Do We Really Want An ASCAP For News?
from the yikes dept
We've spent a long time detailing the massive problems that come up when you build up an unnecessary collection society bureaucracy for something like music. Operations like ASCAP lead to massive inefficiencies in the market, greater protectionism and a never-ending quest for more control over perfectly reasonable free uses. And, worst of all, they tend to distort markets in such ways that it harms up-and-coming creators by pricing the venues they rely on to establish themselves right out of the market. So, I have to admit that I'm somewhat horrified to hear that some are now seriously proposing an ASCAP-like offering for the non-problem of online news.There are so many problems with this suggestion it's difficult to know where to start. The biggest of all, however, is that the "problem" this is seeking to solve hasn't been shown to have been a problem at all. Newspapers and the AP keep claiming that there's an "aggregator problem," but we went looking for it and we can't find it. The problem is that the AP and others change the definition of who's a problem depending on what they're talking about. Sometimes its sites like Google. But Google isn't really a problem because Google shows headlines and barely a snippet. That's clearly fair use and drives traffic (hell, the entire SEO industry depends on that). So, it's not Google that's the problem. At the other end of the spectrum you have scraper spam sites, but those are fly-by-night, get no traffic and aren't "taking" any real ad revenue away from the original content creators at all. Also, they're certainly not going to pay into any ASCAP-like scheme. Who's left? In the middle you have a few smaller players, like Newser, who basically rewrite some stories, but they're tiny.
So what problem is this bureaucratic mess trying to actually solve? I can't figure it out, but putting together a giant bureaucracy will require a ton of overhead, and all that money is pure waste from an economic standpoint. So, before we start talking about an ASCAP for news, can someone please define what the actual problem is? Because it's certainly not this general "aggregator" menace that we keep hearing about.
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: aggregators, collective licensing, hot news, journalism, news
Companies: ascap
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Stupid is what stupid does
Do I have to pay a fee if I talk on the phone about the blizzard that will hit this weekend?
Certainly there will be a fee for discussions about the massive oil leak in the gulf.
Facts will soon be owned and you will be forced to pay a fee in order to be aware of and/or discuss them.
The future will be a wonderful place - wooho
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
seriously, i am not surprised you dont see the issue, you never have. your version of creators rights pretty much ends when someone hits enter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course, there is no issue, merely a transparent attempt at trolling and creating another meme you can endlessly repeat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/us-could-learn-from-brazilian-penalty-for-hin dering-fair-use.ars?comments=1#comments-bar
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can see everybody getting rid of forums because of liability.
Some people don't want other talking they want to be the ones guiding the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What we need is armed conflict
I on the other hand believe in protecting what is mine and what I have worked for. If I produce something, then it is MINE to decide WHO THE FUCK gets to use it. It is not you. If I decide to sell it, YOU WILL PURCHASE IT. Or YOU will not have access to it.
You though, on the other hand wish to steal that product. I find that unacceptable. I feel it is time for a civil war. Those that produce against those that steal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What we need is armed conflict
"then it is MINE"
Is it on your physical property? No? Then it's not yours. You have no right to a monopoly and I don't want a government that enforces your monopolies. Don't like it, why not better contribute to society by finding another job. Others will produce perfectly well without you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I produced the product, your nothing but a theif
Your stupid, lazy, and fucking immoral. Your loss from this earth will benefit man kind.
Come try and take my product, and I will be happy to take your life.
Fuck off and die cock sucker, because your nothing but a cock sucking immoral mother fucker that your mother should have aborted when she found out she was pregnant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I produced the product, your nothing but a theif
and really, copy protection laws are mostly just for the parasite distributors that produce nothing and steal from both the author and the public because they have stole an unearned monopoly over both distribution channels (ie: broadcasting airwaves and cableco and even venues like restaurants to some extent with their threatening lawsuits) and content. and you know this. You don't care about the authors, you only care about yourself. and you are crying like a baby because you are losing the support of governments due to public outrage. Well, too bad. and lets see you try to bring your guns into the matter when you are both outnumbered and outgunned by the masses and their elected government that disagrees with you.
You don't like it, find another job, but once your work hits the public it belongs to the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I produced the product, your nothing but a theif
Just look at the mentality of IP maximists. No regard for morality whatsoever. Just pure evil. and we're supposed to trust their moral judgment? We're supposed to trust that their motives aren't nefarious when clearly their expressions express such evil.
Do you honestly think you are doing your position any favors with this sort of language? You're only making it worse for yourself.
and seriously, you don't want to kill an IP abolitionist. Even if the MSM censors it it will make it on every blog imaginable, people will take that person to be a martyr, and it will only make your position look worse and act against your efforts. Not to mention there is jail time for it.
Don't you think before you post? Stop with the infringement is stealing lie, I just don't see how such dishonesty helps your position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I produced the product, your nothing but a theif
I made a million copies...oops. Guess I'm going to hell. I'm (somehow) a thief and the scum of the earth.
Do you see how ridiculous your argument can get?
Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I'm going to use your post as a seed for my randomizer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I produced the product, your nothing but a theif
Keyboard hero alert? Big talk, little dan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What we need is armed conflict
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What we need is armed conflict
It is not at all an us vs. them sort of issue. Making it out to be one is a large part of the problem.
You quite obviously are a taker
Not at all. As pointed out multiple times, I do not engage in unauthorized file sharing. I spend most of my time "creating" on this site.
you think everything should be for free no matter how much it takes to produce the product you want.
I think no such thing. It is not about what "should" be free or "should" not be free. It's about basic economics and what *will* be free, and learning how to use that to your advantage.
My position is one of explaining what's happening to producers and helping them use it to their advantage. I'm on the producers' side.
I on the other hand believe in protecting what is mine and what I have worked for.
It's not about "protecting" it's about building a better busines model.
If I produce something, then it is MINE to decide WHO THE FUCK gets to use it. It is not you. If I decide to sell it, YOU WILL PURCHASE IT. Or YOU will not have access to it.
Yes, and that's perfectly fair for the first one that you sell. But after you've sold it, what right do you have to restrict the buyer? If I buy a chair, the guy who made the chair no longer has the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with that chair.
You though, on the other hand wish to steal that product. I find that unacceptable,
I have no wish to steal anything. Why would you suggest otherwise?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What we need is armed conflict
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What we need is armed conflict
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What we need is armed conflict
It was not your daughter in the car wreck.
It was not your office on fire.
It was not you arrested for drug use.
Your mother did not get a subpoena for illicit relations with a chinchilla.
You do not make "News" you are but the first thief, and fence.
Oh that was your mother? My bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What we need is armed conflict
And good luck with your civil war. Last time your country had one of those, guess who won it (hint: they wanted to _FREE_ the slaves).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What we need is armed conflict
I on the other hand believe in protecting what is mine and what I have worked for. If I produce something, then it is MINE to decide WHO THE FUCK gets to use it. It is not you. If I decide to sell it, YOU WILL PURCHASE IT. Or YOU will not have access to it.
You though, on the other hand wish to steal that product. I find that unacceptable. I feel it is time for a civil war. Those that produce against those that steal.
If you have that attitude then as far as I am concerned you cannot possibly produce anything worth having.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What we need is armed conflict
"If I decide to sell it, YOU WILL PURCHASE IT. Or YOU will not have access to it."
After looking at the whole promotional music part of the music business. I found every song on the top 100 US albums as promotional music on one site or another. I can also find all the music as web broadcasts that I can record. My friend has an app that watches CNN, MSNBC, and FOX news. It sends him text versions of what is on those channels hourly. I know someone else that wrote an app using LISP that texts him news briefs based on 3,000 plus blogs and news sources.
Any information once released to the public will spread word of mouth, e-mail, phone, text, or throught the web.
What is next? Listening in on peoples phone calls to see if they are talking about the news and then charging them for it. Monitoring everyones texts to see if they mention the latest news story.
You sir are an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What we need is armed conflict
I share your anger, but I want to split hairs a bit here. Mike really does produce a great deal. He writes many of the words on his blog himself. But many bloggers don't. They take huge quotes and do little work themselves except writing, perhaps, "double dittos."
Mike--
You might have more creditability if you occasionally took the side of the creators. Take a look at sites like Giganews. The only reason that 99% of the people pay money to them is to get illicit content. They're making money and giving zero to the artists. So take a time to build a bit of balance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What we need is armed conflict
Hmm? I'm always on the side of creators. I just think they will do better if they also looked at how to create win-win solutions with consumers, rather than blocking what consumers wanted to do.
ake a look at sites like Giganews. The only reason that 99% of the people pay money to them is to get illicit content. They're making money and giving zero to the artists. So take a time to build a bit of balance.
I don't see how the artist has the right to demand money. Instead, if they embrace the offerings and put in place smart business models to capture more revenue, they can do so.
We highlight such examples all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What we need is armed conflict
When suing your fans doesn't save your business, take up arms and kill them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hah. Just look around
-
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/07/09/dubai-airports-nix-f.html
-
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/07/09/china-renews-googles.html
-
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/07/09/china-renews-googles.html
- http://www.boingboing.net/2010/07/09/more-than-27000-aban.html
These are just a few of the stories and it took me just a few minutes to find them. So look around. Google News is just the tip of the iceberg. There are plenty of people who don't do any research or reporting. They just wait for the majors to do the hard work and then they sit on their butt and turn out 10 so-called stories a day. It's very easy to have a rich website when someone else is doing the leg work.Pretty much repeats the first few paragraphs with a few tiny changes in wording. Probably thinks that this is fair use. Grabs the image for grins but doesn't cite the source.
No original content. This is 90% the work of Rebecca McKinnon. The other 10% is a set of pointers. Nothing added period.
Sure the cops detained this photographer, but BoingBoing just took the image. And ProPublica has a real cool license that encourages copying but BoingBoing manages to violate it by both editing the story and selling ads along side it.
This one barely bothers to rewrite the AP's story, deleting one verb "lurk". Where did the image come from? Why the AP, of course, who may have gotten it from the California Lands Commission. It must be nice not to pay a photo editor like the AP does.
You may think that this is sustainable but it's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hah. Just look around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hah. Just look around
You still haven't described any problem.
Of course, if the great bastions of news are going to be destroyed by some people quoting snippets of their articles *after* the originals have already been published...I think they have bigger internal problems to worry about.
But why worry about improving your own business when you can just blame the internet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hah. Just look around
Your second link does link back to Google, where the news originated (since it pertains to Google). Plus I highly doubt Google even cares.
Basically you can't make a valid argument so this is the best you can do.
What, discussing something should now be taxed by monopolists? You are so evil it's unbelievable. No one owes you a monopoly on anything and just because you can't monopolize the news doesn't mean you should try. News will exist and spread and be known without any sort of monopoly rents whatsoever, to say otherwise is a big fat lie and you know it, no different than the lie that was constantly proclaimed by IP maximsits that art and music will die without copy protection laws. Just because monopolizing something can be more profitable to monopolists doesn't mean the government should facilitate monopoly. The government should serve the public interest, not just the private interests of big business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hah. Just look around
How do any of those "harm" the original news sites?
These are just a few of the stories and it took me just a few minutes to find them. So look around. Google News is just the tip of the iceberg. There are plenty of people who don't do any research or reporting. They just wait for the majors to do the hard work and then they sit on their butt and turn out 10 so-called stories a day. It's very easy to have a rich website when someone else is doing the leg work.
Is it illegal to discuss the news of the day and tell people where you read it? In the past, people would do this sitting around a bar, but none of this does any particular harm to the original reporting.
You may think that this is sustainable but it's not.
You have *anything* at all to back that up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hah. Just look around
Remember that argument that they used to constantly make over and over and over until I shot it down by merely pointing to all the CC music? They simply make things up with no evidence whatsoever and what's worse is that politicians, who only see govt granted monopolies as an opportunity to collect campaign contributions, actually listen to this nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hah. Just look around
Wasn't there art and music before copyright?
Someone should put that on a tee shirt
Or better yet
What do you mean there was art and music before copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hah. Just look around
And if people read this on BoingBoing, they often don't read it on the original. SOme click through, but many get everything they need from this version.
Imagine that you're a kid in school. Is this something that you could hand? Nope. This would be dinged for plagiarism because there's no original work.
And the way that they abuse the ProPublica license is pretty bad. Anyone can reprint it, but they stick ads around it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hah. Just look around
The point was that you said it doesn't site the source when it does. You lied, which negates the point.
"This is repeating it."
Yes, when people discuss things they repeat it. No big deal.
"Imagine that you're a kid in school. Is this something that you could hand? Nope. This would be dinged for plagiarism because there's no original work."
Nope, even school projects that require you to write up on news articles and discuss them often require you to quote from them at least to some extent. They linked back to the news so that people can discuss a topic. No big deal. Why should the original location be the only place people can discuss news? That's silly and you're evil.
"And the way that they abuse the ProPublica license is pretty bad."
There is no abuse. The license explicitly allows people to do this. If the news organization cared why would their license explicitly allow for it. It's a non profit newsroom, so using their material is perfectly OK to them.
What you're saying is like saying downloading free creative commons music is abusing the CC license. No it's not. That's what the license is for. You just can't stand the fact that people are willing to produce and distribute free news which competes with paid for news. Well, too bad.
and who are you to speak for these other organizations? If they minded people using the license in this matter let them speak up. They don't seem to care, it's only you caring on their behalf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hah. Just look around
Like I said, let them complain about it, not you. If they have a problem with it they can speak up. They don't seem to care so stop your stupid crying. You just don't want any self sustaining entity to link to any free news because doing so competes with your paid for news. Too bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hah. Just look around
You're confusing "copyright" infringement and plagiarism. Plagiarism is like what the AP and the MSM does whenever they steal work from others and not cite the original sources, like what has been shown on techdirt over and over. That's plagiarism. These people cite the original sources so at least they're not as bad as the AP and the MSM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hah. Just look around
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100706/14435410084.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles /20090904/0416086107.shtml
and there is more of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hah. Just look around
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100601/1505529650.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hah. Just look around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hah. Just look around
but you get the point. The MSM are the plagiarizers, not the bloggers, who actually give credit to news sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hah. Just look around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hah. Just look around
Oh, you mean the news articles are so shallow that people can get all the information required from the headline and brief paragraph?
Sounds like something that isn't BoingBoing's problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hah. Just look around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
discuss with the source
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: I produced the product, your nothing but a theif
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shakespeare - Franklin laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Author of the ASCAP post responding
From the Techdirt post above: So what problem is this bureaucratic mess trying to actually solve?
Not the "aggregator menace" you refer to. I agree with you ( http://techdirt.com/articles/20090730/0423325715.shtml ) that if you go looking for it, it's hard to find. Even if Attributor is correct in their $250 million estimate, that's far less than one percent of the entire news publishing sector's total revenue.
If that's the case, it makes much more sense to focus on the opportunity than the problem. The opportunity is to explicitly allow content to move freely in search of readers, than to try to recapture that one percent loss through enforcement actions (such as http://coloradopols.com/diary/12885/colorado-pols-responds-to-newspaper-legal-threats) aimed at putting the genie back in the bottle.
In other words, I'm asking whether there's an opportunity for publishers (and that includes online-only sites, blogs, everybody — not just newspapers) to gain some incremental revenue from some readers or advertisers with an open approach, rather than pursuing a futile path of rights enforcement and confinement of content to proprietary sites and channels. Musicians figured out the value of an open approach 90 years ago. ASCAP is not a "giant bureaucracy" that "require[s] a ton of overhead." Computers and software having been invented, there's no reason a clearinghouse for news content payments need be expensive or inefficient. And I recognize in the post that a lot of content would continue to be "sold" at a price of zero. Probably most, in fact. That's the long tail. But in the above-zero portion of the demand curve, content would sell at various prices, just like airline seats do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Author of the ASCAP post responding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Author of the ASCAP post responding
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090109/1823043352.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articl es/20100611/0351569781.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091214/0857127338.shtml
http://www .techdirt.com/articles/20100518/2341299481.shtml
The fact is that nothing good has come from these collection societies, nothing. They have only helped generate revenue for a hand full of parasites, they have done a lot to harm independent artists, creativity, and society as a whole. You act like revenue generation is the key focus and we need to create a system to generate revenue. The focus should be on aggregate output and what's best for society as a whole, not on creating a legal regime that destroys social welfare for personal gain. You act like ASCAP is a good thing because it generates revenue for some people. No, no, no, no, the ability of an entity to generate revenue is not the only measure for what's in the best interest of society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Author of the ASCAP post responding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Author of the ASCAP post responding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Author of the ASCAP post responding
Did you bother to read what Mike said.
"We’ve spent a long time detailing the massive problems that come up when you build up an unnecessary collection society bureaucracy for something like music. "
This should indicate something to do you. It should indicate to you that maybe you should at least spend some time looking into the problems that techdirt has spent a lot of time detailing before you come in here and spend two seconds responding with ignorance. It might actually be helpful. I gave you a start. But, as I said, I don't actually expect you to address any of the problems because you can't. and there are more problem of course if you are interested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Author of the ASCAP post responding
When was ever that something like a clearing house worked?
It only works to annoy others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Author of the ASCAP post responding
And a collection society does that how? The content seems to be finding readers just fine. ie, there's no problem. ie, we don't need a solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Author of the ASCAP post responding
I can see you have a big ax to grind with respect to ASCAP when you write "They have only helped generate revenue for a hand full of parasites". I assume you have personal experience with that and with small venues and individual artists who have had run-ins with ASCAP.
None of that really has anything to do with what I'm writing about, except as a caution to avoid bureaucracies. I could just as easily have picked some other payments clearinghouse as a starting point. Beyond that, what I'm suggesting would be structured very differently from ASCAP.
Your beef with ASCAP is about their enforcement tactics especially in small venues. I have the same beef with Attributor and AP's News Registry in that they are primarily concerned with the negative approach of tracking and enforcement rather than the positive approach of letting content find new markets. Read the post, please, so I don't have to repeat myself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Author of the ASCAP post responding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The aggregator problem (so-called)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Getting back to "the problem"
The problem is not that Google (a flagship aggregator) takes business from the news sources by providing the same content free of charge, as Mike correctly points out, but that the "snippet" provided is actually enough for most readers and they do not continue on to read the proprietary content unless they are _really_ interested in what the story is about.
So the aggregators are simultaneously not violating any laws, are solidly within the confines of fair use, and yet are indeed hurting the business of the news sources.
I posit that this is part of a larger change represented by txting, Twitter, etc, and is in fact along with various aspects associated with those phenomena (spelling, for instance) more of a symptom than a syndrome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Getting back to "the problem"
If this were true the aggregators would simply opt out. They have that option.
"and yet are indeed hurting the business of the news sources. "
They are not hurting the business of the news source, they are providing them with more traffic. The aggrogators could opt out if they feel otherwise but refuse to because they know better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Getting back to "the problem"
If this were true the aggregators would simply opt out. They have that option.
"and yet are indeed hurting the business of the news sources. "
They are not hurting the business of the news source, they are providing them with more traffic. The aggrogators could opt out if they feel otherwise but refuse to because they know better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From 58
The aggregators have no reason to opt out - they keep clicks on their own page while providing no more information than is allowed by fair use. They have incentive but no risk.
And pretty much the entire point of my post was that unless people are _really_ interested exploring the details of a story in depth, they do not click through to the news source, and thus do not drive significant amounts of traffic.
If you have evidence to the contrary I would be interested in seeing it - as I said, my post was based on inference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why are we even discussing this
Sorry NEWS orgs, when you actually start creating content rather then parroting press releases and\or facts then you might have a reason to complain. The obtuse phrase "I think there may be more to the story" I feel is a direct result of the lack of value added; most articles fail to even present the "Five Ws".
Here's an example of how news item can be monetized:
http://www.amazon.ca/Coca-Karma-Secret-Battle-Kolody-Coca-Cola/dp/1932857303
[ link to this | view in chronology ]