Confused Irish Newspaper Editorial Argues That Search Engines Need To Pay Newspapers
from the time-to-drop-the-irish-examiner dept
As a few folks sent in, recently the Irish Examiner newspaper had an editorial arguing that copyright law needs to be expanded because, of course, newspapers are suffering. Though, as you look at the details, whoever wrote the article appears to be quite confused:The scale of the piracy is astounding. In 2010, while every media company in the country shed jobs and cut costs to the bone, a single search engine operating in Ireland offered around 150,000 newspaper articles that cost publishers an estimated €46.5m to generate. Last year that site offered more than 350,000 articles at a cost equivalent to more than €110m. And all without paying one cent to those who created those articles.First of all, they seem to be claiming that search engines that index content, show a snippet and link people to the original content are "piracy." That's crazy talk. Furthermore, while they don't name the "search engine" they claim that it "offered" these articles. Of course, if it really posted all the articles itself, then there is no need to change copyright laws -- the company could already sue them for infringement. However, assuming that they're really talking about Google or just about any other search engine, what they really mean is that the search engines aggregated the content and linked people back to the original. The "cost" to produce those articles is irrelevant to the overall discussion. Yes, it costs money, but it's the job of a business model to bring in even more money. If the business geniuses who run your paper are too clueless to figure out how to monetize the traffic from Google, then perhaps you deserve to go out of business.
This free-for-all has put Ireland’s 8,600 creative enterprises, the 116,000 jobs involved — some 7.5% of GDP and 6.5% of total employment — under a darkening cloud. Multinational corporations, ironically styling themselves champions of free information having stolen it themselves, pretend that they see nothing wrong with hijacking the work of others. They do this to create entities that exist primarily, in a news context, to deliver rather than generate content. To rub salt into the wound these entities are determined to secure advertising revenue on the back of that snatched news content. This is the very revenue that made the gathering of the news possible in the first place.
In the end, as we've seen elsewhere, this isn't about "piracy" at all. This is about newspapers who don't know how to adapt, and are staffed by completely technologically illiterate folks, who simply see that Google is making money while they're struggling and assume (totally incorrectly) that Google needs to pay them for sending them traffic.
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: ireland, newspapers, search engines
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
that will be €100 in consultancy fee's please :}
or €1000 if you want me to do it for you :>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
unfair trade
I find it fascinated that the author of this article can justify the theft of intellectual property and make a profit from it, and then complain that the author is entitled to nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: unfair trade
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: unfair trade
Do you purposely misread what is written and jump to conclusions that have been proved false repeatedly? I love (i.e. I hate) how you people take anything said that isn't "they're thieves!" as tacit, implicit support of an imaginary crime. Everything you rail against is based in pure bullshit. The data on file sharing in relation to whom buys content makes it quite clear that the industry's biggest customers are the very people they vilify and treat worse than actual thieves, murderers, and rapists. Were it not for file sharing, fewer people would even be aware of the content the industry is trying to sell to them and that means fewer customers. So let me put it bluntly: File sharing increases the customer base. Call them thieves if you like, but know that you're abusing the people that spend the most money on your offerings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: unfair trade
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: unfair trade
No theft is taking place.
The author of this article is not making a profit from "theft" even if you disagree with the first point.
Nobody's saying that the newspaper is entitled to nothing at all - they just aren't entitled payment from the people sending them free advertising and traffic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: unfair trade
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: unfair trade
As for profiting from indexing the web, I fail to see how that is wrong, much less illegal in any way, shape or form. It isn't, just fyi.
What we have here, and what you fail to notice, is that the newspapers are failing to properly monetize their online sites. But they see that companies like Google who merely index the web are profiting greatly (from ads) and feel they are entitled to a cut of the profits because their content gets indexed as well. So basically, they want a cut of the profits without doing any of the work. Said work in this case being EFFECTIVELY monetizing the content per relevant user searches.
As it pertains to your comment, the authors are very much entitled to nothing. Insofar as profits from search results go. They have not contributed to Google's algorithms which list results or prioritize it per people's wants/needs. Which is the only way they would/should be entitled to ANY profits made from search engine results.
If I write something it is MY job and no one else's to effectively monetize and capitalize off of said writing. If someone list my writing in a search result and sends people directly to my website to view the rest then at that point any/all responsibilities for generating a revenue stream fall upon me. No one else. I'm sure that may be difficult for you to grasp, but in life their are very seldom any hand-outs. You want something, you work for it. You want profits from your news stories, you figure out how to monetize them yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But even then, copyright was still limited to keep a good balance. Now, not only to the circumstances/limitations exists that made copyright in its original form exist, but it has been pushed so far in the direction of entitlement that a growing number of people consider it irrelevant all together.
Authors, musicians, artist, scientists. These people are simply not all that special anymore. For every one that succeeds, mostly by chance, there are a good half a dozen that could rise to fill the hole should most of these people disappear. sure there will always be the exceptions to that rule, the likes of your Picassos, your Mozarts, your Einsteins, your Benjamin Franklins, but these people will always find ways to rise to the top of the pack regardless of any special entitlement they may or may not be given.
For the most part, most of the copyright maximalists I've ever personally met are simply people who want to get paid as much money as possible while having to do as little work as possible and very similar in temperament to people I've met who milk and cheat the welfare system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Members of the guild used to simply sort out who would print want between them self's and any one who was not a member of the guild was shut down. Faced with the loss of the crown and the fact the new parliament wanted to do away with past censorship (shock!) the publishers in the guild lobbied for the idea of a publishers "right" to create copy. The idea that this right was inherent to the creator of a work was only really a way of making sure tat right could be transferred to the publishers who could then use those rights to stop just any one publishing what ever the hell they liked. The publishers who used to be in the guild then pretty much just carried on like they did.
When American set down the ability to create copyright laws it was with the intent of using limited protection as a incentive to help ensure a turn over of science (and later art) that could enter the public domain and enrich the society.
Protection of artists was always secondary but over time the means (that protection) has become the ends (to protect) at the expense of those the current raft of laws was actually produced to support (the public).
Law change to reflect the values of society so the change as change isn't automatically a bad thing but again it's a change that has been at the behest of publishers which is right in line with the history of the laws. Society did not come to think that people have a unending right to control the copying of their created works and move the laws to reflect that. Publishers have lobbied for laws that benefit them by selling that idea to the public. A lot of people now accept this view simply because the laws have been changed in a way they are told reflects that as a "truth".
The funny thing is that the industry has come to believe in it's own propaganda. You just have to look at the insidious way that "intellectual property" has wormed it's way in to law. It's a term that was first used by a pro copyright expansion groups that was adopted as a catch all term for a set of legal ideas, so when new wording in changed laws was put in place the term starts to be used even if there is no , as far as I know, place that Intellectual Property is legally defined as it's own term.
The use of IP was a way to frame the debate about copyright in a pro copyright manner and that term has now become a basic way in which we talk about these ideas.
Like you say copyright today has been expanded simply due to greed and not even on the part of the actual creators, creators have been conned in to thinking that industry is looking after their interests and so they stand and shout and fight to protect the people who most actively want to screw them. It's sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright distortion
25 years ago, I considered going to school to be a patent attorney rather than study math and engineering. I was told that patent law was the least lucrative, most difficult type of law, with few job opportunities and poor career prospects. Clearly, something has changed, and not for the better. There was plenty of technological innovation from 1900 through 1990, so it isn't as though there was no need for patent law and copyright then!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright distortion
They ARE special, now just as in the past. In the past, the exceptional, productive ones weren't necessarily compensated or recognized for their work. Unfortunately, I don't think copyright law is particularly effective for that purpose either, not any longer. Rather, it seems like peripheral interests siphon off a lot, away from the original content creators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright distortion
No more so than anyone else.
Who is more important? Dr. performing a kidney transplant or the driver delivering the replacement kidney?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Print is a dinosaur
"Multinational corporations, ironically styling themselves champions of free information having stolen it themselves..." Look who's talking
Locking up ideas as property is just as much a form of censorship as suppressing them, and this clown is all for that kind of censorship, just like Hollywood and the recording industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Print is a dinosaur
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New newspapers of the future
However, displaying too much text from the content, may stop users from needing to go to the site to read the full article. It then becomes an argument over how much text or media should be displayed by google. In this aspect newspapers are absolutely right to claim it is appropriation of their content. But even on this level most marketers would understand that massive online exposure is the only way to gain an online audience.
Google or any other search engine is never going to pay newspapers, its a total flip on their own business model. So the newspaper world needs to understand where internet revenue actually comes from and adapt, or go back to selling hardcopy only. They need to think about creating an entirely new business model. Check this blog article from an insiders pov on newspaper thinking. http://alert.sqwark.me/?p=178
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New newspapers of the future
This is true in theory, but I don't see much of this effect in practice, except from the crowd that only reads the headlines anyway.
There are two easy things that newspapers can do to combat this, though. They can make their sites less painful to read, and they can engage in compelling, real journalism that produces stories that cannot be adequately summarized in a short snippet.
There is a different effect, though, that I find happens a lot with me: the snippet provides enough of a feel for the article that I can more accurately determine whether or not it's worth reading the whole thing. Often, it's not. I wonder if it's this that the newspapers really fear.
Not only that, but it also makes no logical, legal, or moral sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New newspapers of the future
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: New newspapers of the future
Is that IF displaying...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: New newspapers of the future
As soon as the first cable news network went online, the days of news print were numbered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I clicked on the link back to the Irish Examiner to read the full article
Even funnier, on the webpage there's a column of advertisements powered by Google's AdSense.
Of course, would work better if the ads were Irish related instead of mortgage refinancing. Such as tourism, hotels, car rentals,etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I clicked on the link back to the Irish Examiner to read the full article
That's probably because AdSense checked your IP address, saw you were from outside Ireland and thus, offered you ads relevant to your location.
I'm in Ireland and I've loaded the page, and gotten a few Irish-targeted ads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In Germany, this debate is running for a while
What they always fail to mention: They can opt out of google indexing them, but that's not what they want. Once someone said something wise: Every article about the "Leistungsschutzrecht" without the mentioning "robots.txt" should not be considered serious.
What I find frightening is that although this is so crazy it shouldn't be worth a serious discussion, this debate seems to go international now. Recently France announced similar plans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In Germany, this debate is running for a while
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pirate IRL?
You know the ones, you have this big shop engine called WH Smith, and these pirates, they go in and they browse the headlines and articles that are just all sitting there, indexed on the shelves.
These shop engines, so called 'newsagents', are really just ripping off the publishers by letting people come in and browse the newspapers and magazines without even clicking in their wallet to buy them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pirate IRL?
Incorrect. The newsstand owner buys the magazines and newspapers outright. He may be letting himself get ripped off (though, anyone who has tried to loiter at a newsstand reading copy is probably familiar with being chased off by the owner), but the publishers have already been paid.
Your analogy, likening search engines to newsstands actually makes the exact opposite point you're intending. If Google is like a newsagent, then they should buy the "information" they're distributing like everybody else.
I don't agree with ^^that^^ point, necessarily; I'm just sick of everybody spitting out analogies rather than simply discussing the matters at hand like intelligent adults.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they are that strapped for cash
After all they are providing people access to something that the newspaper people spent millions on to create.
Moronic Irish columnist is moronic.
If you provide access to your newspaper on your website, then don't be surprised when people use it to gain access to your newspaper on your website!
And whether these visitors come from search engines or -heaven forfend- other sites (Oh My Gosh, there are other sites out there?! They must pay us too!) or by directly entering your web-address into their browsers, it shouldn't matter.
You serve them ads, and allow people to click through to next stories so that they can be served more ads. You know, finding ways to monetize your own newspaper content. It's the content that drives the visitors, and it's the ads that make you money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something like this:
1. Newspaper starts to complain that google is 'stealing' revenue from them for posting snippets of articles and linking back to them.
2. Google immediately drops the complaining newspaper, and any links to it, from their service.
3. If the newspaper wants to be re-listed, they merely have to sign a free, legally binding agreement that they will not pursue legal action against google for posting links to their content in the future.
4. Newspaper either signs and gets re-listed, or refuses to do so and stays unlisted, as well as having a child-level, simple language guide to keeping their site from being indexed in the future via "robots.txt" sent to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm suing the government for piracy! And I'm getting my competitor to join me in that law suit from all the customers he's lost to me thanks to that same pirate road!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Search engines only?
Makes perfect sense, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By this logic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newspapers as viable businesses
Newspapers and media, biased as some may be, DO have standards of journalistic integrity. Reporters have a code of ethics they must uphold, else they will be fired. I read this article a few days ago, in a tech publication. It expressed regret that independent third-party news and information sources would soon be a thing of the past. The author said that while preferable, they were not viable businesses. As a replacement, CISCO has already hired over 1,000 news writers and Nissan (Toyota) has done the same. They won't be neutral, by their own admission. Corporate news media, as in "CISCO News" or "Nissan News" (not as part of a holding company, but rather, tightly integrated within the corporation) isn't a scenario I look forward to.
Google doesn't need to save the newspaper industry, isn't morally or ethically bound to do so. Yet someone, somewhere, should consider it carefully. I don't know who, I have no ideas about that, nor what can be done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newspapers on the wrong track
The actual news is no longer relevant. Most news is old hat by the time it is published. Today's journalists appear to think by expanding the news report, often padding out an article with irrelevancy, makes for good journalism.
I want opinions. I want to read hard hitting analysis of today's issues. I want the political bias removed. I want the truth about what is happening. I want the newspapers to be like wikileak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]