The AP and News Corp DEMAND To Be Paid For Their Content
from the taking-aim-at-your-own-foot dept
At a media summit in Beijing this week, Associated Press CEO Tom Curley and News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch declared that "It's time to demand payment for online use of content." This combative language rings ironic, considering the fact that without its content being published on "kleptomaniac" sites like Google News, not many people would even hear about this very article. As Weston Kosova at Newsweek astutely points out, if Rupert Murdoch truly wanted Google to stop "stealing" content, they could very easily stop that today with a simple robots.txt exclusion.News organizations that are contemplating charging for access to their content might also want to stop calling their potential customers criminals -- that's really not great customer service. And after all, many sites, including Google, are already paying to license some of their content. So, instead of accusing customers of not paying enough, offering better reasons to buy would probably get more sites to pay up. But, that's hard, so jumping up and down and demanding payment in a juvenile manner is much easier.
However, perhaps this is all merely negotiation brinksmanship -- threatening to charge for access to their free content to see if anyone cares enough to pay. The problem is, if the search engines call their bluff and remove their content from their services, then the news organizations actually risk losing much more. As we've pointed out time and time again, news organizations like the AP have been continuing down this road of implosion, where they clearly don't seem to understand the nature of their own business. For example, the AP's obsession with creating a "news registry" that would enable the AP to track down "unlicensed" uses of its content hints at this fundamental misunderstanding. In his speech to the summit, Tom Curley said:
"Crowd-sourcing web services such as Wikipedia, YouTube and Facebook have become preferred consumer destinations for breaking news, displacing Web sites of traditional news publishers.Really? The AP's response to people linking to and discussing AP articles is to go after sites for money? I am waiting to see which news organization will be the first to go after Twitter for payment for news tweets. Instead of focusing on how to demand payment for the distribution of an infinite good, news organizations should recognize the new opportunities afforded by the free distribution of their content and focus on how to build a business off their scarce goods.
To turn the tide, AP is creating a News Registry -- a rights management and tracking system."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: business models, entitlement, journalism, rupert murdoch, tom curley
Companies: associated press, google, news corp.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
robots.txt
foxnews.com's robot.txt:
User-agent: *
Disallow: /printer_friendly_story
Disallow: /projects/livestream
#
User-agent: gsa-crawler
Allow: /printer_friendly_story
Allow: /google_search_index.xml
Allow: /google_news_index.xml
Allow: /*.xml.gz
#
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_index.xml [foxnews.com]
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_index.xml [foxnews.com]
Notice the sitemap section, they are directly telling Google what news they have
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand, old news only gains in value. As memories fade and distort, news reports can provide a distinct perspective of any event. This is where news organizations should be focusing their monitizing. By improving the search and orginization capabilities of their archives. And it's not about just putting it all behind a paywall, which some already do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From AP news
From http://www.ap.org/robots.txt
User-agent: *
Disallow: /_mm/
Disallow: /_notes/
Disallow: /_baks/
Disallow: /MMWIP/
User-agent: googlebot
Disallow: *.csi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chnages...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where this ends?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reading
(2 Corinthians 9:6-8)
"But this I say: He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work."
The message is clear - if you are mean and try to demand payment for everything you will get meanness back - if you are generous and give away that which has little marginal cost to you then it will come back to you somehow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reading
Just goes to show, that even if you dispise organized religion (as I do), parabolic lessons can still hold value...
Richard - Who wrote 2 Corinthians? As I recall, most of the letters to the Corinthians are attributed to the name "Paul", which are regarded to actually be several people writing under that name. Is that correct?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reading
Think of the fish and bread vendors!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Reading
"All the research actually points towards one guy named Paul writing every letter associated with him."
Yeah, that's not even CLOSE to being true. Only SEVEN of his letters (1st and 2nd Corinthians among them) are largely accepted to be "Pauline", though even then he didn't write them. They were written by a amanuensis, or secretary, and at the time it was common practice for an amanunsis to paraphrase their master's dictations, which could lead to subtle or unsubtle changes in wording and meaning.
Others have had their authorship hottly disputed, some even as far back as biblical times. Hebrews, for instance, has been disputed since it's release to the public. Today it is considered by most experts to not be of Paul's authorship. The disputes of the rest of the 5 epistles vary by degree.
"The early Christian church was obsessed with that type of stuff and did their research well."
Again, that's only partly true. The early Church, more specifically monks, were obsessed with exact REPLICATION of the documents they were given. But from the upper hierarchy there is a fair amount of selective inclusion when it comes to biblical texts and their interpretations. To pretend that the Church faithfully recorded all that was written by Christ's contemporaries, and even the involved parties, is laughable.
"They were also obsessed with copying and translating it correctly as to not change the original text."
Only after they made their original alterations. The Magdalene is a prime example, with the Church's ridiculous interpretations of two passages that mention her to vilify her as a prostitute, then take ownership of her by claiming she repented. Those two passages only refer her as a woman who wore her hair loose (which actually meant that she was poor and of low class) and that she was a sinner (common reference by Hebrews of the time to those that were not Jewish, not prostitutes). From those two passages, the Church made her a prostitute.
Like I said, organized religion as anything other than a vague backbone for personal belief is a joke, and yet we've been killing each other over it for centuries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Reading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reading
Well, history of world religions has been a passion of mine for some time, so I have read up on this topic from a variety of angles. However, the Saint Paul wikipedia page is actually surprisingly fleshed out and thoroughly sourced, particularly the section on Pauline Epistles and Authorship (one or both have entire pages dedicated to them). I would also highly recommend The Messianic Legacy for a starting point book.
All sources are or may be biased, so I try to read varying viewpoints and find consistencies that make sense. I have a viewpoint too, so I'm going to be biased on what I'm willing to accept, but I consider myself fairly open minded on the topic: I'm always swayed by well-sourced evidence.
What I find troubling is not that people believe, but that so many "believers" don't have a clue as to what they're talking about when it comes to the history and basis for their own religions....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reading
Helaman 13:22 (Book of Mormon)
Ye do not remember the Lord your God in the things with which he hath blessed you, but ye do always remember your riches, not to thank the Lord your God for them; yea, your hearts are not drawn out unto the Lord, but they do swell with great pride, unto boasting, and unto great swelling, envyings, strifes, malice, persecutions, and murders, and all manner of iniquities.
;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reading
It's a good thing Rupert Murdoch wasn't around when the Bible was published. You'd have to pay to cite it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reading
Oh, he was around, my friend. Who do you think they're referring to in that book when they talk about Lucifer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
These news organizations that are trying to extort money out of Google and trying to turn all news and any possible discussions into their intellectual property are committing a crime to humanity and they should be thrown in jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it were only that easy...
They claim to drive traffic back to your site, but many add their own commenting or social networking to keep the users on their site. It also bypasses traffic to the front page of your website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If it were only that easy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If it were only that easy...
Considering the fact that Fox and AP keep talking about Google over and over, and Google does not ignore robots.txt, I do not understand how this is even the slightest bit relevant. Plus, your example of one site that (you think) ignores robots.txt does not mean that "most" aggregators ignore it. In fact, just about all of the ones I can think of respect the robots.txt file (google, digg, linkedin). So I call BS on you.
P.S. I can always recognize you based on the content of your comments. Are you ever going to start commenting using a real username, since you come here and comment nearly every day?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If it were only that easy...
It's how paywalls work.
The bottom line is that no news agency needs the cooperation of anyone else to prevent indexing or linking or their content.
The agencies are whining for show. They can't possibly be this stupid. Instead, they're hoping that Congress and the general public are this stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If it were only that easy...
Redirects can "fix" this, too. But I wouldn't recommend it -- the front page of your website is not the page that your readers are interested in if they're following a link, and you'll certainly lose them as regular readers. Instead, you should include a blurb on the sub-page that informs them as to why they want to go to your front page when they're done there, and provide an obvious link.
Really, this is all website design 101.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If it were only that easy...
If people are going to the aggregators for social networking and commenting, perhaps it is because those people WANT social networking and commenting (specifically a real conversation) that the news sites DO NOT provide. Provide a real value and just maybe those people will be on your site instead.
"It also bypasses traffic to the front page of your website."
Oh, and welcome to 1995, where 'hyperlinking' directly to the page you want is in, and being directed to a confusing disorganized mess of a front page is out! Hey, think, in a few years you just might get rid of the tag!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Less Fox News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Less Fox News
FTFY...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Less Fox News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This just makes it easier to boycott NewscrAP
So does this mean google is kicking back some ad revenue or that google is too damn big to ignore?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
they have a point
A desire for community is what is screwing newspapers. They have crappy online communities and no one wants to be there.
They can try to charge for all the content they'd like, but it wouldn't solve their problems. Instead sites like this one would just stop linking to them and provide a discussion of stories they had read. How hard is that? They can't sue you (and win) for discussing something you read.
If you seriously consider it, how many people on this site read the articles that are linked to versus simply riffing off of what is written about the articles?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: they have a point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: they have a point
Dunno. But I read the ones that interest me. And if I haven't read the linked stories, then I don't comment. 90% of the time, anyway (nobody's perfect!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: they have a point
I'd read the links; but I'm afraid of 'infringing' - so I'll take what's here to be accurate, lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@17 Duane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It would open up such a good door for others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Charging for Propaganda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Charging for Propaganda
It's corporations, and I'm pretty sure there's 8 of them that own something like 90% of mainstream "media". I sent M&M a book rec that covered this, including well documented sources. Not sure if he ever read it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My thoughts...
This is just the reflex grip of a starving man for a mirage. I am very happy to see that they are finally dying, in large part, from their own stupidity. Do not patronize their sites, many times key facts are wrong or misleading, and it is one thing to be deceived for free but quite another to pay for it especially since they'll both take payment in exchange for providing content. Maybe instead of just taking payment and giving editorial control to advertisers, they should seek employment of a foreign intelligence agency. I'm sure Iran would love to have US moth piece.
Bon Chance et Bon Voyage, assholes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My thoughts...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Surprise, surprise...more greed from corporate folks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newsmakers
"Kleptomaniacs" indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The AP and News Corp DEMAND To Be Paid For Their Content"
The real quote: " Rupert Murdoch declared that "It's time to demand payment for online use of content." "
The difference? They aren't demanding to be paid for nothing, they are demanding to get paid when the content is used by others online.
I know this is your favorite way to be misleading, making all content producers sound like they are holding a gun to people's heads and making them pay. It just isn't the case.
Misleading, just like Faux News.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Once again
I know this is your favorite way to be misleading, making it seem as if News aggregators are somehow stealing from the big content publishers. It just isn't the case.
Although, at least we can agree about Faux news being misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Once again
What the heck do you think that is?
Put another way - if news content producers all suddenly locked their news up for a week, and said "no google allowed", what would google have?
NOTHING.
That pretty much sums up the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, nobody mentions Google by name here (though Curley mentions "search engines"). The specific people they're concerned about are Wikipedia, YouTube and Facebook.
This is really problematic, because none of these actually reprint content verbatim from AP sources. They only provide links, or talk about the news, which is not copyright infringement in any way.
In other words, what they are actually trying to stifle is free speech. That is the most alarming thing about the whole affair.
Thankfully, there were plenty of voices in that article. Hans Mahr seems to get it right:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess Hans doesnt get it either though
They also need to find new ways to make money by charging extra for news delivered via phones and other smart device
I guess he's never used a smartphone before. Most smartphones that are available now can surf the internet and receive RSS feeds in the same way a computer can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, dunno how you would confirm that as real, but if it is, that's damned hilarious, considering that they feel their content is so valuable and unique that you have to pay for it. Well, that's certainly unique, but i doubt its worth much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rtb wtf
Truncated stories, inability to comment, and more ads for non-paying visitors are likewise not reasons to upgrade from anonymous coward membership. Those are reasons to just go away and find a news source that doesn't abuse its customers.
I'm looking squarely at my local paper the Sierra Vista Herald, who just went through an ill-advised "we're afraid of the internet" re-org. They didn't just shoot themselves in the foot, they emptied the whole damn mag!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]