×

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 and 28 News Groups To Collect Fees From Aggregators

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the that-link-will-cost-you dept.

Media 303

jjp9999 writes "The Associated Press is launching the NewsRight project to make aggregators pay for content. Some of the top names in the news industry are currently on board, including New York Times Co. and Washington Post Co, and they're currently negotiating with Gannett, Tribune, Cox and News Corp. The project will license original news from the media companies and collect royalties from aggregators. The use of lawsuits and threats of lawsuits are already on the agenda. NewsRight's first salesperson starts work this week."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

303 comments

RightHaven (5, Interesting)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605472)

I'm sure they will have worked out the bugs that RightHaven have, and continue down that same road..

Re:RightHaven (5, Insightful)

alexborges (313924) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605970)

Well I think its time they collect. AP, NYT and news agencies have people on the ground and they pay them to provide info. We as a free society (not the US only, all of occident), need this kind of setup to get information. Even if its slanted, at least the payment is for info itself, not for the slant.

If we leave this market untouched, then all we are going to hear about, is whatever advertisers are willing to pay for.... think about it.

RSS as Fair Use (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38605478)

This is covered under Fair Use as one of the provision is reporting the news. Most RSS only provides a small snippet, enough to cover the basics of the story and is not subject to copyright.

Re:RSS as Fair Use (5, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605508)

And in a few weeks it wont matter. All they have to do is point a finger in your general direction and you are 'disappeared'. Then you have to pay lots of money to fight your way back online.

Re:RSS as Fair Use (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38605586)

Lets call them "news terrorists" so that their computers can be confiscated without warrant. That is probably the simplest way of dealing with the situation. The could be claimed to be spreading subversive literature, similar to the US citizen that was recently assassinated (Anwar al-Awlaki). The main problem is making sure that republican media control is maintained by the large companies that own these news sources, and labeling all other news sources as "news terrorists" is the obvious solution.

Re:RSS as Fair Use (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38605914)

The could be claimed to be spreading subversive literature, similar to the US citizen that was recently assassinated (Anwar al-Awlaki).

Actually, he was hit because he was planning, coordinating, and greenlighting terrorist attacks. You know, the same role that bin Laden and a number of other terrorist leaders have filled before being turned into red goo.

But keep up with your delusions. You'll make a great suicide bomber one day.

Re:RSS as Fair Use (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605974)

I see you believe the mediallling accounts, derived from "official sources". Remember, when Tinkerbelle waves her magic wand [bllliiiiing!] you can turn the page...

Re:RSS as Fair Use (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606046)

He was still a US citizen who was assassinated without any chance for a fair trial.

We are no longer free when the president can be judge, jury and executioner. Was al-Awlaki a bad person? Of course. Was Ted Bundy a bad person? Of course. The difference is Ted Bundy was lawfully tried (and then executed), there was no trial for al-Awlaki, instead he was assassinated without any chance for a defense and without any basic rights expected in a "free" nation.

Keep in mind that al-Awlaki wasn't killed by soldiers trying to apprehend him (as those behind the killing of Bin Laden says that the soldiers were trying to capture him alive when he attempted to shoot them) but instead was assassinated by a drone.

We now live in a world that simply by order of the president, any US citizen can be killed without trial and without evidence and without any defense. That, is a very disturbing reality.

Re:RSS as Fair Use (3, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606102)

He was still a US citizen who...

We now live in a world that simply by order of the president, any US citizen...

You know one of the reasons the rest of the world thinks you suck?

Yeah, that's it right there, only US citizens have rights in your eyes.

Re:RSS as Fair Use (5, Insightful)

Amouth (879122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605596)

i think the aggregators should just be fair and delist these people.. you don't want them showing your content - fine.. rather than them learning how to use robots.txt just stop crawling them completely.. i'm sure that be great for their traffic streams.

Re:RSS as Fair Use (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605722)

If the agregators delist their sources they have nothing.

Re:RSS as Fair Use (2)

Amouth (879122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605864)

And the sources will hurt badly.. i'm not suggesting they delist just he news feed.. i'm suggesting they delist them completely..

what they have now is a symbiotic relation ship.. what they are trying to do is leach more out - which causes it to be a poisons relationship..

Re:RSS as Fair Use (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38605874)

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

Re:RSS as Fair Use (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605934)

RSS is covered by the ToS of a website, and that usually says that the content is for personal use only, like the RSS Ticker plugin for Mozilla... if you try to run a website based on it you'll need to pay for the rights or they'll cut you off or worse yet feed you fictional news. NewsRight is a new service for grouping those rights and having one payment for many sites worth of cont4ent

I wonder (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38605482)

If this will affect slashdot.

SOPA (2, Interesting)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605496)

I bet this ties in to SOPA ..

Let them keep their content, and their ad revenue. Screw them.

Re:SOPA (4, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605960)

SOPA is about the takedown of servers that house illegal content.. and the overreach is that they'll take out a whole service to punish for one piece of offending content. This is about the AP stepping up and selling a bundle of content suppliers for one price, essentially making a legal store so there's a right way to do it.

First post (2, Insightful)

sonamchauhan (587356) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605500)

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

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

Re:First post (2, Insightful)

GuruBuckaroo (833982) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605518)

I elected not to mod you down for one reason, and one reason only: Your post was well though out and insightful. I don't disagree with the content. But that "First Post" shit causes me to instantly devalue your input before even reading it. You're only hurting yourself.

Re:First post (1)

sonamchauhan (587356) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605562)

Heheh, thanks... Yes, I was going to post something foolish (e.g. "lolz ... heres my insight... now pay me license fees"), before wisdom go ahold of me. :D

Re:First post (-1, Flamebait)

louzer (1006689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605590)

oooo.. I am really afraid of this guru guy. Without his vote it is going to be really hard to tell the world that which needs no telling to be true.

Re:First post (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605612)

"But that "First Post" shit causes me to instantly devalue your input before even reading it. You're only hurting yourself."

Appearance should not matter. Stuff should be judged by its merits, not its title.

That's what I'd like to think the people namig their graphics program GIMP instead of, say, "Pixpulate Ultimate Pro Aluminum" or "Imagejob GT Klondyke Slim" had in mind.

Bullshit is bullshit.

FUCK YOUR MOM, FUCK HER HARD (5, Funny)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605702)

I agree completely, migla. People should really spend more time digging in depth to find well thought out arguments instead of knee jerk reactions based on something as superficial as a title. Its not like a title is supposed to be some type of summary of the internal contents. They should probably just get rid of that box completely.

Re:FUCK YOUR MOM, FUCK HER HARD (-1, Redundant)

mrclisdue (1321513) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605866)

...instead of knee jerk reactions based on something as superficial as a title or nickname ...

yeah, not really ftfy, just added something.

btw, never even *noticed* your post title until I hit reply.

cheers,

Re:First post (0)

migla (1099771) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605728)

ah... ok, ok. This is a bit different. It might be helpful to all of us for a commenter to succintly distill the jizz of their post into the title, but more than punishing people for not being helpful in their communication by title on this forii or any of their so choozing, I'd ... meh. I forget.

Re:First post (1, Funny)

mrclisdue (1321513) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605888)

...distill the jizz of their post into the title...

I'm not sure how many images went flying through my mind with that malaprop, or even what those images were, but I get the gist of your comment, I think.

Sticky situation, nonetheless.

Re:First post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38605706)

Don't let a well thought out post stop you from modding someone down. It happens all the time here. It's one of the reasons I don't even bother to log in anymore.

Re:First post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38605602)

What's wrong is that they're almost certainly planning to go after people whose usage should be protected under Fair Use, and use the threat of lawsuits to bully them into paying protection money.

Re:First post (4, Interesting)

devent (1627873) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605674)

Eh, not at all. The aggregators are using their right of fair use to aggregate news. They are not re-posting the original articles under their own name.

That is another example how cooperations are greedy and try to extend copyright at all costs. It depends on what NewsRight will actually do, because TFA doesn't know yet. But maybe then even Slashdot will be required to pay.

It's just beyond me, why the "... 28 co-investors, 30 additional companies taking part, and 800 news websites" are not coming together and start their own news aggregator web site. But than they have to produce something instead to resort to "lawsuits and threats of lawsuits".

Re:First post (1, Interesting)

devent (1627873) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605714)

Btw, are threats of a lawsuit not actually illegal? Isn't that like coercion?

Re:First post (5, Informative)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605822)

    It's covered by the RICO act (and other laws), and is known as extortion. It's basically summarized as, "I threaten to take legal action against you, if you don't pay me money."

    They know perfectly well that Mr. Blogger, who may make hundreds a year, can't possibly defend himself against a single corporation who makes millions, or a group of corporations who make billions.

    It's not even just the individual. They could take down Slashdot, as portions of the article are reused here. That *is* allowed by copyright law as fair use.

    What these publishers are going to find out is, if they kill off the bloggers who are partially republishing their stories and providing links, the traffic to the original publication is going to drop. I won't say it would be huge. That all depends on the publication. How many people read the NY Times directly, and how many catch an interesting story on Slashdot and follow the link to the NY Times?

    I strongly suspect that the average Mr. Blogger is not the target. They want the big fish with big money. Google News, Yahoo News, and other multi-million hit/day sites. I don't know, but I suspect, that they are already paying their tribute to the news corps for at least some of their feeds. This will severely impact mid-level news sites, who get tens of thousands of hits/day. They may make a few bucks at it from advertising, but that's a long way from being able to pay for feeds from AP, Reuters, UPI, etc. More often than not, the advertising revenue barely pays for their hosting.

    As it's clear that they are litigious bastards, they will work their way down the ranks, until they're filing 100k "John Doe" lawsuits every week. It could very easily get to the point where if you posted more than a few words that could have been in another story, you owe or get shut down.

    But, the litigious bastards will always win. Why? Because they have the money. They already own a decent portion of our political system, they can and will have laws changed in their favor. This has been proven time and time again. At very least, the litigious bastards can afford to keep it in court longer than you can.

Re:First post (1)

Professr3 (670356) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605834)

If there's a pattern to it, it's barristry.

LMFTFY (3, Informative)

celtic_hackr (579828) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605940)

That would be barratry, not barristry.

Barratry is the practice of filing frivolous and baseless lawsuits in an attempt to harass and extort.

Barristry is something quite different.

Re:First post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38605900)

No. Threatening a legal (or not illegal) action is not coercion.

Re:First post (3, Informative)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606138)

It is.

And it's why Righthaven is bankrupt now.

1. In order to sue, you must have standing. Righthaven did not have this, because in the US, at least, you /must/ own the copyrights in order to sue. Unless the AP and others are going to sign all their content over to this new organization, I doubt they will have standing because it is unlikely that the AP and others will willy-nilly sign over copyright on a bet.

2. In order to not be tossed out of court on your ear for barratry, your case must be prima facie valid. Righthaven did not even have this because of fair use. This new company is going to run afoul of the same fair use problems.

Unless copyright law is changed to allow third parties to sue, like in Germany, this is unlikely to change.

--
BMO

Re:First post (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605920)

The aggregators in question are not just providing aggregated news but are using such article links as a means of revenue generation. Fair use does not cover charging money for providing such information nor do I think it extends to sites with heavy add revenue.

Re:First post (2)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605676)

They are certainly acting within their rights, but I do wish that they would see news aggregators as a business opportunity. That article title and choice sentence or two represent prime advertising that pulls people into their advertising laden sites.

Of course, they probably don't see it that way. They probably see their story summaries posted right next to the story summaries of their competitors and really can't have that. After all, it means their content and the quality of their work may be judged based upon merit. And we really can't have that, now can we?

Re:First post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38605684)

Is this not collusion or creating a cartel, though?

Re:First post (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605736)

It sure is.

The question is what you, a joe blow without an army of lawyers, plan to do about it.

Re:First post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38605750)

Well, in the past, the US FTC has taken a dim eye to this (airline ticket prices comes to mind)... But, somehow, I don't think our current Great Leader will encourage the FTC to look into this, and the Monkeys (congress) would probably start flinging shit around, too.

Re:First post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38605686)

use of content originated elsewhere. They are being asked to become payers rather than free riders,” states Poynter.

Really? Someone named "Poynter" is complaining about "use of content originated elsewhere"?

Re:First post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38606120)

Really? Someone named "Poynter" is complaining about "use of content originated elsewhere"?

Exactamundo. I bet Poynter originated in his daddys balls!

Re:First post (4, Informative)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605738)

Don't forget this bit:

"We began working with Cisco in 2003 to help them establish a process for complying with our software licenses, and the initial changes were very promising," explained Brett Smith, licensing compliance engineer at the FSF. "Unfortunately, they never put in the effort that was necessary to finish the process, and now five years later we have still not seen a plan for compliance. As a result, we believe that legal action is the best way to restore the rights we grant to all users of our software."

They worked with Cisco/Linksys for five years prior to the suit. Cisco had ample time and help to comply with the GPL before the FSF filed suit. They then settled when Cisco finally decided to step up and be compliant, I don't believe the FSF sought damages or financial compensation.

So again, how are these similar?

Re:First post (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605784)

What's wrong with this model?

What's wrong with this model is that cartels mostly exist to fix prices higher than they should be and as a result, reduce competition.
And they're probably going to crap all over fair use, whether they intend to or not.

Its similar to how the FSF sues large commercial GPL violators because they breached copyright the FSF owned.

If you can't see the difference between that and the Free Software Foundation, you might want to think about it a little harder.

I think this is absolutely necessary (4, Insightful)

JakartaDean (834076) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606104)

I read the news. A lot. The current system is broken. Look at sites like my.yahoo.com, which used to aggregate credible sources and provide links. I could choose a Reuters group, a Sports Illustrated group, Asia News, whatever. Clicking on a link would take me to a Reuters, eg, page. Now all the news links go to news.yahoo.com and give shit like this: http://news.yahoo.com/single-tuna-fetches-record-736k-japan-auction-040041043.html [yahoo.com] That's a yahoo.com page, with Yahoo links and ads all over it, with a small logo suggesting that the article came from AFP. Yahoo is eating AFP's lunch (and all the other people who do the work getting the news and writing it up). Parasitic is the best way to describe this. If this new venture can get good sources of news rewarded by collecting from aggregators then how does it make things worse? I'm completely in agreement with fair use; this ain't it.

Re:First post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38605788)

Bad analogy much troll?

Re:First post (1)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605816)

The FSF has absolutely no problem with you taking GPLed software "originated elsewhere" and reselling it commercially. All you have to do is provide the source code, too, and you're compliant with the GPL.

So how do these two things compare again?

How a bout we try a little tenderness? (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605522)

Or socialism?

What if we'd just pool together alot of money to employ loads of journalists to do quality journalism, kind of like the how the BBC and other public service broadcasters work?

It seems to me they (like BBC, SVT, YLE, NRK, which are the ones I've watched/listened to) do actual real journalism instead of commercial bullshit.

Re:How a bout we try a little tenderness? (0)

faedle (114018) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605548)

Socialism and factual news.

Two things most 'murricans don't really want.

Re:How a bout we try a little tenderness? (3, Insightful)

micheas (231635) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605622)

Although polls show that that most Americans want socialism, they just don't want it called that. "Down with socialism, save medicare" is the cry of many Americans. Don't ask me how you explain to them that medicare is socialism.

Re:How a bout we try a little tenderness? (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605924)

Maybe we could call it "Southern hospitalism" in the south and ... "Familyism" or "Jesusism" in some parts and "Common sensism" for some and "Patriotism" for some?

Whoops! I think I accidentally went into marketing and advertising. As per the gospel of Bill Hicks I must now kill myself. Any of you yanks got a gun i could borrow?

Re:How a bout we try a little tenderness? (1)

celtic_hackr (579828) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606000)

Most Americans want their Social Security and Unemployment benefits, and cheap sugar and other cheap foods which are subsidized by the Fed. We've got lots of socialism in America. It's just well camouflaged. Or not so well, if you actually are one of those Americans that uses your brain for something other than texting while driving. Let's not forget Americans love to have those nasty Labor Unions too.

Who ever said Humans were logical? - James Tiberius Kirk.

Re:How a bout we try a little tenderness? (1)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605606)

Who is this "we"? Are you offering to fund journalists? How much do you send to NPR every year?

What's wrong with the idea that NYT, etc. pays journalists and then should get money from the people that read their stuff? They only have two choices:
1) Provide it free and sell advertising on the page
2) Make their website subscription only

The problem they have with 1) is other sites ripping off the content and selling ad space on their "aggregate" website which usually copies a lot more than an excerpt. Frequently its the whole lede.

Re:How a bout we try a little tenderness? (5, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605646)

The problem is that it's well within the content providers ability to block legitimate sites from aggregating their content (see: robots.txt). They don't want to do that. Instead they want the benifit, _and_ want those sites to pay them.

Re:How a bout we try a little tenderness? (2)

lucidlyTwisted (2371896) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605806)

This, in spades. They have the means to stop the crawling. if someone is ignoring that, deep-linking or passing-off other's work, then deal with that on a case-by-case basis (just like everywhere else in the world).
Just because people know that all the major press entities are now corporate* owned, biased, not trust-worthy and now are being ignored - is no reason to go around and attempt legalised extortion.

*By "corporate", I mean owned by faceless trusts held overseas, oligarchs or others rich enough to buy the laws they want. At least, that's how it is here.

Re:How a bout we try a little tenderness? (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605790)

What's wrong with the idea that NYT, etc. pays journalists and then should get money from the people that read their stuff?

I don't think the OP is suggesting there is anything "wrong" with it as an idea.

However I do think it's worth noting that it in practice it's a model that has become more difficult as distribution has become easier. The capability to print and distribute paper, access to airwaves or cable went a long way to supporting that model.

As distribution continues to become increasingly easy and the only thing supporting it is legal power (and social mores) I think it certainly makes sense to consider other models that support quality journalism if you think journalism is valuable.

Re:How a bout we try a little tenderness? (5, Interesting)

migla (1099771) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605824)

I don't contribute to the NPR. Mainly because it's not my NPR.

I did use to get bills for SVT when I had a TV, though, and the public service broadcasters SVT (here in Sweden) or YLE (in finland), like the BBC (I'd imagine) are in a whole other dimension of journalism compaired to any of the commercial offerings, being politically and commercially independent.

I'm not saying your points of 1 or 2 are wrong, but that the solution to a copyright economy which is/{should be} dying is for people with the means to pay for it, as in from each according to their abilities etc., because we all want information and an informed public and not to be playing silly ownership games with bits, don't we?

"Nationalise" or more appropriately "globalise" the AP.

We (as in people in general) should pay a fraction of a cent or whatever for the AP journalists to keep doing their job, IMO.

I'm not going to try to force it, but I just think it would be a sensible thing to do. We all benefit from the AP and the likes, don't we?

Re:How a bout we try a little tenderness? (1)

celtic_hackr (579828) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606082)

If I had any mod points left, I'd mod you insightful.

While I truly feel for these news organizations that are bleeding profit left and right. It is their inability to see the light at the end of the tunnel, and they struggle on, grasping for branches in outcroppings as they fall down the copyright cliff. Copyright is dieing, but no one want to admit it. Which of course doesn't bode well for me either as a software business owner. But, i don't make my money from the general public.

These companies all deserve to be able to try to make a profit. But, they need to take a long hard look at reality and find a better solution. I don't have it. I certainly don't want to see news "nationalized" or even worse "globalised". However, the writing is on the wall many news agencies are going to go under, and the choice of news outlets will be diminished and news reporters will become scarce. Perhaps only a few meganews corporations and some non-profit and public supported news agencies.

And of course numerous small hometown papers.

Re:How a bout we try a little tenderness? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38606036)

"National Propaganda Radio"? They should be shut down.

Re:How a bout we try a little tenderness? (0)

superwiz (655733) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605886)

BBC is hardly journalism. They have complete discretion over editorial decisions. So they can print any kind of socialist drivel they feel like. Real news sources actually have to contend with the fact that their viewers/readers/advertisers might not like such a one-sided viewpoint. BBC has tried to exist commercially in the US through many venues. They always fail. Audiences don't stay with them. They come off as an extreme version of FOX news if FOX news were left-leaning.

Re:How a bout we try a little tenderness? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38606022)

Wow! Well done! Amazing parody of a spoonfed-from-birth-by-the-market-to-be-a-capitalist-puppet. A bit overdone, though. Nobody would be that stupid, but maybe you went for humor by hyperboly? Applause !!!

Re:How a bout we try a little tenderness? (0)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606080)

So in other words, why not steal my money and use it to fund something you want, right?

Or instead, you know, you can spend your money on what you want and I can spend my money on what I want. If you wish to support non-AP news sites, go ahead! If you want to boycott the AP and want to want others to join in with you go ahead! But don't steal my money and use it to fund something you want.

If you want "real" journalism, then support "real" journalists. Don't steal other people's money to do it.

Here's how the first call will go down.... (5, Interesting)

LVSlushdat (854194) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605542)

Newsright Salesdroid: Hello Google? I'm from Newsright, and I'm calling to set up your payment plan for aggregation of AP/Gannett news on your website..
Google: Say WHAT?? You've GOT to be kidding... We are NOT going to pay YOU!! In fact, YOU should be paying US to publicise YOU..
Newsright Salesdroid: If you don't pay, we sue..
Google: (sound of lots of laughter) Tell ya what.. Why don't we just NOT aggregate your content, that way we're happy/you're happy...
Newsright Salesdroid: Ummm... I guess that would be ok...
FAST FORWARD A MONTH..
Newsright CEO at management meeting to salesdroid on Google account: WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU DO??? Traffic to our clients is down 85%, and they are
PISSED... You're FIRED!!!!

Re:Here's how the first call will go down.... (2)

jordanjay29 (1298951) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605560)

Don't worry, Microsoft will pay for Bing. So it will only be down 80%.

Re:Here's how the first call will go down.... (2)

faedle (114018) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605598)

I know the relationship has gone a little cold, but Microsoft makes a few phone calls to NBC and they have all the news content Bing needs.

Re:Here's how the first call will go down.... (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606004)

MSNBC has always been a split venture between Microsoft's MSN and NBC News. At first they went in 50/50 with both sides of the business, but they eventually swapped some shares giving MSN control of the web site, and NBC control of the TV channel. Since that split, MSNBC TV has gone to a liberal politics channel, and MSNBC.com has focused on hard news.

They once had a day where they tried to see what would happen if they did split up for good, and MSN News quickly opened and MSN News writers booked appearances on CNN and Fox News, while NBC News was caught with no web presence at all. It was proof that TV needs the support of websites more than websites need a TV channel.

Re:Here's how the first call will go down.... (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606026)

Actually, Bing gets is news from the MSN half of MSNBC... MSNBC TV doesn't offer much beyond a liberal answer to FNC's political talk.

Re:Here's how the first call will go down.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38605570)

Yeah or the more likely scenario is that if Google doesn't pay people will stop using Google News since there will be no point if it contains no content.

Re:Here's how the first call will go down.... (1)

faedle (114018) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605588)

Google has enough change in their pockets to build their own news gathering organization.

  "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

Re:Here's how the first call will go down.... (3, Interesting)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605616)

There are more news sources besides the members of AP, but there aren't any real competitors to Google Search.

Re:Here's how the first call will go down.... (2)

ralphdaugherty (225648) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605928)

Google is the prototype aggragator. I saw a post that said aggragators display more than a fair use snippet and use that to get ad revenue. If someone is doing that news organizations (or whoever's content is being aggragated inappropriately) can contact and advise to get their content out of the web site and some of have been doing that. It's successful stopping the copying of articles by various interest sites.

Now as to actual aggragators such as Google and others, they direct traffic to the content site. Tons of traffic. We've been through this on slashdot many times through the years IIRC. If you don't want Google and others to list your content and provide links to your site, they won't. But these news organizations do want the links and traffic directed to them. So they're not behaving rationally on this.

I guess it's because they're financially desperate, and think that somehow aggragators like Google are keeping traffic that would go to them by showing a news headline and the first sentence and half or whatever of the article.

They just haven't come to grips with the fact that the traffic they think has been stolen just wasn't interested enough to click through to their site. Maybe went to another article, maybe wasn't interested, but without aggragators wouldn't even get the interested ones who did click through to them.

IIRC the take on this is that this is a desperate attempt to shoehorn in on Google's revenues. The answer is, if they don't want links to their content displayed block the search bots and take your chances with someone caring enough to go find you... somehow.

slashdot (5, Interesting)

bs0d3 (2439278) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605572)

does this include slashdot?

Re:slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38605668)

I came here to ask the same thing. I'd mod this up if I had points...

seems like Google et. al. should charge them (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38605576)

The news sites are getting add'l advertising from folks steered to their sites from Google, Digg, /., etc.

That is a valuable service that generates revenue for the news organizations.

Re:seems like Google et. al. should charge them (1)

bs0d3 (2439278) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605624)

id vote your comment up but I already started talking on this one

Re:seems like Google et. al. should charge them (1)

I Read Good (2348294) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605818)

Samsies! What is up with all the backwardass modding in this article's comments?

Oh noes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38605694)

This may not bode well for the north country gazette

Isn't sharing the news the whole point of the AP? (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605696)

I thought the whole point of distributing news articles through the Associated Press was to share them so ANYONE in the media, including so-called "New Media", could publish them.

Re:Isn't sharing the news the whole point of the A (4, Informative)

GumphMaster (772693) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605812)

Yes, it is, but the "traditional media" pay AP for that privilege and the argument is that so should the "new media" that publish these articles.

my god, slashdot writers (3, Funny)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605792)

might actually have to ---summarize a topic instead of copy-pasting the first fucking paragraph---

what will become of the site?

clam up or stand up? (3, Interesting)

superwiz (655733) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605850)

Reporters: pay a license to NewsRight or don't write silly programs to auto review our content.

Doctors: go through AMA accredited medical school and certification or forget about giving flu shots.

Lawyers go through private (!!!) Bar association with its arbitrary rules to get into the profession or forget about practicing law

Actors: no more than 2 SAG appearances without joining the SAG or you are in violation of the law.

Programmers: all software should be free. Everyone should give away the secret sauce which makes their software run or they are acting immorally. For some added injury, let's invite hundreds of thousands indentured workers on H1 visas, to compete with professional programmers on wages and work conditions. Let's not call them immigrants (with all the rights of green card holders). Let's make them depend on their employer for 5-10 years to get a green card.

Yes, there are top programmers who make what a doctor makes. But top doctors, lawyers and actors make 100 fold. I wonder why that is. I wonder what lawyers would cost if most lawyers thought that legal services were a right that must be given away as much as possible. You might think that I am trolling, but the pattern is unmistakable. Professions which do not give up control over results of their labor have higher wages.

This sounds right (2)

guises (2423402) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605930)

I've got an instinctive negative reaction to news like this since it usually has something to do with the RIAA or such extorting money, but as long as this only applies to sites that really are just leaching off of newspaper content I'm not going to cry about it. Or course that isn't what's going to happen, in a few months we'll hear about how they're suing some sap with a two-bit blog who made a comment about such-and-such.

Ah well. I give a little more slack to the newspapers since they're one of the few commercial enterprises that actually do provide a necessary public service. Ideally, of course, they would be not-for-profit - every time we spend seven weeks hearing about Micheal Jackson and about nothing important I punch a stockholder in the teeth. None the less, we would be far worse off if the New York Times and the Washington Post weren't around.

Needs more clarification (3, Interesting)

MrCrassic (994046) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605942)

As it reads right now, this sounds like a huge game-change for the worse. Here are my questions:
  • Third-tier newspapers. How will this impact third-tier (neighborhood, college, special interest group) newspapers that relay their original content? Will they have to pay for partnerships to simply get their news? What if they "steal" it from a news aggregator like Yahoo! News or Google? Do they get penalised?
  • Paraphrasing. Let's say I'm a blogger and want to avoid getting fined by the news media cartel, so I buy a newspaper (or, again, take it from Google et. al) and paraphrase it. Or deep-link it so that's it far away from the original source. What happens then?
  • It sounds like this is an attempt to create the MPAA of news. On one hand, I feel like this won't really affect the casual reader since most folks get their news through a source that would not have problems with this (e.g. local channels, newspapers, Google News,e tc.) On the other hand, I feel like it's an immoral attempt to control the flow of information.

Google+ Appears to Mitigate This (4, Interesting)

Araes (1177047) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605944)

It seems that Google saw this coming, as there have been several stories in the last couple months about the fact that quotations, or wholesale reprints of articles posted by users on Google+ are being rated higher by the Google algorithm than the original articles. If this is actually true, and not just tinfoil hattery, then users may just become the routing mechanism for news while the official aggregator becomes a bit more barren. A similar mechanic may also work with sites like Twitter or Reddit if they are able to argue that they're not aggregating the news, and their users are just posting links to articles.

Well, it seems they have figured it out... (2)

lord_mike (567148) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605956)

By working as a group, they gain enough leverage to get what they want. If any of the individual companies pulled out of these news aggregators, the agreggators would be no worse for wear and the news company would suffer the lack of traffic. So, they band together to extract their protection money. Smart... probably illegal, but maybe not. After all the RIAA and the MPAA seem to operate as illegal trusts with impunity.

Here's how it really goes down (3, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605988)

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

I hear the RightHaven name is available for cheap (2)

Rix (54095) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606038)

They might as well go with an already established brand.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...