies really aren't free.

What is really needed is a viable micropayment system. Not a paypal you log into, but something where you click a button and can give 3 cents or whatever the price of admission is. Amounts you really don't thing about. $5 max or something on an account to be spent so fraud wouldn't be too attractive.

Re:Donation Link needed (2, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33974342)

That's a serious problem, but worse is that there's pressure already on papers to not cover certain subjects because people don't want to hear about it. If they had to go out and ask for donations directly, I suspect that it would get even worse. As it is a paper doesn't have to be popular with every article, just contribute something of value over the aggregate of the years issues. With donations, I'm not so sure that would be the same method of doing business.

Re:Donation Link needed (2, Insightful)

udoschuermann (158146) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973372)

Donations could work if micro-payments were fast, easy, and efficient: I get my news from all over the web, so it doesn't make sense for me to donate significant sums (say $10 or $25). But donating 10 cents with a quick click would not feel like a waste or a burden to me; I'd donate 10 cents on impulse all the time if I knew that it would actually end up in the intended recipient's pockets.

It's tough to be appropriately rewarding in such a sea of uncertainty and flux.

Re:Donation Link needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33973472)

Instead of taking payment for building homes, why don't contractors just sit out front of the house after they build it with a sign reading: "This house wasn't build for free, please help me put food on the table" then maybe the new owners will help the guy out......

Charity is great for helping little poor children, but doesn't really work all that well for people who have fulltime employment in major industries (even if the industry is dying).

Re:Donation Link needed (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973732)

How would that satisfy the middlemen's need to wield power over others? It's not about getting paid.

Possibly Maybe (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33972840)

I'd like to think this would encourage more of the smaller news websites to get actual reporters out there, rather than just being news aggregators. It would be a shot in the arm for the industry, create jobs, and provide us with more varied reporting instead of having the same story repeated 10k times.

I Don't See It Improving Things That Way (2, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973004)

I'd like to think this would encourage more of the smaller news websites to get actual reporters out there, rather than just being news aggregators. It would be a shot in the arm for the industry, create jobs, and provide us with more varied reporting instead of having the same story repeated 10k times.

Since they're comparing this to the fees that are charged by ASCAP [ascap.com] , for say a bar to play recorded music for its patrons, I would imagine your assumption would be equivalent to a bar wanting to play Metallica for its patrons and instead of paying the $400 a year (and I'm just taking a stab at this, I think it depends on the size of the bar and frequency of music) they go out, put together a band, have them write their own music, record it for the bar and then the bar plays it for the patrons. Now, when you say that it would "provide us" then you would also be assuming that said bar would be okay with anyone playing this music in other bars or allow any individual to enjoy it without recouping their losses.

I don't think your assumption is very sound. In fact, I would wager Geeknet, Inc. would food up to a few grand a year to be a licensed news outlet or shut down Slashdot before it started taking on reporters that generate expenses in their footwork trying to find news. If Slashdot did start producing original news, it'd probably be best for them to try to join the AP news clearinghouse to recoup those costs.

I'm not saying it's a good thing, I just think your assumption of which way this will push websites, blogs, etc is grossly misguided. My predictions are either out of business or impose a new cost to do business.

Re:I Don't See It Improving Things That Way (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973076)

I see where you're coming from, but Slashdot isn't really a good example to use...by design, it's mostly a news aggregator, and it's presented as such.

In my OP, I'm referring to news sites that are aggregators, but present themselves as news sites.

Re:I Don't See It Improving Things That Way (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33974376)

The main problem with ASCAP is that there's a blackbox and nobody really knows how the money gets distributed and none of the artists really know if they're getting a fair deal. But the idea of ASCAP isn't really that bad. It gives bars and such a convenient way of licensing music without having to negotiate with hundreds of producers over thousands of pieces of music. You pay the fee and you get to use a huge catalog of selections.

Depending upon the terms of this, the AP doing this could ultimately be good for everybody involved.

Re:Possibly Maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33973012)

I'd like to think this would encourage more of the smaller news websites to get actual reporters out there, rather than just being news aggregators. It would be a shot in the arm for the industry, create jobs, and provide us with more varied reporting instead of having the same story repeated 10k times.

Flawed logic (4, Interesting)

multisync (218450) | more than 3 years ago | (#33972910)

You'll notice that the story I am linking to and quoting is an AP story ... would Slashdot then be required to pay these fees?

ASCAP exists to collect royalties for creative works. "News" articles are a collection of facts (at least that's what they are supposed to be), and those facts are not copyrightable. This is the reason in the old days news papers busted their asses trying to "scoop" on another. They knew once the information was out there, it was fair game for anyone to report on it.

Opinion columns, features, photos etc are a different matter. But simply reporting the fact that AP has cooked up a hair-brained scheme to try to extract money out of Google - and linking to your source for that "fact" - wouldn't require a royalty payment in any sane copyright law.

Re:Flawed logic (2, Funny)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33972930)

...simply reporting the fact that AP has cooked up a hair-brained scheme to try to extract money out of Google - and linking to your source for that "fact" - wouldn't require a royalty payment in any sane copyright law.

Welcome to America. I take it this is your first time visiting our lands?

Re:Flawed logic (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973614)

The fact that an event happened can not be copyrighted. A particular description of an event is not a fact, and can be copyrighted. And that has nothing to do with why newspapers try to scoop each other. They do that because they want people to buy their paper, and being first with the news is a good way to make that happen.

Re:Flawed logic (1)

Thurmont (712483) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973670)

Hum, Fox News gets pretty "creative" with their "news". That counts, right?

Ass Cap (1)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 3 years ago | (#33972922)

I couldn't think of a better name for a group of clueless individuals if I tired.

What I found most interesting (1)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 3 years ago | (#33972970)

The clearinghouse also intends to fight piracy by relying on a tracking system, called a “news registry,” that the AP began developing more than a year ago.

Besides detecting unauthorized use of content, the registry’s tagging system can provide insights about the people who are viewing content or the frequency with which a specific company or expert is mentioned in news coverage.

I value my privacy. My preferences are my opinions, my decisions, and my content. Perhaps they should be paying me for use of my preferences...after all I am the original content producer here!

I don't particularly like the ASCAP idea, but... (3, Interesting)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973020)

reporting news outside the comfort of our homes does cost money. I don't like ASCAP because they usually go ape-shit over stuff like how many radios you have in your workplace or the radio station you play as your music on hold.

I do like the idea of a non-profit being a clearinghouse for news reports and media outlets including bloggers can become paying members and as such have access to the late-breaking news first. This can be done without threatening anyone's fair use rights, and allow reporters in the field to continue to have the necessary resources they need.

Old business model (2, Interesting)

EriktheGreen (660160) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973078)

I'm pretty much convinced that the current generation of managers and corporate officers in media companies are just not capable of changing enough to forge a new business model in the internet age.

A while ago I would have predicted that they'd eventually have to give up their attempts to slow the change, or to find ways to keep their pay for content models working the same way, and eventually start experimenting to find something new or listen to their younger, more flexible peers.

Now, however, I'm thinking that they just can't change... change in their companies won't happen without a rollover of management, like in so many other organizations run by the "me" generation. They won't give up and they won't give in. They'll have to die off.

More to the point of the article, I predict if all news articles get charged for from the wire services, there'll be a period of rampant ignoring of the fee, followed by a period of cut and paste disguising of the origin of an article, or paraphrasing to hide a source, followed by independent sourcing of news from readers local to a story, and maybe eventually a new kind of news reporter, whose business model I don't know, but who travels the world collecting news to publish on the Internet.

Maybe in some part of all this we'll get back to unbiased, true news reporting and not political spin. I hope so.

Re:Old business model (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973878)

So what do you suggest they do? Listen to their 'younger, more flexible peers'? Who would that be? Where is this source of news from younger, more flexible peers?

Re:Old business model (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#33974188)

They cannot change. The entire business model of the last couple of centuries has been altered drastically. Their existing models is founded and based on how things USED to work, that no longer work. They are dead and dying. This is nothing more than the buggy whip manufacturers in the age of automobiles. They cannot change their model because what they are selling is no longer needed.

This isn't to say that news isn't needed, because we're getting news. It is just that it is unfiltered, unedited and raw. We don't get the edited video, we get the whole reel (archaic reference). We see how news is being fabricated to support one particular view or another. Instead of seeing the "evil Israeli hit and running a Palestinian young boy", we see the unedited video showing that the whole thing was a setup, including an "impartial photographer" picking up a rocks as part of the ambush.

How it is being reported in the news
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/8051813/Palestinian-boy-run-over-by-Jewish-settler-in-East-Jerusalem.html [telegraph.co.uk]

Here's the rest of the story
http://hipsterjew.com/2010/10/12/man-runs-over-boy/ [hipsterjew.com]

Why should we listen to propaganda presented as news? If this was an isolated incident, I would toss it aside. But it isn't. Much of what comes to us from "official news sources" is biased edited crap that is designed to illicit emotional reactions to shape opinions, be it from FAUX News or NY Times.

Re:Old business model (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 3 years ago | (#33974606)

Are you really that naive? The second link just ran a little longer and showed some people with cameras. How do you know that if your supposedly 'raw, unfiltered, and uneditted' footage started earlier or ran even longer it wouldn't show something else that changed the situation even more?

As for calling that second link 'news' - are you kidding? All you can get from that video is that some children, somewhere, were throwing rocks at a car, and the car hit one of them, and people were filming it. Where was it? Why were they throwing rocks? Was there something that led up to this (either immediately or over a longer period of time). What happened after this? What does this mean to anyone who was not at the scene?

What about the Beeb? (1)

gslj (214011) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973136)

Charging for news is a great way to drive readers to the BBC. That fine source of news makes its money through a mandatory fee and is, I believe, required by law to make its content available, at least to those who pay the fees, without further cost. Entering this kind of cartel would involve a big political debate.

If you haven't tried it, go to news.bbc.co.uk

-Gareth

Re:What about the Beeb? (1)

fridaynightsmoke (1589903) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973226)

So, voluntarily paying for news that you want to read is bad in comparison to being forced to pay for news that you might not want to read?

Re:What about the Beeb? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33973760)

Oddly enough, I can't find a single story on the BBC referencing my hometown. Nothing at all about the local congressional race. Precious little about my state.

I would comment on this (1)

fridaynightsmoke (1589903) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973190)

But I feel entitled to recieve payment for my valuable intellectual property. Click here to read my comment, currently on special offer! Only £1 per view!

I see how this works. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33973196)

So after whining that people are making money off of their work and they get nothing, they want to establish an agency, like others that have not actually helped those creating content, to make money off of them and they get nothing, plus they stop getting noticed.

Interesting. Maybe AP gets a cut, but then doesn't give any of that to the actual journalists. I see how this works.

Hey you, with the web browser! Are you looking at news?
No.
Well, you could use the web browser to look at news. Pay up, or we'll see you in court!

Sad to say it, but they'll actually win a lot (2, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973246)

I've seen many bloggers, especially big bloggers with lots of advertising, reproduce the lion's share of a story and add so little commentary that even the most pro-fair use judge would have to conclude that it is an illegal infringement.

The main problem the media will face is that there is already a large swath of the population that hates it. Unfortunately for the MSM, these aren't people who are poor high school students.

Re:Sad to say it, but they'll actually win a lot (0, Offtopic)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973570)

Mods, please put my comment at offtopic.

With my own site, I will often link to stories that I find interesting (or that I think would be interesting to my readers.) I'm always sure to include where I found the story as well as a link to the story...I will sometimes offer up a couple of sentences showing my own opinion, but generally I'll just point the reader in the direction of the original article with a very short overview on what the article covers.

The way I see it is this: if I didn't write it, I should be doing everything I possibly can to make it obvious that I didn't write it.

Not the Same as Music (1)

loafing_oaf (1054200) | more than 3 years ago | (#33973470)

This will not save the news business. Journalists do not create news; they just report it. They have a right to charge for use of their stories, but the actual events described belong to no one. That is, I could read the story and then report the same events in my own words.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...