Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

AP to Charge Members to Post Content Online

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the sing-for-your-supper dept.

The Media 171

oboreruhito writes "The Associated Press has announced that, effective Jan. 1 2006, it 'will begin charging newspapers and broadcasters to post its stories, photos and other content online.' The article says online portals that are already subscribed to an online service won't be affected; the change is that newspapers and broadcasters, which have had the privilege of posting online at no extra charge over their usual licensing fees for print or TV, now have to pay extra. How will this affect sites like Google News and Fark?"

cancel ×

171 comments

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

Fark? (5, Insightful)

iCEBaLM (34905) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283777)

Why would it affect fark? They just link to em...

OMG F1R57 P057!

Re:Fark? (3, Funny)

timtwobuck (833954) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283849)

Wellll, because what if all these stories are no longer posted because there was a fee required?

Fark, Google and the like wouldn't have much news to link to if the news was never posted...

I personally don't really enjoy about:blank

Re:Fark? (3, Insightful)

NaruVonWilkins (844204) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284022)

If nobody posts AP stories anymore, the AP won't exist, and another news agency will take over (like the AFP).

Re:Fark? (1)

Bin_jammin (684517) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284050)

So in other words, if nobody posts news anymore, there won't be any more news?

Re:Fark? (2, Interesting)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284233)

That would be cool. Just nice, quiet life. Hmmm...life...arggle...drool...

Re:Fark? (2, Funny)

Golias (176380) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284098)

Meh. All the most amusing stories on FARK come from the Mainichi Times anyway.

Those wacky Japanese... bless their hearts for lightening my Mondays.

Re:Fark? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284178)

I personally don't really enjoy about:blank

Hmmm, I'm just the opposite - I use it for my home page... It's the only thing more zen than the old BeOS 404 Haikus [techspot.com] !

Re:Fark? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12283855)

I think the bit about Google News was put in just to ensure it'd get posted and make the front page.

Re:Fark? (1)

Quixote (154172) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283924)

Exactly. Some news source will put AP stories online; it's not as if the stories will disappear completely. Fark can just link to the well-heeled sources which get the license from AP to make the stories available.

Re:Fark? (2, Funny)

Patik (584959) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284562)

OMG F1R57 P057!
Since we're talking about Fark, that should be OMG B00B13S!

Corporate P2P News Sharing? (1)

Alien54 (180860) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284597)

It would be interesting if they stopped carrying the items they now have to pay for.

In fact, they could start some sort of P2P news sharing for stories, which would get around this proprietary news source. I can see the bean counters at the newspapers wanting to do something to cut costs, especially if the fee structure is predatory.

So corporate P2P news sharing actually sounds like the beginning of a decent business plan.

F/P (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12283782)

charge this!!!!

first pizzost!

LOL RKZ P{WNT U (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12283789)

GNAA files $20 million claim against Kent school district
By Erin Van Bronkhorst, GNAA [www.gnaa.us] reporter

SEATTLE - Kent School District policies are "institutionalized racism at its finest," the head of the local GNAA declared today as claims against the district rose to $30 million. Families of six gay niggers filed $20 million in claims today, saying security guards manhandled [thesomethi...planet.com] , handcuffed and roughed up the young homosexuals in incidents at five schools.
The legal action came two weeks after three gay nigger students and their families filed claims totaling $10 million, alleging that their civil rights had been violated when guards handcuffed them and used excessive force.
"These stories are just so horrific," Seattle GNAA President Darl McBribe [slashdot.org] told reporters at a news conference.
"Not only are our children being discriminated against because of race, they are victims of excessive force and in some cases they are being criminalized," Darl said, noting that some students were charged with assault for resisting the guards' rough handling.

Superintendent [macalester.edu] Barbara Grohe said the district is working with the state Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction to appoint an independent investigator to look into the allegations outlined in the claims.
"We take claims from our parents very, very seriously," Grohe said. "We intend to investigate these. We also, however, take responsibility for providing a safe and supportive learning environment for our children."
Grohe rejected the notion that the district is fostering institutionalized racism. "I believe the district has shown a long-standing commitment to a very diverse community," she said, noting that a diversity task force has been in place for 10 years.
A total of nine children and their families have now filed claims against Kent schools through the Seattle chapter of the Gay Nigger Association of America [www.gnaa.us] .

As a result of the initial claims, "other families started coming forward," Mack said.
Mack said the Kent School District, south of Seattle, has not properly prepared for an influx of children of color. Black students make up 10 percent of the district, while accounting for 24 percent of disciplinary actions, he said.
"In most of these cases, there's an issue of not responding to repeated commands," he said, but he believes no child should be manhandled and physically injured.
An 11-year-old boy told reporters that a guard handcuffed him and two other adults jumped on him in disciplinary action after a schoolyard fight. The children's fight had started when a soccer ball hit a goalie's head.
In another incident, a white male student visiting from Kentridge High School threatened two gay black students at Northwood Junior High School, McBribe said. The white student was told to leave; the gay niggers were suspended for "fight promotion" and "gathering for the purpose of waiting for a fight to occur," McBribe said.
"This is the district that your taxpaying dollars are going to," McBribe said.

Grohe noted that most often security guards are called to handle a situation a teacher or staff member has not been able to control. If a student is combative, she said, security guards are trained to "de-escalate" the situation, being careful not to harm students.
The district has 60 days to respond to claims before a lawsuit can be filed. Both McBribe and Grohe said they hoped the situation could be resolved at a March 24 meeting.
Kent is the fourth-largest school district in the state, with more than 26,000 students and 40 schools. It employs 20 security officers, all of whom participate annually in 10 days of training in diversity, defense and restraint tactics and school policies and procedures.


About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [klerck.org] ?
Are you a NIGGER [mugshots.org] ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [gay-sex-access.com] ?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!
  • First, you have to obtain a copy of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] and watch it. You can download the movie [idge.net] (~130mb) using BitTorrent.
  • Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA First Post [wikipedia.org] on slashdot.org [slashdot.org] , a popular "news for trolls" website.
  • Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on irc.gnaa.us, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today! Upon submitting your application, you will be required to submit links to your successful First Post, and you will be tested on your knowledge of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE.

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is NiggerNET, and you can connect to irc.gnaa.us as our official server. Follow this link [irc] if you are using an irc client such as mIRC.


If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

.________________________________________________.
| ______________________________________._a,____ | Press contact:
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ | Gary Niger
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ | gary_niger@gnaa.us [mailto]
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ | GNAA Corporate Headquarters
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ | 143 Rolloffle Avenue
| ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ | Tarzana, California 91356
| _________#1__________?________________________ |
| _________j1___________________________________ | All other inquiries:
| ____a,___jk_GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ | Enid Indian
| ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ | enid_indian@gnaa.us [mailto]
| ______-"!^____________________________________ | GNAA World Headquarters
` _______________________________________________' 160-0023 Japan Tokyo-to Shinjuku-ku Nishi-Shinjuku 3-20-2

Copyright (c) 2003-2004 Gay Nigger Association of America [www.gnaa.us]

props 2 the GNAA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12283793)

wassup ma nigz

How will this affect sites like Fark? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12283798)

Slightly less photoshopping and still no cure for cancer.

Re:How will this affect sites like Fark? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12283815)

Less photoshop? That I doubt...

yeah (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12283816)

How will this affect sites like Google News and Fark?"

Who cares? Fark has made money hand over fist by just posting links. Maybe it's time that business model has to pay up for merely providing links...

Google and Fark? (4, Insightful)

justforaday (560408) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283823)

How will this affect sites like Google News and Fark?

My guess is not much at all. It's the sites that Google and Fark link to that will need to pay the AP. If the number of AP newswire sites drops, it will most likely be made up for by homebrewed stories citing the AP newsfeed as a source.

Re:Google and Fark? (1)

0x461FAB0BD7D2 (812236) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283930)

If people refuse to pay AP and find other sources for news, it will mean that AP will be forced to change its online pricing model.

However, it could also mean that those who pay AP pass these along to the consumer via Google News and Fark, which could lead to BugMeNot getting slashdotted every time a news story breaks.

Re:Google and Fark? (1)

justforaday (560408) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283970)

You seem to be confusing who the AP's customers are. It's the newspapers and broadcasters that then pass that information along to the consumer. It's the middlemen that are being affected, not the end-user (well, not directly at least). I seriously doubt you'll find the BaltimoreSun or NewYorkTimes as a user in bugmenot's database...

Re:Google and Fark? (2, Interesting)

0x461FAB0BD7D2 (812236) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284036)

If AP charges newspapers and so on for posting its content online, they will pass that cost on to the consumers.

However, most people get their news from Fark, Slashdot, Google News, Yahoo News, and other news congregation sites. With linking, users of those sites would have to pay to read the article. Hence, the newspapers will pass the cost to consumers via Google and Fark. Some might use an ad-based model, but most will use a subscription model.

And if these newspapers use a yearly subscription model, you can be sure some generous people will post their usernames and passwords via BugMeNot.

Re:Google and Fark? (1)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284296)

However, most people get their news from Fark, Slashdot, Google News, Yahoo News, and other news congregation sites. With linking, users of those sites would have to pay to read the article. Hence, the newspapers will pass the cost to consumers via Google and Fark. Some might use an ad-based model, but most will use a subscription model.

So people will just link to the CNN or FoxNews version instead of some podunk newspaper in Iowa that happened to cut and paste the AP article online. The New York Times will of course continue to never get greenlighted on Fark though since they require a soul-sucking registration.

Re:Google and Fark? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12283941)

You know, you have the right to ignore a stupid question asked by the submitter. Slashdot is all about discussing the *article*.

Re:Google and Fark? (1)

i.r.id10t (595143) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283960)

You kidding? More room for Boobies links (or Weiners if you are into those...)

Re:Google and Fark? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284144)

This post is useless without pics.

Re:Google and Fark? (4, Funny)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284540)

You Asked For It. [wikipedia.org]

Don't Despair! (2, Informative)

ImaLamer (260199) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284279)

There is always Wikinews [wikinews.org] , a public domain news source.

Re:Google and Fark? (4, Informative)

nacturation (646836) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284390)

This is a non-story. These two paragraphs FTA sum it up well:
About 300 commercial Web sites, including popular destinations such as Yahoo, AOL and MSN, already have been buying AP content, said Jane Seagrave, the news cooperative's director of new media markets.

But price increases are often a prickly issue for the AP because it's a not-for-profit cooperative that is owned by its customers _ the traditional media that form its membership.
So it's like the RIAA charging member bands a bit more to allow websites to post sound clips. What's the big deal here? Hundreds of websites already pay to have it online. All this does is end the free ride for traditional print publications to stick it on their site as well.

hmmm.. (5, Insightful)

TrippTDF (513419) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283825)

Google might be affected a little, but anyone that is paying the AP to carry the story will still have it posted, and google (or fark) could get to it that way.

Depending on how much they are charging, though it might force other sites to start charging online subscruption fees, as a large amount of free news will not be there anymore...

Google.. (1)

DeathFlame (839265) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283828)

Google News hotlinks there images from the stories in question... so I'd guess that there is no issue, since they are not really a news site, just a link to other news sites, a news site search engine basically.

Re:Google.. (0, Flamebait)

NaruVonWilkins (844204) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283893)

"their images" Thanks.

Google New is an aggregator (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12283835)

It will have no effect on them. Like Fark, Google posts links and short blurbs.

This just means there will be less redundant AP links. That's a good thing because the remaining links may actually be original reporting.

Fark! (5, Funny)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283837)

How will this affect sites like Google News and Fark?"

More boobies links!
Thanks, AP! : )

Boobies?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12283935)

Panzer Kardinal Joseph Ratzinger would not approve that. He's the new Pope now, so you've better watch out what you link to!

Re:Fark! (3, Funny)

Grayden (137336) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284114)

It's a Trap!

Re:Fark! (5, Funny)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284145)

Who cares, I submitted this with a much funnier headline!

Re:Fark! (1)

Megaslow (694447) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284194)

More boobies links!

Your dog wants more boobies, here comes the science. Duke Sucks. France Surrenders.

Re:Fark! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284228)

In this case....

Fark Surrenders!

Google (1)

glenrm (640773) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283846)

One of the things I like about Google news is they don't draw a line between AP/NYT/ and other online content like slashdot or inquirer.net don't see how this would effect them at all.

No worry for google (1)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283848)

well, Google will simply not take AP feed directly, but will continue with other feeds - who in turn would have used paid AP feed.

you're blowing my mind (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12283862)

By MICHAEL LIEDTKE
Associated Press


Just think. In the future, it would have cost the Sun Sentinal to print this "story" stating that the AP will be charging to post their stories...

AP? (1)

mike collins (576863) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283877)

They are part of the conspiracy anyway. Who cares.

FARK doesn't repost stories... (4, Informative)

stonedonkey (416096) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283878)

It just links to them. Same with Google News. Google posts a blurb, but its length is short enough to avoid copyright infringement (i.e., less than 100 words). The images in Google News link directly back to the domain where the story was posted. Sounds like the AP is asking everyone to prioritize Rueters over them, inadvertently. It also sounds like the AP is starting to recognize the Internet as a very influential source of information. It's not nearly ubiquitous as radio and TV, but it reaches a powerful demographic.

Re:FARK doesn't repost stories... (1)

LeBain (524613) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284003)

All this will mean is that there will be fewer sources to link to. FARK and Google and other sites that post news links will only be able to link to providers who pay the AP fee, like Yahoo! (which already pays AP, Reuters and other license fees and won't be otherwise affected by this announcement). Instead of seeing "and 3,257 related" on Google News, you'll just see "and 2 related".

Does Google News index Yahoo! news stories? I can't remember if I've ever seen a Yahoo! news link on Google News. I wonder if Yahoo! has banned the Google newsbot. If so, Google will have even fewer sources to link to.

I've never understood why newspapers post their content online for free. I love that they do, but there had to come a day when the sustainability of losing money caught up with the newspapers.

Re:FARK doesn't repost stories... (1)

Mad Marlin (96929) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284182)

Sounds like the AP is asking everyone to prioritize Rueters over them, inadvertently.

That is probably for the best: AP articles read as if they were written by, and for, illiterates; much like Slashdot.

Re:FARK doesn't repost stories... (1)

iabervon (1971) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284433)

Assuming that there are some online licensees for AP content, Google News will cite them. I'd actually prefer that Reuters quit letting sites post their content locally; it annoys me to see "Headline" and 225 copies of the same Reuters text. Thanks, I can read Reuters articles via the link to reuters.com; if I choose Ha'aretz as my reference for a story, I'd like a Israeli perspective, not a Reuters story that an Israeli paper decided to license. Of course, if I'm reading Ha'aretz, I'd like to have a blurb and a link to the reuters site for the story, if they decided to print it.

Newspaper rate increase (3, Insightful)

southpolesammy (150094) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283903)

Not so sure about Google and Fark which are purely online, but it seems logical that traditional newspapers will pass on the cost to their print subscribers.

Re:Newspaper rate increase (1)

NerdHead (35767) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283978)

I agree. The days of free online subscriptions are most likely over after this is implemented.

Re:Newspaper rate increase (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284087)

traditional newspapers are on their way out, at least national ones. local papers will have their place for some time yet, at least one more generation. It makes a lot more sense, if you must have a paper copy, to laser print the articles you actually want on a daily basis. To me, it seems most likely that traditional newspapers will pass on.

Newspaper rate increase-GeekWorld. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284287)

"To me, it seems most likely that traditional newspapers will pass on."

A geek would say this. However what percentage of the total population (not just the US, remember) are geeks? Geeks will put up with reading content off a screen. Geeks will put up with doing the extra work just to be cheap, that others wouldn't.

Re:Newspaper rate increase (1)

Kupek (75469) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284134)

Not so sure about Google and Fark which are purely online, but it seems logical that traditional newspapers will pass on the cost to their print subscribers.

It does seem logical, until you realize that most of a newspaper's revenue comes from advertising, not subscriptions. This extra cost will likely have much more effect on the cost of their advertisements than the cost of their subscriptions.

Sites will just use Reuters for the time being (4, Insightful)

Syncdata (596941) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283910)

Still, this has been a long time in coming. Popular sites like drudge/google news linking pictures from the AP wires, AFP, and other sources are:
#1: Not liscencing the content, which is exactly what the AP's et alls standard business practice is,
#2: Actually costing money due to bandwidth.

I don't think it's going to be long untill the major wires actually close their content to subscribers only. It would be a sad day for me, as I love getting my news hot off the wire, but I can understand why the AP/Reuters/AFP/UPI would do it.

Borrow it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284084)

"I don't think it's going to be long untill the major wires actually close their content to subscribers only. It would be a sad day for me, as I love getting my news hot off the wire, but I can understand why the AP/Reuters/AFP/UPI would do it."

Why can't we "borrow it" just like we do everything else?

Re:Sites will just use Reuters for the time being (1)

phatwuss (619909) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284099)

Bzzt, wrong answer.

In the case of Google News,

1. It should qualify as fair use, given that it is merely a fuzzy thumbnail... otherwise Google Images would have been destroyed by lawsuits long ago.

2. They aren't using AP's bandwidth, since the thumbnails are hosted on google's servers.

Re:Sites will just use Reuters for the time being (1)

kebes (861706) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284161)

Most online newspapers, I think, will not close off their content... it would kill their business. Sure, some of them already charge for access (WSJ, NYT, etc.) but most of them make money by posting news stories for free, and having people see the ads on the side of the page. These sites will be willing to pay a little premium to get access to news articles, since they more than recover these costs via ads.

With things like Google News out there, the consumer will tend to read the online news sources that are most accessible (i.e.: free)... the sources that are not accessible won't make add money and will have a hard time pulling in subscribers. It is really a minority of newspapers that have enough of "a name" to charge for access.

Google News is good for business for most online news places. The bandwidth cost is a small price to pay for *driving eager eyeballs* to your site!

Re:Sites will just use Reuters for the time being (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284385)

I wouldnt be so dire.

First off, the blurbs and images are clearly fair use. Not to mention it drives traffic to articles listed at the "top" of each google news section. Its like being slashdotted x1000.

It actually doesnt cost the newspapers bandwidth. Google resizes and hosts its news images.

Lastly, its going to be the kiss of death for AP, Reuters, online newspapers, etc if they went all RIAA on everyone. People will just shift to competitors.

Re:Sites will just use Reuters for the time being (1)

Syncdata (596941) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284518)

Upon checking Google news, I find you and other posters are indeed correct, the images are hosted by google news.

But drudge, and many other sites, leech bandwidth the organizations hosting the images.

In the case of newspapers, you can write that off because it will drive eyeballs to your ads.

In the case of the wires, they're gaining nothing. Their business model is to sell organizations access to their content. People are increasingly getting their news online, and they aren't paying for the content. But then, I don't know what kind of deal yahoo (where I access the wires) has with the AP et all.

Also, I question the RIAA analogy, past the extent that business models might stand to be rethought.

Re:Sites will just use Reuters for the time being (2, Interesting)

pavon (30274) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284525)

While sites like drudge might switch, I don't think many newspapers would stop using stories from AP just because they have to pay extra to put them online. The larger ones will just pay the license fee and continue. For the smaller ones this will likely be the final straw that makes them realise that their online presence isn't making any money anyway. This will cause them to scale back to just posting local, self-written news or can their website altogether.

And honestly I think that is inevitable. There simply isn't any demand for hundreds of online news sites that all just regergitate AP and Reuters stories. These newspapers need to realise that once they go online they are competing with every major news source in the world. If they can't provide something unique then they will fail, and deserve to.

I don't think it's going to be long untill the major wires actually close their content to subscribers only.

They will only do that when it becomes a viable business model. People keep saying that subscription services cannot be profitable for online news services, because customers will not tolerate them - they will just move to another site. But that is assuming that all of these sites will have the same news - which is only valid so long as the wires maintain a liberal policy regarding posting their content online.

On the extreme end, if all the wires flat-out prohibited posting of their content online (or make it very expensive), then their online subscription would suddenly be very viable and lucrative. However this might anger the large newpapers enough that they turn to another wire, and therefore it will not happen soon. As (if) the newspapers become shrink in importance (and sales) and online news becomes more important, then the wires will have the motivation and leverage to become more and more restrictive regarding online posting of content. As they do so more and more news sites will die, until the only ones left are the ones that actually create content (wires & analysts), not just regergitate it. At this point subscription would be a viable model for the wires as they are no longer competing with their customers.

Of course blogs are a possible kink in this scenario. The wires won't be able to shut down every blog that reposts its stories. Will blogs be usefull news sources if they become shut down as soon as they become popular? Will cleverly run blogs be able to get away with rewording every AP article that they post? If so then subscription will not be a viable model for the wires, and things will likely stay just as they are.

Your AP member wants... (2, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283911)

> How will this affect sites like Google News and Fark?"

Your dog will want 1 of 1,390,000 steaks?

Who'll be affected ? (2, Insightful)

shashark (836922) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283925)

"About 300 commercial Web sites, including popular destinations such as Yahoo, AOL and MSN, already have been buying AP content, said Jane Seagrave, the news cooperative's director of new media markets."

Most of the commercial web-sites are already buying content. It'll be mostly small-time portals and bloggers who'll be really affected. Think of all the blogs cross-posting APs content.

Also, bloggers who post APs content on there websites might be discouraged to do that henceforth. Imagine, if bloggers are not allowed to link content to AP/reuters or other authentic news sources -- blogging might suffer.

Hell, even slashdot carries AP articles. Will Slashdot be affected ??
--
All your content are belong to us.

Re:Who'll be affected ? (1)

MisanthropicProgram (763655) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284028)

Will it affect you if /. were affected?

And what would the effect be if you were affected?

Sorry, dumb joke.

Re:Who'll be affected ? (1)

licamell (778753) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284132)

And what would the effect be if you were affected?

The effect would be a slashdot effect, obviously!

Re:Who'll be affected ? (1)

antonpiatek (223233) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284059)

I know several lawsuits have been thrown around for linking to content, but have any of them actually succeeded?

Linking and quoting someone elses work that is published without requiring a licence to be agreed to are fair use.

I can still link to NYT even though I have to be a member to see the article, so what difference will this make to bloggers?

Who'll be affected ?-Free Journalism. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284108)

"Also, bloggers who post APs content on there websites might be discouraged to do that henceforth. Imagine, if bloggers are not allowed to link content to AP/reuters or other authentic news sources -- blogging might suffer. "

So much for the "new journalism" model. Guess people will actually have to work for their news.

Blog:" Local cat found up a tree. Firefighters baffled."

Re:Who'll be affected ? (2, Insightful)

ImaLamer (260199) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284224)

As a blogger I am horrified when I see someone post the full text of an AP story on their site. Quoteing is one thing, but putting the entire article in a blog post is blatent plagirism. On the same note I'm bothered by people who submit Slashdot summaries with the same exact language of the AP/Cnet/Tom's Hardware story they are submitting.

Then again, there is Wikinews [wikinews.org] , where "All content of the Wikinews Beta is in the public domain."

Re:Who'll be affected ? (1)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284515)

As a blogger I am horrified when I see someone post the full text of an AP story on their site.

As a computer engineer, I am horrified whenever I see someone mindlessly cling to outdated and unrealistic ideas about information. The internet makes copying information effectively a zero cost operation, it is what the internet was designed to do. So stop fighting it, accept and embrace it and the new business models it makes possible.

Quoteing is one thing, but putting the entire article in a blog post is blatent plagirism.

No, unless the article is unattributed, it is not plagarism.

frist 4sot. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12283940)

Would like 7o OpenBSD leader Theo Usenet. In 1995, Brilliant plan Trying to dissect escape them by infinitesimally work that you

I read The Onion (5, Funny)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283944)

How does this affect me?

This might be good... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12283947)

One can only hope that they pick up stories from other news agencies. It would be nice to visit different sites and actually not get the exact same overdramatized POS article from AP.

Moral Superiority! (1)

RileyLewis (826273) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283966)

So the AP is going to charge the posting of members online? This is a dark day for the free online porn industry.

Why these useless questions? (5, Insightful)

lysander (31017) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283971)

How will this affect sites like Google News and Fark?

Why do slashdot articles end with inane questions that obviously aren't interesting or useful? They just drive discussion away from actual article. Instead, we have a whole page of people agreeing that this almost has almost no impact on Google or Fark.

(Yeah, yeah, offtopic.)

This is NOT FAIR (1)

Virtual Karma (862416) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283996)

Sites like google news just provides link to the orignal site. This is FREE advertisment for the orignal sites. But some of these News sites like AP are so ignorant that they dont realize the value of this free advertisment. Their loss.

Also while aggregating news for Newster.net [newster.net] I realised that many news sites insert advertisment in their RSS feed. Now this is the stupidest thing that a publisher can do. Newster publishes the headlines and links it back to the orignal site. I thought that was FREE advt enough for them. But inserting advt in RSS feeds only leads them to be black listed at Newster.net [newster.net]

Re:This is NOT FAIR (1)

cpghost (719344) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284133)

Sites like google news just provides link to the orignal site. This is FREE advertisment for the orignal sites.

  • Google News doesn't just link to the sites, it uses part of the information on their main page.
  • Is that covered by fair use? IANAL.
  • It is free advertisement to news sites? Well, Google could collect some fees from them (it's not like they were starving) to recover their AP fees.
  • Google itself is a wee bit bigger than most news sites that license AP material. Paying some fees to AP or AFP won't even make a dent in their balance.

Despite this, AP's or AFP's behavior looks greedy, to say the least.

Re:This is NOT FAIR (1)

no reason to be here (218628) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284635)

Is that covered by fair use? IANAL.

IANAL, either; however, I was in charge of the course reserve collection for a university library for a while, and was charged with writing our copyright policy.

There are no official rules for what constitues fair use. For printed materials (which AP articles are, I would say, even online) the rule of thumb that most people go by is ten percent of the total words of the printed work.

This is NOT FAIR-Life's NOT fair. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284157)

"Sites like google news just provides link to the orignal site. This is FREE advertisment for the orignal sites. But some of these News sites like AP are so ignorant that they dont realize the value of this free advertisment. Their loss."

Pre-Internet: Loss? What Loss?

Post-Internet: Oh you're going to lose if you don't give me free news.

Re:This is NOT FAIR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284269)

Oh no, black listed at newster, a site so popular that neither I nor anyone I talked to in an impromptu survey knew it existed. I guess their entire business model will collapse because they've been blacklisted by newtster... or was it newstir? Whatever.

Re:This is NOT FAIR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284378)

Sites like google news just provides link to the orignal site. This is FREE advertisment for the orignal sites. But some of these News sites like AP are so ignorant that they dont realize the value of this free advertisment. Their loss.

Yeah that's right! And along similar lines policies against downloading music are UNFAIR too!! Don't the RIAA and artists know it is just FREE advertisement? Morons.

Re:This is NOT FAIR (1)

ceejayoz (567949) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284548)

Strange that an advertisement post complains about advertisements...

Possibilities (1)

Black Perl (12686) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284056)

I can think of a few possible outcomes:

1. Online newspaper sites become more inundated with ads. An annoyance that can be somewhat mitigated by Firefox+Adblock.

2. Articles by independent and/or local writers will become more prominent.

3. The AP gradually slides into irrelevance (from an influence and mindshare perspective at least), as newspapers reduce the number of AP stories posted online and other syndicated news agencies pick up the slack.

Re:Possibilities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284437)

I got news for you (pun intended).

The papers most likely to be affected by this are the smaller operations that subscribe only to a single wire -- The AP.

If they wanted to use, say, Reuters, they'd have to pay more for that. And dropping AP all together won't work either. The AP is the only real nationally (U.S) based Wire Service. It's got scores of reporters in all the states across the U.S. Reuters has skeleton staffing -- at best -- in most U.S. states.

The result is that if you are a small-town newspaper and want to get relatively cheap (cheaper than hiring a full-time reporter to do it) way to cover news in your's state's legislature and capital, the AP is really the ONLY game in town.

These small papers may elect not to post AP stories online. But then, you'll still have hundreds of other places to get these stories. Also, with the move toward media consolidation (Gannett alone has nearly 100 newspapers), normally what happens is the big mega media corporations (like Gannett) will strike a deal with the AP for usage among all of it's tiny little newspapers. How many independently-owned daily newspapers remain in the U.S.? The answer is not more than a handful.

So once again, this change has little effect -- except it provides the AP (A not for profit organization, btw) with a little extra revenue.

not about linking to content (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284062)

This has to do with letting newspapers, etc., use the feeds they get from AP for online press. The newspapers are paying for the premium of having breaking stories delivered in preformatted form so they can get them out with little work. They pay so they can their news on time so their readers can in turn get their news on time through them. All the article is stating is that the AP is instituting a pricing cchange for this service that they have been providing and that it will affect what existing customers are paying.
Aggregators and bloggers link back to these sites but since they don't pay for an AP feed they have to wait for the news to be posted. Their situation has not changed as a result of AP's policy since they were never customers to begin.

Google/Fark (5, Interesting)

The Barking Dog (599515) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284064)

This decision won't affect Google and Fark at all, since they simply link to other sites that post the AP's content. It will affect Yahoo! News, since they do post original AP content.

BTW, it's a PITA to use the AP's content. I used their feed to add headlines to the site for a TV station [kezi.com] . They can't just have an XML feed; noooo, they have to post XML-formatted articles to a usenet server, adding an extra layer of complexity. You have to fetch the most recent post from the headline group, parse it for the links to the articles, then fetch the articles, then parse them for links to the image content, then fetch those articles, then parse them for the image content, which has to then be watermarked with the AP logo (or labeled directly underneath the picture; running it through ImageMagick to add the watermark was easier). (And to make matters worse, I had to write the stuff to do this in Perl running on Windows.)

Re:Google/Fark (2, Insightful)

kennedy (18142) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284139)

The AP has had RSS feeds for some time - just never made a big deal of it.

check it out:
http://hosted.ap.org/lineups/TOPHEADS.rss?SI TE=APW EB&SECTION=HOME
http://hosted.ap.org/lineups/WORL DHEADS.rss?SITE=A PWEB&SECTION=HOME
http://hosted.ap.org/lineups/US HEADS.rss?SITE=APWE B&SECTION=HOME

I wonder how long these will stay up...

Re:Google/Fark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284240)

They'll stay up. Period. The reason being is that you are still driving traffic to a memer website. The cgi part of this url sends traffic to the LA Times.

http://hosted.ap.org/lineups/USHEADS.rss?SITE=LA TI MES&SECTION=HOME

Change the SITE=to another members id and it sends the traffic to that member. In any event, you are only providing a link to the story on a MEMBER's web site. You are NOT getting the STORY on your site.

by the way, the urls you used won't work because you've got the & symbol encoded.

Re:Google/Fark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284278)

that should have been SITE=LATIMES. The url I sent won't work the way it is.

Re:Google/Fark (1)

The Barking Dog (599515) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284298)

I get 403 errors on them...

Re:Google/Fark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284225)

the change is that newspapers and broadcasters, which have had the privilege of posting online at no extra charge over their usual licensing fees for print or TV, now have to pay extra. How will this affect sites like Google News and Fark?"

This is like Jeapordy, where the answer is given before the question is asked.

Since the AP is a business and business make money by selling services, I doubt that anyone was ever getting the AP wire for free. If they were an online news source they were probably already paying a fee to AP. If they were a print outlet they were already paying to reprint AP stories and AP let them post the stories online for free. Since Google News is not a print publication, Google was likely already paying a fee to AP for any services used.

The difference would be the SJ Mercury News who is running AP stories in their print paper and also posting the same stories online will probably now have to pay an additional fee to the AP for the rights to re-publish online.

Re:Google/Fark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284303)

Cast not your Perl before wire services.

What happens when people start dying? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284075)

What happens when people start dying?

Freedom of infromation. (1)

MacTaranis (792055) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284141)

I think allot of "mainstream" news sites with go subscription only. On Local Paper site may go to a password protection schema, buy the daily paper the password goon fro 24 Hours, buy a yearly subscription get a 12 month password, or something like that. Who knows. I just think its puts a hamper on the freedom of information. I for one Like using Fark and Google News. I think sites like Fox News and CNN will still be free.

Freedom of infromation.-Cost of information. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284209)

"I just think its puts a hamper on the freedom of information."

Freedom!=Free. A common mistake amoungst those infected with the RMS virus.

Does anyone really get what this means? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284169)

Seems to me that all the talk about google is off topic.

This has no effect on my ability to post a link to an AP story, say on Yahoo.com.

What it does is target places like http://www.nj.com.

This is the web site of the Newark Star Ledger. For years, this site has been taking stories off of the New Jersey state wire and posting the stories on line, without paying anything addionally to the AP.

All this change means is if nj.com wants to continue posting state wire stories to the web site, it will have to pay for the right to do so.

Everyone is hyperventilating about this story. The AP has always gone after sites that post entire stories without first getting permisson or paying for it.

The only thing this changes is that now the MEMBERS (meaning radio stations, newspapers and television stations) will have to pay extra.

Google is NOT an AP member (membership means the AP can take stories from it's members and rewrite and put on it's own wires.), nor is Yahoo (it's a customer -- it doesn't provide stories to the AP, only pays for them.)

Charged for news? (2, Funny)

rob_squared (821479) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284191)

Does that mean they'll only charge slashdot once for dupes?

Same Ol' From AP (3, Interesting)

Trifthen (40989) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284236)

To be honest, this doesn't really surprise me. I work for a company that provides newspaper-centric ISP services, and we've fought with AP for years over feeds, images, you name it. We host many of their partners, and we reduce the overal bandwidth between us and AP by doing a single aggregate feed which is only enabled for genuine AP-carriers. Yet time after time, we've had to argue with AP over the article posting rights of their own customers.

This is yet another kink they're throwing into the mix, as now we have to know which of the AP partners have actually paid for online publishing rights. This will likely irritate our programmers, and probably reduce the amount of our customers re-publishing AP data, but that's about it.

Personally, I don't understand the point of publishing AP online if you're a local paper, anyway. Often this data isn't differentiated from the paper's own articles, and ends up getting archived as such. Many papers these days require registration or pay-access to their archives, which are now diluted with articles that have been replicated thousands of times over by newspapers all over the country.

New Slogan:) (4, Insightful)

4of12 (97621) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284241)

Maybe the AP will have explicit notifications in each story proudly proclaiming that

This News was sponsored by Someone Who Can Afford to Bring it to You and Who Wants You to See This.

[It's just about that way already anyway.]

Mod Parent Up. -- Insightful (4, Insightful)

Tsiangkun (746511) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284339)

Mod Parent Up.

If the wires are pay per view, the only news reported will be news that someone wants you to see, paid for by the interest the news best serves.

Poster might be going for funny, but I think there is lots of insight into that statement.

The News Must Flow (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284358)

The Wire Service Guild has spent far too many of its resources outsourcing news - like Reuters moving editorial content to India - and this will reverse the money flow back to the AP (in the US).

Even the Bene Gesserit know that the News must Flow ...

This is probably a good thing (3, Insightful)

argoff (142580) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284495)

It will force news gathering and dissamation away from central media sources to a more distributed outlets that are harder to manipulate and have more direct accountability as a whole. It will also bring more individuality and integrity to the news process.

I can't count how many times I've seen the same old garbage re-hashed by diferent reporters who didn't know a damn thing about the story other than what the AP report told them. Hell, why didn't they just cut out the middleman and let me read the AP story myself without all the spin and personal BS opinions.

The truth is, what this is really about is the media industry living in a wet-dream that says "nobody should get reliable news free of charge, tracking, or advertizements" - well I hate to tell them this, but they can and they should ... and if the big media industry dies becasue of it, then that is their problem, not mine.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>