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!

Google to Sell Old News Articles

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the i-don't-even-pay-for-new-news dept.

153

Krishna Dagli was one of a few people to note that Google is planning on selling old news. Or more accurately, scanning in 200 years of old newspapers, and selling people the ability to view the full text. They'll be using publications like the NYT and Time magazine. Summaries will be free, but the full article text will have a price.

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

Don't worry... (4, Funny)

abscissa (136568) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051200)

Don't worry about paying for old news on Slashdot, it gets reposted every two weeks!!

Re:Don't worry... (4, Funny)

The New Andy (873493) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051425)

Why not subscribe and get the old news quicker than everyone else?

Re:Don't worry... (1, Interesting)

neoform (551705) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051504)

This is old news. Nothing to see..

In other news... (0, Redundant)

HarvardFrankenstein (635329) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051201)

Google becoming more like Slashdot! I'm sorry. That wasn't funny. I'll go sit in the corner now. Bye bye, good Karma.

Re:In other news... (0)

HarvardFrankenstein (635329) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051383)

Disclaimer: I just wanted to make the joke before someone else could. *shrug*

*goes back to corner*

Slashdot to Post Old News Article (2, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051216)

I can't wait for this to get duped. Hopefully it'll take a few days so I can think up some good gags...

Me (4, Funny)

Otter (3800) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051217)

As for me, that's what I go to the dentist for. Apparently Richard Nixon has resigned! And Car and Driver has pictures of the new Gremlin!

ploy to promote checkout (1, Interesting)

harlemjoe (304815) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051218)

does anyone else feel that their charging for what was planned as a free (ad-supported) service (i.e. google library) is just a ploy to get users for checkout?

i have a hunch that that's the case -- it can't be significantly more expensive to ocr newspapers than their library project is.

or is the charge because they are doing some kind of revenue sharing with the original publication? though that doesn't make sense either.

Re:ploy to promote checkout (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16051261)

does anyone else feel that their charging for what was planned as a free (ad-supported) service (i.e. google library) is just a ploy to get users for checkout?

No.

Re:ploy to promote checkout (5, Informative)

theckhd (953212) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051269)

The charge is from the original publisher. FTFA:
What's more, publishers don't have to share the wealth with Google. The search-engine company will receive no payment from publishers' content fees, advertising, or supplying traffic. .... The results initially will be served without Google's customary sponsored links on the right side of the page, and at the outset, Google won't make money directly from the service.
Though the article did quote a Google engineer saying that they may add adwords later on.

Re:ploy to promote checkout (1, Interesting)

orasio (188021) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051351)

200 years old?
That would be paying for the service, because the content should no longer be protected by copyright.
You could buy some of that material, and then share it legally with something like eMule, or at least bittorrent. Nice!

Re:ploy to promote checkout (1)

neoform (551705) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051524)

Yes, but if you were to follow the RIAA's rules, since this is being redistributed in a new format (digital), it's now a new work that requires new licensing and thereby needs to be purchased since it's no longer the original work and now has renewed copyright!

example, i buy a beethoven cd, can i then copy and pass it around? not according to them..

Bad example... (2, Interesting)

blorg (726186) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051722)

example, i buy a beethoven cd, can i then copy and pass it around? not according to them.. ...as there is copyright in sound _recordings_ seperate from the copyright in the music as composed by the composer - although, amazingly, only since 1972 in the United States.

A better example would be sheet music, where there is indeed a concerted effort by publishers to keep works by long-dead composers in copyright by creating new editions [mutopiaproject.org] and in some cases refusing to sell but only renting the music.

Re:ploy to promote checkout (3, Informative)

jackbird (721605) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051742)

i buy a beethoven cd, can i then copy and pass it around? not according to them.

That's because there's an existing valid copyright on that recording of that orchestra's performance of the piece. If you rip an out-of-copyright 78 or wax cylinder recording, or record your own performance on kazoo, you can share to your heart's content.

ploy is too harsh (1)

Jeppe Salvesen (101622) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051334)

but of course, they want to check new business models that checkout has made possible!

anyhow - great initiative!

Re:ploy to promote checkout (1)

i_should_be_working (720372) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051522)

I think the article may be wrong. Much of the stuff I found was free to read and included the full article. I guess it depends on the new agency, but just this morning I was reading about 1975 Angola where the US and Soviets were backing two different sides in a civil war that was threatening to turn into another Vietnam.
 
/OT Hey, neat! Firefox 2 has a spell checker. No more mispelled psots for me!

there is a saying in news organisations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16051223)


todays news is tomorrows fish & chip paper

meaning old news is worthless, good luck getting any money for it when libraries already provide microfiche copies of newspapers going back 200+ years

Re:there is a saying in news organisations (5, Insightful)

Comboman (895500) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051391)

old news is worthless, good luck getting any money for it when libraries already provide microfiche copies of newspapers going back 200+ years

Good luck entering a search term into a microfiche machine.

Re:there is a saying in news organisations (1, Interesting)

StarvingSE (875139) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051528)

Step 1) Enter search terms in google news.
Step 2) Read summaries, copy down date, publication, and issue number from google
Step 3) Go to brick n mortor library and get free microfiche version
Step 4) No one profits!

Re:there is a saying in news organisations (2, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051930)

meaning old news is worthless, good luck getting any money for it when libraries already provide microfiche copies of newspapers going back 200+ years
What you mean I'd have to get dressed? And go outside? But why?

The more sources of history the better; at your finger tips - perfect! In today's United States of Amnesia, old news could be useful. For example, one could read all about how a Government did a witchhunt for groups of individuals it deemed to be unAmnesian and persecuted them.

Or wait... is that new news...?

History in the making is helpful in not forgetting some of the atrocities of the past. It seems that many Americans have forgotten McCarthy, many Germans are again not interested in the rise of the nazis in their midst, and many more examples all over the world...

Old Fox News however... is just as worthless yesterday as today as tomorrow.

Re:there is a saying in news organisations (1)

passthecrackpipe (598773) | more than 8 years ago | (#16052059)

The company I work for makes a large part of it's revenue (many millions) from the ability to search and contextualise old news.

The Internet (1)

Damastus the WizLiz (935648) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051228)

"The Internet! why get for free at the library what you can pay for here?"

Re:The Internet (1)

jank1887 (815982) | more than 8 years ago | (#16052085)

It'll probably be a lot like google scholar [google.com] . You'll get a blurb, and get a link to the publisher site, and have the option to purchase, subscribe, etc. From what I gather, that has been rather successful. And if people only wanted to go to the library and read stuff there, the commercial 'old-news' databases wouldn't be in business, would they? (Hint: they are, and they're profiting, too.)

Not free full articles. What about ad enabled? (2, Interesting)

Superken7 (893292) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051231)

I, for one, would prefer being able to browse the full database
and having google ads instead of having to pay.

IMHO, if google's 'mission' is to make all the world's information available,
then that would be the best way to go!

Re:Not free full articles. What about ad enabled? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16051453)

It probably will depend, prices will vary. I suspect some will be very affordable. Since any periodical could peotentially be used, the more that do the more competition can potentially drive down the price.

While it's not free, it will have to have a price point that makes it reasonable. Otherwise people won't buy your expensive content and they will turn somewhere else.

This is a bad idea (2, Interesting)

maynard (3337) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051233)

I don't see how google can make money doing this when competitors like Projecdt Gutenberg (groups releasing free text of material in the public domain) do the same for free. I think google would better position itself by giving free access to limit incentive for free competitors to do the same, and then make their money by selling advertising.

Re:This is a bad idea (1)

aadvancedGIR (959466) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051415)

Maybe they can provide better search services to justify their fees.

Re:This is a bad idea (1)

(A)*(B)!0_- (888552) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051483)

"I don't see how google can make money doing this when competitors like Projecdt Gutenberg (groups releasing free text of material in the public domain) do the same for free."
Google is merely leading customers to the content providers; not providing or selling the content. And yes, LexisNexis, NewsBank, and Ebsco all make money selling historical archives.

Re:This is a bad idea (1)

maynard (3337) | more than 8 years ago | (#16052000)

"[...]LexisNexis, NewsBank, and Ebsco all make money selling historical archives."

Note, however, that the database and search services you list primarily make money offering copyrighted historical works, not historical works currently in the public domain. Google wishes to sell access to material in the public domain. I don't think that is a sound business plan, but perhaps I'm wrong. Time will tell... --M

Re:This is a bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16052006)

Why not use Project Gutenberg with ads? Sure, they still have to have a link and such to gutenberg.org, but the interface and publicity would be good for the project.

The service is already launched (5, Informative)

ribuck (943217) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051238)

TFA is old news. The service is already launched here: http://news.google.com/archivesearch [google.com]

Web Owls (a group blog by some Google Answers researchers) has a piece about it: http://web-owls.com/2006/09/06/googles-news-archiv e-search/ [web-owls.com]

Re:The service is already launched (1)

Superken7 (893292) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051264)

I dont think that is the service mentioned in the article, since
it only provides search-like capabilities. A quick summary and a (free) link to a news site.

Re:The service is already launched (2, Insightful)

ribuck (943217) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051335)

Sure it's the same service.

TFA makes it clear that the news site is the one charging for the old articles, and that the news site does not share the revenue with Google. Google just provides the search (and they organise it very nicely into a timeline too).

Re:The service is already launched (1)

BrynM (217883) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051364)

TFA is old news. The service is already launched here...
If you look at the link you posted and the timestamp at the bottom of the text you linked to you'll see it was posted...
This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 6th, 2006 at 11:46 am by eiffel and is filed under Research Resources. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

If news posted today (in the "future" for us US-west-coast folks) is old news to you, then you are definitely in the wrong place. The interesting part, IMHO, of what you linked is "Most of the older articles are subscription-only or pay-per-view, but there are also some freely-viewable historical pieces from BBC News, Time Magazine and the Guardian." I'm betting that the original publishers of the content probably demanded some sort of fees (NYT comes to mind as money/privacy grubbing bastards). Nice to know that Time and the UK pubs are ok with free content.

You had a good link but jumped on your soapbox too quick, methinks.

Re:The service is already launched (1)

frdmfghtr (603968) | more than 8 years ago | (#16052033)

If news posted today (in the "future" for us US-west-coast folks) is old news to you, then you are definitely in the wrong place.


The poster stated that the ARTICLE was "old news," not the Slashdot post.

If the Google service started last month and the story is posted this week, it is old news. If the service is started at 8am and the story is posted one hour later, then it is not old news. It all depends on the time between the launch of the service and the posting.

Re:The service is already launched (1)

BrynM (217883) | more than 8 years ago | (#16052235)

The poster stated that the ARTICLE was "old news," not the Slashdot post.
TFA was dated today. News of it hit the all of the news agencies this morning. The oldest article I could find about it was on September 4 after a news search [google.com] . Google hasn't even announced it yet on their Press Center [blogspot.com] yet. I'd say that's pretty fresh still.

Re:The service is already launched (1)

Pollardito (781263) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051973)

of course it says right in the summary that this is old news, so your statement that this is old news...is old news

It's a Dupe From 1879 (2, Interesting)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 8 years ago | (#16052079)

I searched and searched for the TFA in Google News Archive, but the only copy I found says it was published today. Maybe being published today isn't old news enough to get into the archive. Maybe you mean its a dupe, so I checked that too. Sure enough, it's from 1879:

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=google+news &hl=en&sa=N&sugg=d&as_hdate=1879 [google.com]

Turned up this summary:

"The streets were thronged to an unusual extent, and every point where news was obtainable was besieged. Contrary to general expectation there were no bulletins displayed at the telegraph offices, and the disappointed crowds which had gathered at those points soon dispersed."

hm, (1)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051239)

This at first sounded like a good idea, but who would really use it? They mention in the article that you could probably find the information online for free anyway. But I think more importantly is the fact that if you really need primary sources from these periods (I will when I go back to uni in october for one of my courses) you would almost certainly have access to them already, through your institutions archives etc... still, I suppose it's good for people who are at a uni without such an expansive archive

Re:hm, (1)

BrynM (217883) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051451)

This at first sounded like a good idea, but who would really use it?
Just last night I was thinking that it would be great to see how different news outlets of the time viewed certain items while watching the History Detectives (yes, I'm that geeky). An interesting example that almost distracted me from this reply is http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=superman&sc oring=t&sa=N&sugg=d&as_hdate=1939&lnav=dt [google.com] - A timeline of Superman in the news from a Time magazine article about the comic Hitler encounter in the late 30s to the expectations of the first movie (they thought it would flop). Sure, academics and journalists have had access to this for years via Nexus, but the average Joe can't hope to see it. I think the biggest advantage is to us regular folk for whom Nexus is way too much to satisfy personal curiosity or to do personal research.

Re:hm, (1)

Shag (3737) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051607)

I maintain some "clippings" of instances where I've been quoted or cited in the press. (Others who aren't famous enough to be "household names," but do get quoted every year or so, may do something similar.) So of course, I plugged in my name, and voila! the news archive search knew about an article from 2000 that I totally didn't remember.

I haven't yet bought the full text, but I probably will (have done this in the past when I lost or never got a paper copy of a clipping) just to see whether it was simply citing a web site I used to run, or whether they actually interviewed me and I just don't remember. ;)

Quite handy for this sort of thing.

Or just go to the library? (1)

NekoXP (67564) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051240)

The library has old newspapers for free.

You can order old newspapers from the Library of Congress FOR FREE.

http://utterlyboring.com/archives/2004/11/23/libra ry_of_congress_to_digitize_old_newspapers.php [utterlyboring.com]

Although I can't for the life of me work out HOW to get them from the LOC, it's probably hidden deep on their website. If you call 'em up though..

Re:Or just go to the library? (2, Informative)

tddoog (900095) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051314)

In my experience with the LOC, nothing is free. 20 cents for a copy. $100/hr for a transfer of video. Cannot actually check out books. Unless you work for a congressman then you get better access. While it is a comprehensive resource, everything is a pain in the ass.

Re:Or just go to the library? (1)

NekoXP (67564) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051365)

Well, if you walk in and don't TAKE anything, it's free.

I'm sure it's cheaper at 20 cents per copy than Google's friends are charging..

Re:Or just go to the library? (1)

Intron (870560) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051814)

Washington Post - $3.95
San Francisco Chronicle - free
Rocky Mountain News - $2.95
Time - free
Atlanta Journal - $5.95
Chicago Tribune - some weird-ass phish trying to get my library card

Re:Or just go to the library? (1)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051657)

In my experience with the LOC, nothing is free. 20 cents for a copy. $100/hr for a transfer of video. Cannot actually check out books. Unless you work for a congressman then you get better access.

I cannot imagine why the Library of Congress would offer better access to Congressmen than others.

I've gotten dozens of books over the years that were most easily located in the Library of Congress. Ask your librarian how.

Re:Or just go to the library? (1)

krkelly25 (814065) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051376)

But we live in a "Gotta Have it Now" world. There are people that will pay for the convenience of 24-hour access to these old papers, especially if it means they can avoid that blinding light from the sun.

Re:Or just go to the library? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16051516)

I used to be able to get old newspapers -- for free -- at my local library, on microfiche. I don't know if they still have the old microfiche viewers, but I imagine that they do.

And did I mention that it's free? ;)

Re:Or just go to the library? (3, Insightful)

Shag (3737) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051643)

I've worked in libraries. I've even worked specifically in the periodicals / microstorage area.

Yes, libraries have the New York Times and whatever else, back a hundred or so years, on microfilm or microfiche. This is all well and good. However, the available indices may not offer full-text searches, and even if they do, they're limited to certain publications or sets of publications. Additionally, microfiche's random access capability isn't all that great, and microfilm's is nonexistent.

If Google links data from a bunch of other indices, so that I can do one search, get a bunch of different results, and then decide whether to go to the library and print copies from microstorage for a small cost per page, or simply buy an electronic "reprint" and save it as a PDF, that's better than what I had before.

Google's new slogan: (1)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051243)

Backuping the World!

Ok, so they started with 200 years old newspapers. How long till they start with 400 - or 4000 years old texts?

Re:Google's new slogan: (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051378)

Give them a couple of hundred years

Price? (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051246)

The articles may have a price for the first user, but as copyright has lapsed on them since long, either google or wikipedia or someone else can easily create a 'republish' plugin automatically posting such content to a collaborative site.

Re:Price? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16051340)

You would think so. But undoubtedly they will put a copyright on the "electronocally scanned" version.

But don't let that bit of legal buffoonery fool you. You just need to present the information (aka typed into notepad) in a different format before redistributing it. Of course, this only applies before 1923 in most cases.

If it's for a specific "article" a whole series of articles will be expensive to reproduce, and collaboration would be unlikely unless it was for a specific subject. The quantity of information is vast - and why copyright extensions are insane corporate handouts to the likes Disney.

I would hope that competition would drive down the overall price. Before I read the article I was skeptical, but I know that there has been more than one time that I would have paid a few dollars for some research. So this will be a good thing.

Re-copyrighted (4, Informative)

tiltowait (306189) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051353)

As I understand it, when a full text content provider republishes copyright-free works, they copyright their newly bundled publication. So I can't, say, go in to ProQuest Historical Newspapers [proquest.com] and download everything and host it providing free access. Further reproduction is prohibited. (But how you can prove you took *their* republished text is another issue I suppose.)

It's why a search for "Alice in Wonderland" in Google Books gets you only a few pages, while Project Gutenberg delivers the whole text. The books in Google (for the copyright-free text) are for copyrighted books (or presentations, rather).

A lot of organizations have made money off of reproducing copyright-free materials. You can reprint government documents (US federal ones are usually copyright-free) and re-sell them, for example. The publisher of the 9-11 report (available freely online, not that it was widely advertised as such) got a real "royalty-free windfall" from the bestseller.

In my day... (1)

Malnathor (588724) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051250)

we used big messy spools of microfilm...AND WE LIKED IT!

Why? (-1, Redundant)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051257)

Why would I give good money to Google for something that I can get from Slashdot for free?

Evil Plot by Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16051258)

So I wonder if Microsoft will try to enforce their patent and charge Google for each conjugated verb used.

I've been meaning to patent a method of recording verbal and non-verbal information using markings with a reasonable contrast to the surface they are applied to. I'm thinking of calling it writing. Guess I'd better get started before Microsoft does it.

I just use the free alternative... (1)

The-Bus (138060) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051263)

...I wait for Slashdot to report the news again! *ducks*

In all seriousness, it's always a good idea to have this information all in one place so you don't have to look for a million results. One thing I liked about my university's library is that they had a portal where you could search all their article databases from one point: You'd get back Lexis-Nexis [lexisnexis.com] results, web searches, etc. If Google can do this and tie together trade and scientific journals (say, the APA [apa.org] and thousands of others), then we'll be on our way. Right now one of the other option I can think of is LookSmart's FindArticles [findarticles.com] , although it seems small at only 10 million articles.

Re:I just use the free alternative... (1)

griffjon (14945) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051436)

Definitely! One thing that is endlessly frustrating about the e-journal phenomenon is that instead of your library being your one-stop-shop for all journals (and they could inter-library-loan it or similar if it wasn't available), now you have all these different online portals which carry different collections in some of the most horrendous user interfaces I've ever come across. I'd love for Google to tackle this, and even better, to go through the pain of OCR'ing them...

If the summaries are free... (1)

RandoX (828285) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051270)

...then what I want to know is who's going to go back and summarize 200 years worth of newspaper articles?

This will be Microsoft's reaction... (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051279)

...Well...

"We are already ahead in this effort...it will not help Google that much...!"

"This is not an end in itself, it's a process..."

"We continue to innovate for our customers..."

"This is not what our customers need..."

Folks, that is Microsoft. MEanwhile, I wish Google all the success.

Re:This will be Microsoft's reaction... (1)

BrynM (217883) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051506)

This will be Microsoft's reaction...
They will just claim it's "their house" [slashdot.org] and Google is just pulling a Little Red Riding Hood and eating their food.

Copyright anyone ? (1)

alexhs (877055) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051283)

The duration of U.S. copyright for works created before 1978 is a complex matter; however, works published before 1923 are all in the public domain. [wikipedia.org]

From 1978, 70 years after author's death, I guess lots of things from 1923-1978 era still are copyrighted.

News from 1723 to 1923, then ?

NYT founded in 1851, TIME in 1923, erm I see a problem arising with that last one...

Misleading blurb / article (3, Informative)

alexhs (877055) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051367)

Reading between the lines of TFA, it's not Google that will scan old news. Real newspaper will do the scanning, but those newspaper will open the otherwise paying-for service for Google to indexing. Then (simplifying a little) Google will point you to the paying service, or - acting as a proxy - collect the fee for smaller newspapers.

Re:Copyright anyone ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16051869)

Two points:
  • The copyright durations are not complex since no square roots are involved.
  • If time didn't exist before 1923, then there should be no copyright issues.

Mo Money Maybe (4, Insightful)

blueZhift (652272) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051298)

While others note that in some cases the information Google seeks to sell may be available somewhere on the net for free, time searching for it is not free. Serious researchers or people who are just plain impatient, will gladly pay for the convenience of one stop shopping from a source they trust. As for the newspapers, a number of them already have paid archive access services, but any arrangement with Google is likely to net them more business and more money without too much more effort.

Hmm (1)

Klaidas (981300) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051319)

This is more like a cool feature, not a very useful one.
I mean, sure, I'd be very happy to browse newspappers aged 1800 on the internet, that's really cool. But if anyone needs some information THAT old, isn't it going to browse archives (real, not the Internet)?

Where the real money is... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16051332)

Google need to learn that where the real money is....

is scanning old issues of playboy and charging to view them. lets face it, there is a huge market

Instead of Going to Each Publication Separately (1)

SlothB77 (873673) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051342)

You go to Google and you get all the publications in one place. Overall, I find myself buying archived articles that when I first read them, I didn't see much value. Years later, it will have some tidbit that is now essential and I will pony up the money because all copies of the article have been archived and deleted or have gone stale.

Google Cache (3, Interesting)

rogabean (741411) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051348)

But, as what happens to other sites that have a "paid version" of an article, will Google still cache the full version?

I do google searches all the time that result in my ending up on a site that wants to charge me to read the article. I hit the back button and click on Google's cached copy and read the whole thing just fine without paying a dime.

That would make my day just a little brighter if Google ends up caching their own paid content.

hmmmm.... (0, Offtopic)

Jesus IS the Devil (317662) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051355)

That's old news...

I think it would be fitting (1, Funny)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051360)

if the first articles scanned and posted were related to the creation of the Internet.

Wrong, wrong, wrong: Google to scan nothing (5, Informative)

MoNickels (1700) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051371)

Google is not scanning anything. It is merely providing a deep-web metasearch for pre-existing databases such as The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Time, Guardian Unlimited, Factiva, Lexis-Nexis, HighBeam Research and Thomson Gale. These are, for the most part, pay services that until now had to be searched separately. For people like me (a lexicographer) this is great news because it will shave many minutes off of each work day. Now, if they'd also make them affordable to independent scholars...

Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong: Google to scan nothing (1)

SlothB77 (873673) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051422)

I was going to say that this may be some sort of lawsuit waiting to happen if Google is starts taking money away from the NYT, etc. Seeing how papers are losing circulation to the Internet.

Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong: Google to scan nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16052005)

and I was going to make fun of you for not reading TFA.

Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong: Google to scan nothing (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16051569)

Or you can go to your local public library and get access to all these databases for FREE.
(worst case scenario: you get your friend who lives in New York City to lend you their NYPL card number to access the db's which has a wide range)
I live in the Bay Area and have six public library cards. I still have at Oakland PL, Santa Clara county PL, and Alameda County PL cards I need to get.
Among the six, I've got access to significant amount of database subscriptions.
Google, doing what libraries have already been doing for decades.

While most will argue Google is great for basic reference and is part of my toolkit for first searches, I've discovered there are some things Google will never answer that a librarian can.

ps: I am a librarian btw.

and modify it! (0)

tritonman (998572) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051384)

And George Dubya Bush will have Winston modify the old news before you purchase it.

This is why I love Europe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16051388)

In most bigger libraries they save these newspapers anyway, sometimes even put on microfische to make reading and storage a lot easier.

Some newspapers already do this (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051393)

Penn State's [psu.edu] new archive goes back to 1887. I read one of the issues and among other things there is an editorial on why Penn State needs a telegraph line and another decrying the current state of science education.

The more things change....

Re:Some newspapers already do this (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 8 years ago | (#16052171)

But who wants to do this one-by-one when google will aggregate the world's data? Once you find something in google you might compare google's price ($3) with alternatives.

Old media is stupid (1)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051410)

The AP could have beaten them to this, offering a service that charges $10 a month for basic access, then they could add an arrangement where a blogger could pay them $0.50-$1.00 for a full license to use a particular article on their blog. Once again, institutional arrogance has gotten the better of them.

Google exagerates yet another market (-1, Offtopic)

malsdavis (542216) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051464)

And they reckon people are actually going to pay for this?

The development of such a technology will surely cost many millions for what must be a very specialised market. Maybe some researchers will find it useful but most of them work at universities (or have access to one) which already have such services available, albeit mostly non-digitalised.

Yet more evidence imho that Google is really struggling to find ways of turning their cash pile into cash-generating ventures.

How do you pluralize word? (0)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051497)

Google to Sell Old News Article
...Just the one, then?

One more I won't use (1)

Corwn of Amber (802933) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051517)

Well, since I don't have a f*ing credit card, I'm locked out of that service.
I could use it if it was ad-supported, though, but I use adblock. That would not support them.
Most of those texts are public domain anyway... but someone has to host and publish them ...

Oh. Since I'm just thinking about it.
The copyright laws should be modified so that a press article is public domain after, let's say, 2 months for monthly magazines, 2 weeks for weekly, 2 days for daily, etc. counting from first publication date. A site like Project Gutenberg could archive them, and the archives could be legally mirrored on BitTorrent.

pity they didn't start 8 years ago (1)

toby (759) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051578)

A lot of the source material is gone, [firstmonday.org] gone [j-walk.com] , gone [salon.com] .

hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16051591)

This is more or less what publishers were afraid of when Google got the idea to do google library. Going to the old, now in public domain, stuff is a good move for google. I guess google thinks that they are ok doing this since tons of microfishe companies already do likewise... BUT, and here'e the kicker, LOTS AND LOTS of spammers use similar tactics that google is using... selling public domain stuff for a profit. I can't count how many ebook advertiesments I've seen that give people the idea to start selling public domain stuff for profit, and how many spammers and sloggers actually do that. Google has become it's own worst enemy, and is using spam to make money now. Probably just a matter of time before everyone realizes what the google toolbar really is, just one huge spyware thing to sell you more ads.

Google Part is Free (1)

rijit (992822) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051674)

Google is not charging anything for this service, I wish you peeps would get the facts right before posting this crap. The pay part comes in when the articles come from a site requiring payment, such as the NYT articles. Google may plan advertisements but the use of the search and the freely availible articles are still free.

Making of America (1)

cultrhetor (961872) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051676)

The Making of America project (at Cornell and the University of Michigan) has literally thousands of old newspapers and magazines dating back to the early 19th century. The whole project is infinitely searchable (albeit with a clumsy interface) and it's free.
Links: http://www.hti.umich.edu/m/moagrp/ [umich.edu] [Michigan], http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/moa/ [cornell.edu] [Cornell].

From what I read from the article, you'd get exactly the same content from these two sites, with a hell of a lot of additional content that Google would exclude.

Re:Making of America (1)

RedBurn1841 (996061) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051734)

It only goes back to the 1820s. Not 200 years. Check things out first.

Re:Making of America (1)

rijit (992822) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051899)

My earlier comment was about Google News no the Making of America project. Tis what I get for speed reading the blurbs instead of looking at the full discussions. Apologies.

looking up my surname (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051681)

One of the first things I do is look myself up. I have a fairly rare name. As far as I can two other people inthe world share it, plus only a couple hundred share the share the surname.

Most of the material I saw was legal notices such as marriages, deaths and court judgements.

Google selling old news? (1)

ekimminau (775300) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051686)

Google is starting to infringe on a couple of companies that already do this kind of thing but they charge for the service. This is exactly what companies like Lexis-Nexis, http://www.lexisnexis.com/?a=g [lexisnexis.com] and ProQuest, http://proquest.com/ [proquest.com] do as their significant business model. Add to the "search all the old news" the ability to email you a daily report of keyword searches anywhere in your choice of selectable data sources and you have put them out of business. The significant difference is ProQuest built their business on all of the archived dissertations and Thesis of American colleges and Lexis-Nexis built their business on archiving legal andrnment proceedings but both have expanded into newpapers, magazines and TV broadcasts.

Google to resell old news (1)

ekimminau (775300) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051704)

Lexis Nexis and ProQuest already have this as a business model. They both started in different areas (ProQuest in Academic research papers and Theis and Lexis-Nexis in government and legal proceedings) but they have both expanded into news print and TV broadcasts.

Public Library, anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16051876)

You could always go to the public library and search their microfiche, and print them out for free. The trouble with that is that unless you know what publication you want, and the date, you don't know what to look for. The Google value-ad is the scanning/OCR here; but the Google rip-off is charging for this information. It seems like a coordinated effort by librarians could duplicate this, OSS style. Then the librarians could just make their db publicly available; ironicly enough, Google would crawl it and make it searchable, but if they decided to play hardball, well, there are other search engines you know.

OCR of most older stuff incomprehensible (1)

Mostly a lurker (634878) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051916)

I suppose I should not be surprised, having seen the quality of old archived newspapers, but (being google) I did not expect a total failure of the OCRs of much of the older materials. For instance, try to decipher this summary from an article in The Times of September 30, 1815 [newspaperarchive.com]

J i- n N to tr 1C K be m nl he fed tat i irV ft- I ibt- iaot in- i I Us. a firm dependence but upon them, otherwise to fncoa- tisrrt. and never upon our eternally dividtd. dhcoruar.l, dominion; the UBpbTence OF Germany would be demonsirated, Its servttuile and at least one thorough pinaging jn V cenlurj be pro- nounord and rtcoguised as coastitutMttillv its lot. ...
If you open the link, you will see that it is almost all this bad. The technology still has a long way to go.

Google Announces Desktop Gadget Winners (1)

TechAddress (1000788) | more than 8 years ago | (#16051923)

Google Inc. announced the winners of the Google Desktop Gadget Contest. The 3 top place finishers split $8,000 and were decided upon by a panel of judges based on popularity, visual appeal, use of new features and creativity. The first place winner received $5,000, $2,000 for second place, and $1,000 for third place. For more information please visit TechAddress at http://techaddress.wordpress.com/2006/09/06/google -announces-desktop-gadget-winners/ [wordpress.com]

Or...they could.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16052100)

just go to a library *shudder*

Any microfiche online? (1)

mattr (78516) | more than 8 years ago | (#16052156)

Something like lexis/nexis is fine but has anybody put online the microfiche of old newspapers that are usually available free in libraries? It would seem to be eminently useful, perhaps not to a certain number of budgeted scholars but that's what people used. I want Google to make money but I also am severely frustrated when an abstracts database (usually science news, IIRC acm, etc.) wants me to pay money for the article. I propose to google that they make different levels of access at different rates so that you can pay a stellar (maybe not so stellar?) rate for ultimate access, whereas free will still give you access to things that usually are free (I'm thinking of the system in Heinlein's Friday). They should start a reference library, or a service to be used in libraries which the libraries can pay for or individuals/companies can also purchase.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?