Perhaps the AP could read some of their own reports on how the Internet has changed the music industry and reconsider their plan?
Rep. John Fritchey
· 8 months ago
But Rich, how do you really feel about this? :)
Chicago Cynic
· 8 months ago
You just know this is the work of some intellectual property lawyer who somehow convinced a client desperate to "monetize assets" that they were losing money.
Morons.
Taxman
· 8 months ago
Well said. Ive heard other news organizations make the same stupid arguement. Their hypocrisy is astounding.
Pot calling kettle
· 8 months ago
Hey, if they don't want me to go to their site where I usually end up reading additional stuff and looking at more ads...
Rich Miller
· 8 months ago
They might consider that the traffic I drive could be monetized by me. Perhaps I should be getting some of their revenues.
Just sayin...
You Go Boy
· 8 months ago
Well, we've just witnessed what a Blog Slap looks like....the AP is like the 'ol boy who used to be the biggest on the block tossing his weight around...it is funny watching him still try that as a 97 lb (fill in the blank).
jaundiced eye
· 8 months ago
Good for you, Rich, and long overdue. The 19th century mindset of news bureaus and wire services is what has led to their present situation -- a total inability to adapt to a changing world.
wordslinger
· 8 months ago
The AP position is bizarre on a number of fronts. But the MSM Powers That Be have been flatfooted on the Internet from the get-go. I mean, they practically gave away classified ads.
Michael Kinsley put it nicely yesterday:
"If you had told one of the great newspaper moguls of the past that someday it would be possible to publish a newspaper without paying anything for paper, printing and delivery, he would not have predicted that this would mean catastrophe for the industry. But that is what it has been."
lincoln street
· 8 months ago
Feel free to delete this. Really. I don't think you need to leave my unpaid, unknowledgeable advice up on your blog.
But I've often been surprised by the length of the material you've quoted here. It doesn't always seem like a fair use. And frankly, I do think that news organizations should have a fair amount of leeway in deciding what is fair use.
But whatever. It's one opinion. Ultimately, if the AP has an argument, a judge will decide that.
Rich Miller
· 8 months ago
lincoln street, the generally accepted Fair Use principle is four grafs. I try mightily to stay within that. Occasionally I digress, but usually with publications that I'm on good terms with. I also reprint my entire newspaper column because it's mine.
And I've yet to hear a single complaint.
Rich Miller
· 8 months ago
Also, papers don't get to decide what is or what is not Fair Use.
Chambananon
· 8 months ago
I'm a little surprised that at no point in the post was the catchphrase "Bite Me" employed.
(Note: I like that you speak your mind, Rich, no punches pulled)
Reality Check
· 8 months ago
@wordslinger
The obvious flip side to Kinsley (it's now "possible to publish a newspaper without paying anything for paper, printing and delivery") is that it's also now possible for advertisers to publish ads without paying newspapers for the privilege, and for readers to read the news without paying for that, either.
But I digress from Rich's well-founded diatribe.
IMO, where AP and everyone else has a legit beef on these grounds is with outright content-stealers like Huffington Post.
Rich Miller
· 8 months ago
===outright content-stealers like Huffington Post.===
HuffPo is an AP member.
Ahem
· 8 months ago
The internet invalidates so many paradigms. Who knows what we will have in one hundred years.
Merit Comp Slave
· 8 months ago
That was more fun than riding the ferris wheel!! This is why we love Rich and why my journalism major kid was promptly referred to your site by me immediately upon her first day at work.
Reality Check
· 8 months ago
@RM
Ah, thanks. So it's just the content of other publications they steal wholesale.
Good point, but I think that's on the rare side. Still, they're useless to me because they provide so little insight and their bloggers ain't exactly the cream.
jlm
· 8 months ago
@ Reality Check: ... it’s also now possible for advertisers to publish ads without paying newspapers for the privilege, and for readers to read the news without paying for that, either.
That's the problem. No one pays for anything on the net. AP is grasping at straws, along with so many other professional news agencies. Paid journalists will necessarily decline in numbers. It's a sinking ship. Citizen journalism will have to fill a lot of cracks, and the mortar will often be soupy, at best. It's a brave new world; one that will be better informed, in some ways, and less informed in others.
Mommy
· 8 months ago
You tell them Rich!!
Deep South
· 8 months ago
Rich, you last point should have come at the top....you buried the lead.
BTW - This reminds me of the run-up between TV broadcasters and cable TV when cable came along and hijacked over-the-air signals for their own profit. This is not new territory.
Billy Dennis
· 8 months ago
wordslinger: " The obvious flip side to Kinsley (it’s now “possible to publish a newspaper without paying anything for paper, printing and deliveryâ€) is that it’s also now possible for advertisers to publish ads without paying newspapers for the privilege, and for readers to read the news without paying for that, either. "
Strange. I wasn't aware that Google was somehow forcing news sites to not charge for access to stories on the Web. Actually, it's a decision newspaper companies made because they know if THEY charged even the smallest fee for online content, some competitor could come along and do the same. Giving it away free keeps money out of the hands of would-be entrepreneurial start ups.
Rich Miller
· 8 months ago
===you buried the lead.===
You're probably right, but the idea didn't occur to me until long after I had posted the piece. So, it was put at the bottom.
Ghost
· 8 months ago
So Rich, no strong feelings on this one I take it.
Keyser Soze
· 8 months ago
AP may not be a dumb as it seems. It's only trying to put you and others out of business so that it can revert to its long lost monopoly.
Rich Miller
· 8 months ago
None, Ghost.
Actually, I got more angry as I wrote it. And now I absolutely want my share of their money!!!
lol
Rich Miller
· 8 months ago
Keyser, and I'm sure there are still Italians out there who pine for the days of the Roman Empire. It ain't smart. It's backwards and ridiculous.
wizard
· 8 months ago
You Go Boy-"Blog Slap" love it:)
Anon
· 8 months ago
Rich, you could always provide the link to the original content... Perhaps tweaked a bit...
LOL. I wouldn't do that, but what a brilliant idea.
Chambananon
· 8 months ago
I imagine someone has made this joke before, but...
Maybe they should call it the "Dis-associated Press" considering how they've clearly got mental problems based on actions like today's...
Vote Quimby!
· 8 months ago
Newspapers are desperate and have been growling at AP for years. Everyone has been looking for someone to blame---did it not occur to anyone that suddenly giving away your product for free would change your business model? It is frightful to see the fracturing of America. When one time the nation only had 3 TV networks to choose from, and everyone read newspapers and actually listend to something besides music on the radio. Now, most people have over 100 cable channels and unlimited websites to educate/entertain themselves...we have lost our common identity, and newspapers will line the coffin.
make it so
· 8 months ago
Way to go Rich! Let them know that they are not the sun and the world does not revolve around them!
Rich Miller
· 8 months ago
===suddenly giving away your product for free would change your business model?===
Since newspapers almost universally lose money on subscription and newsstand prices, they've been giving it away for free for a very long time.
Anon
· 8 months ago
My apologies for the insanely long URL.
Blast those URI encoded strings..
Vote Quimby!
· 8 months ago
True, Rich, but they carved out the stuff people wanted to read and kept their paid ads (except for those wonderfully efficient banners) away from it. Just as newspapers killed the town crier, the internet is doing to them. Now they are trying to change the rules? Dead-tree editions will only survive where people have to ride (not drive) to work, and in small, localized areas where overhead can be kept down. Not that I am biased, of course--my little newspaper actually has only "bonus" content online, but may eventually offer .pdf-type files for downloads to keep the eyeballs on the ads. Our paid staff of zero has already broken even in its second edition!
Ghost
· 8 months ago
VQ, I would argue that for years internet providers were hungry for ways to get traffic so they could generate ad revenue. At the same time internet providers and protals are pushing innovation and ideas to lure people, the newspapers were doggedly plodding away on their laurels instead of looking for innocation or creativity to drive their future.
Rich Miller
· 8 months ago
Ghost, you're having some serious typing problems today. No worries, just wondering.
phocion
· 8 months ago
I really enjoy Rich's "Unsolicited Advice" columns. Kind of a cross between Bill Maher's "New Rules" and Andy Rooney's grouchy observations.
Amy
· 8 months ago
SMOKIN' retort to the AP! you go Rich!
Amy
· 8 months ago
wait, Huff Po is a member of AP? are they into this stupidity from the AP? because HuffPo is a VERY biased site, and they simply don't know the term moderation, allowing deeply sexist things all the time in the comments. and, they have invaded Chicago.
Vote Quimby!
· 8 months ago
Ghost--I can buy that.
soccermom
· 8 months ago
Thanks to cap fax, I read articles in newspapers all across Illinois that I might not otherwise check out. And once I get to those sites, I usually find myself clicking through to find out what else is going on in Springfield, Belleville, Jacksonville, Marion, and other cities in my state. My eyeballs count, even if I'm not likely to buy from local vendors who pay for those ads. I work at a place where we would do just about anything to drive traffic to our site, and here's Rich doing it for free on a daily basis. Rich, feel free to link to us any time!
Squideshi
· 8 months ago
This article is several years old, but it is a good primer on link law nonetheless.
Lefty Lefty
· 8 months ago
Why doesn't the AP sue Craigslist and eBay? Probably just as effective but at least it would target the correct "offender."
I would also point out that the internet is not free by any stretch of the imagination. There are ads everywhere you turn. I pay $50/mo for reasonable surfing speed, and you pay more for faster service. There are plenty of ways for old media to pick up a few bucks if they would stop complaining and start running a business.
Someone insightfully brought up the recording industry earlier. Adapt or die--and what's left of the mainstream music industry is finally adapting.
Rich Miller
· 8 months ago
===There are plenty of ways for old media to pick up a few bucks if they would stop complaining and start running a business.===
Exactly.
They need to whine less and innovate more. I've had to explain to potential advertisers how to use the Web. It hasn't been easy, but it was fruitful. They need to train their ad pros and turn them loose and make some money. Or die. Their choice.
ghost
· 8 months ago
Blogging while talking on the phone do not mix well
Ghost
· 8 months ago
VQ, provide a low price subscription edition delivered through kindle on amazon.
A Citizen
· 8 months ago
Rich, where is the response from AP? Have I missed it somehow or do the arrogant b...... just feel above us flyover folks? I would think a simple "Bite Us" could be offered at the least.
Rich Miller
· 8 months ago
I wasn't expecting a response. We're just little ol' us.
A Citizen
· 8 months ago
Not to us Rich, not to us. To us you're special! Now, about that senior citizen subscription discount . . . oh nevermind.
Angry Chicagoan
· 8 months ago
There are small local weekly and twice-weekly newspapers out there that are doing just fine. A good recipe for success is:
1) Cover local news really well and thoroughly 2) Don't give away the entire product for free on the Net, just "tease" with free leading stories 3) Never, ever belong to the AP, unless you really feel you need national/international news 4) Remember your news is your reputation. Don't sully it with bias and vendettas 5) Helps if the owner is hands-on, not an absentee 6) Privately held rules, especially if owner=publisher 7) Provide value for money and good customer service to advertisers; if readership is good enough (see point #1) they'll buy in even if they have political reservations
The interesting thing is that you'll notice Rich pretty much follows all these rules, and he doesn't even have a print edition!
Lou Grant
· 8 months ago
Rich, If I understand the issue, the AP started this action due to the recent movement by Google to monetize its news aggregator. In other words, Google is now selling ads based on key words appearing in its aggregate. I think it is important for readers to understand that any site can easily insert code that alerts Google (and others) that the content may not be aggregated or archived. The news sites want Google to find and offer their pages to the public as it pushes traffic. But, they want to gain the benefits of creating the content.
Some of the older court cases involving Google revolved around the use of archived copies of web sites that Google would preserve and deliver to users. Some of that archived material appeared in general Google searches, for example with a general search of Google you would sometimes find news stories. Because those pages were monetized and because copies of the entire original page were also delivered, not the current copy of the page, the news sites said Google could be held liable for violating Fair Use.
So, first of all, the AP is concerned that Google is attempting to gain revenue from its aggregate. And, I'm guessing about this part, the method being used is a violation of Fair Use.
The second issue is the reproduction of whole articles or photos by web sites without compensation and in many cases without proper credit. The Chicago Huffington Post was caught doing this by the Chicago Reader, as noted in the comments. Over the past two months, while I've aggregated blogs on the Fifth Congressional District race, I've found several instances of the Huffington Post offering a story that is credited to the “Huffington Post Editors†but links to another site. They seem to have an affinity for lifting stories from the Chicago Sun-Times in particular.
(If you want to challenge me on this, I'll site the stories. I used a strikethrough to note these to readers).
The HuffPo, because it is visible and because it is held up by some people as a future for journalism is a worthy target. The CHuffPo will claim that it is driving traffic. However, sometimes it is not. The original story or blog is hidden in the SEO standings. CHuffPo is enjoying the improved SEO position, the revenue from the monetized aggregate and isn't paying the property owner for the use of their creation.
It is no wonder the HuffPo is valued at more than $50 million and the Sun-Times Group at less than $4 million.
Google, Yahoo, Drudge and sites like HuffPo are very willing to disregard the rights of property owners in return for greater profits. While the AP may be pressing for a return to the past, the Huffington Post model is highly destructive to property rights. We cannot rollback to the past. But the future of these industries (music, media and writing) is bleak.
I welcome the AP action if it clarifies property rights and allows for technical innovation.
47th Ward
· 8 months ago
Well said AC.
Anonymous
· 8 months ago
lol. This is definitely turning into a "theme" week!
TARP takers want to pay loans back because they "just" realized that taking the $$ was an invitation to have the Government step in and take over.
Sounds like the AP "suddenly" feel that the "ease of sharing information FREELY across the globe via the internet" was a "gotcha" invitation for others to take their stories without--what they consider--"appropriate compensation".
Workers in more countries than just the US are starting to protest that THEIR money and jobs are now beginning to float "overseas" after supporting and taking up the invitation to "share the wealth".
Here's some unsolicited age-old advice: if a Vampire shows up on your doorstep someday asking for an invitation to come in, say no...and slam the door shut! If you let him, assume he's going to outstay his welcome.
Lou Grant
· 8 months ago
This is a mea culpa for the following statement in my comments above: "Over the past two months, while I’ve aggregated blogs on the Fifth Congressional District race, I’ve found several instances of the Huffington Post offering a story that is credited to the “Huffington Post Editors†but links to another site. They seem to have an affinity for lifting stories from the Chicago Sun-Times in particular.
(If you want to challenge me on this, I’ll site the stories. I used a strikethrough to note these to readers)."
In reviewing the entries, Google News attributes the articles to the Huffington Post News Editors, but the Huffington Post itself attributes that news to the publication and sometimes even to the writer. So, this is a shame on Google situation, not a shame on ChuffPo situation.
All Comments
Morons.
Just sayin...
Michael Kinsley put it nicely yesterday:
"If you had told one of the great newspaper moguls of the past that someday it would be possible to publish a newspaper without paying anything for paper, printing and delivery, he would not have predicted that this would mean catastrophe for the industry. But that is what it has been."
But I've often been surprised by the length of the material you've quoted here. It doesn't always seem like a fair use. And frankly, I do think that news organizations should have a fair amount of leeway in deciding what is fair use.
But whatever. It's one opinion. Ultimately, if the AP has an argument, a judge will decide that.
And I've yet to hear a single complaint.
(Note: I like that you speak your mind, Rich, no punches pulled)
The obvious flip side to Kinsley (it's now "possible to publish a newspaper without paying anything for paper, printing and delivery") is that it's also now possible for advertisers to publish ads without paying newspapers for the privilege, and for readers to read the news without paying for that, either.
But I digress from Rich's well-founded diatribe.
IMO, where AP and everyone else has a legit beef on these grounds is with outright content-stealers like Huffington Post.
HuffPo is an AP member.
Ah, thanks. So it's just the content of other publications they steal wholesale.
http://blogs.chicagoreader.com/chicagoland/2008...
That's the problem. No one pays for anything on the net. AP is grasping at straws, along with so many other professional news agencies. Paid journalists will necessarily decline in numbers. It's a sinking ship. Citizen journalism will have to fill a lot of cracks, and the mortar will often be soupy, at best. It's a brave new world; one that will be better informed, in some ways, and less informed in others.
BTW - This reminds me of the run-up between TV broadcasters and cable TV when cable came along and hijacked over-the-air signals for their own profit. This is not new territory.
Strange. I wasn't aware that Google was somehow forcing news sites to not charge for access to stories on the Web. Actually, it's a decision newspaper companies made because they know if THEY charged even the smallest fee for online content, some competitor could come along and do the same. Giving it away free keeps money out of the hands of would-be entrepreneurial start ups.
You're probably right, but the idea didn't occur to me until long after I had posted the piece. So, it was put at the bottom.
Actually, I got more angry as I wrote it. And now I absolutely want my share of their money!!!
lol
http://translate.google.com/transla
te?prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UT
F-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pantagrap
h.com%2Farticles%2
F2009%2F04%2F06%2Fnews%2F
doc49dab4e222ea7014225895.txt&a;
mp;sl=en&tl=gl&history_state0=
Maybe they should call it the "Dis-associated Press" considering how they've clearly got mental problems based on actions like today's...
It is frightful to see the fracturing of America. When one time the nation only had 3 TV networks to choose from, and everyone read newspapers and actually listend to something besides music on the radio. Now, most people have over 100 cable channels and unlimited websites to educate/entertain themselves...we have lost our common identity, and newspapers will line the coffin.
Since newspapers almost universally lose money on subscription and newsstand prices, they've been giving it away for free for a very long time.
Blast those URI encoded strings..
Dead-tree editions will only survive where people have to ride (not drive) to work, and in small, localized areas where overhead can be kept down. Not that I am biased, of course--my little newspaper actually has only "bonus" content online, but may eventually offer .pdf-type files for downloads to keep the eyeballs on the ads. Our paid staff of zero has already broken even in its second edition!
simply don't know the term moderation, allowing deeply sexist things all the time in the comments. and, they have invaded
Chicago.
I would also point out that the internet is not free by any stretch of the imagination. There are ads everywhere you turn. I pay $50/mo for reasonable surfing speed, and you pay more for faster service. There are plenty of ways for old media to pick up a few bucks if they would stop complaining and start running a business.
Someone insightfully brought up the recording industry earlier. Adapt or die--and what's left of the mainstream music industry is finally adapting.
Exactly.
They need to whine less and innovate more. I've had to explain to potential advertisers how to use the Web. It hasn't been easy, but it was fruitful. They need to train their ad pros and turn them loose and make some money. Or die. Their choice.
1) Cover local news really well and thoroughly
2) Don't give away the entire product for free on the Net, just "tease" with free leading stories
3) Never, ever belong to the AP, unless you really feel you need national/international news
4) Remember your news is your reputation. Don't sully it with bias and vendettas
5) Helps if the owner is hands-on, not an absentee
6) Privately held rules, especially if owner=publisher
7) Provide value for money and good customer service to advertisers; if readership is good enough (see point #1) they'll buy in even if they have political reservations
The interesting thing is that you'll notice Rich pretty much follows all these rules, and he doesn't even have a print edition!
If I understand the issue, the AP started this action due to the recent movement by Google to monetize its news aggregator. In other words, Google is now selling ads based on key words appearing in its aggregate. I think it is important for readers to understand that any site can easily insert code that alerts Google (and others) that the content may not be aggregated or archived. The news sites want Google to find and offer their pages to the public as it pushes traffic. But, they want to gain the benefits of creating the content.
Some of the older court cases involving Google revolved around the use of archived copies of web sites that Google would preserve and deliver to users. Some of that archived material appeared in general Google searches, for example with a general search of Google you would sometimes find news stories. Because those pages were monetized and because copies of the entire original page were also delivered, not the current copy of the page, the news sites said Google could be held liable for violating Fair Use.
So, first of all, the AP is concerned that Google is attempting to gain revenue from its aggregate. And, I'm guessing about this part, the method being used is a violation of Fair Use.
The second issue is the reproduction of whole articles or photos by web sites without compensation and in many cases without proper credit. The Chicago Huffington Post was caught doing this by the Chicago Reader, as noted in the comments. Over the past two months, while I've aggregated blogs on the Fifth Congressional District race, I've found several instances of the Huffington Post offering a story that is credited to the “Huffington Post Editors†but links to another site. They seem to have an affinity for lifting stories from the Chicago Sun-Times in particular.
(If you want to challenge me on this, I'll site the stories. I used a strikethrough to note these to readers).
The HuffPo, because it is visible and because it is held up by some people as a future for journalism is a worthy target. The CHuffPo will claim that it is driving traffic. However, sometimes it is not. The original story or blog is hidden in the SEO standings. CHuffPo is enjoying the improved SEO position, the revenue from the monetized aggregate and isn't paying the property owner for the use of their creation.
It is no wonder the HuffPo is valued at more than $50 million and the Sun-Times Group at less than $4 million.
Google, Yahoo, Drudge and sites like HuffPo are very willing to disregard the rights of property owners in return for greater profits. While the AP may be pressing for a return to the past, the Huffington Post model is highly destructive to property rights. We cannot rollback to the past. But the future of these industries (music, media and writing) is bleak.
I welcome the AP action if it clarifies property rights and allows for technical innovation.
TARP takers want to pay loans back because they "just" realized that taking the $$ was an invitation to have the Government step in and take over.
Sounds like the AP "suddenly" feel that the "ease of sharing information FREELY across the globe via the internet" was a "gotcha" invitation for others to take their stories without--what they consider--"appropriate compensation".
Workers in more countries than just the US are starting to protest that THEIR money and jobs are now beginning to float "overseas" after supporting and taking up the invitation to "share the wealth".
Here's some unsolicited age-old advice: if a Vampire shows up on your doorstep someday asking for an invitation to come in, say no...and slam the door shut! If you let him, assume he's going to outstay his welcome.
(If you want to challenge me on this, I’ll site the stories. I used a strikethrough to note these to readers)."
In reviewing the entries, Google News attributes the articles to the Huffington Post News Editors, but the Huffington Post itself attributes that news to the publication and sometimes even to the writer. So, this is a shame on Google situation, not a shame on ChuffPo situation.
I apologize for the error. (The complete list of articles that GOOGLE News attributed to ChuffPo is listed in my blog entry here: http://www.chitowndailynews.org/Media_Insider/A...)