Mashable - The Social Media Guide - Latest Comments in AP and News Corp: Facebook, YouTube, Google Are Exploiting Us

Re: AP and News Corp: Facebook, YouTube, Google Are Exploiting Us

photo editing expert — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:10:15 -0000

Awesome. I love the article.

Re: AP and News Corp: Facebook, YouTube, Google Are Exploiting Us

Flash — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:46:08 -0000

it costs money to pay journalists for news you can spin. it could cost more to have an iraqi twitter news with their own spin, gotta pay to play.

Re: AP and News Corp: Facebook, YouTube, Google Are Exploiting Us

rufinus — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:24:32 -0000

u mean i could be paying for what I am reading now???
WTF?

Re: AP and News Corp: Facebook, YouTube, Google Are Exploiting Us

Austin Beeman — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:03:40 -0000

What is likely going to happen, and probably is already, is that news organization are going to get paid from large businesses and political parties to 'spin' the news. Then the 'free content' is going to be fed to all the suckers that didn't what to pay for the news.

Re: AP and News Corp: Facebook, YouTube, Google Are Exploiting Us

Michelle Potter — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:28:23 -0000

Bob, there is no reply button on your most recent reply to me, so I am *hoping* if I reply here it will end up in the right place.

You said, "There is a big difference between conversation and stealing content." I completely agree with that statement, and the sentiment that *stealing* content is wrong, but since we still seem to be at odds I must assume that we have different ideas of what it means to steal content.

There is an actual societal construct that the vast majority of people accept which addresses the issue of what it means to steal another person's content. This is called copyright. Copyright is not a natural right like free speech, but rather a limitation on free speech that we all agree is for the general good. I have stated repeatedly that I agree that anyone, online or not, who actually violates the news medias copyright is in the wrong. Let me be explicit that copyright violations should be duly pursued and violators should be sued.

However, since our society has statutorily defined what it means to "steal" another person's creative work, I simply cannot understand what you mean when you say that someone who is explicitly NOT violating copyright is "stealing." In what sense is a news aggregator stealing anything when they follow the very definition of "not stealing" -- ie, Fair Use? In what sense would a blogger who retells the news in his own words be stealing, when he has not taken anything that actually belongs to the original reporter?

Unless you believe that a reporter who "finds" the news and reports it, then owns the facts of that news. In which case I ask this. If a reporter writes an article about a baseball game, does he then own the facts about that game? Can I write a blog entry about that game? Can I write about the game if I was there? Can I write about it if I watched the game on TV? Can I write about it if a friend attended or watched the game, and then told me what happened? Can I write about it if I read a description of the game in the news? At what point does it become unacceptable for me to write a blog entry about facts that are publicly known? At what point does the reporter who "owns" those facts get to tell me that I can't write about what I saw with my own eyes, heard with my ears, or read? Fortunately those questions have been answered, since legally in this country no one can copyright or claim ownership of facts.

So, I ask again. If Google News, Facebook, Drudge, news bloggers, etc. are by definition NOT violating the copyright of the news media, then how exactly are they stealing content?

PS, you again compared quoting news articles to outright stealing entire songs or movies. Do you not see the difference between copying an entire article / song / movie and quoting PART of an article / song / movie? Do you see the difference between posting the new Disney flick to the newsbins so people can download and watch the movie without paying, and posting a clip of the movie in a review that encourages people to go out and see it? Do you see the difference between copying a book, and writing something that includes the title of the book and some quotes? Do you see the difference between copying a news article and quoting it?

Re: AP and News Corp: Facebook, YouTube, Google Are Exploiting Us

Bob — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:53:10 -0000

Michelle,

Thank you for taking the time to respond so thoroughly!

There is a big difference between conversation and stealing content.
The demand for music and entertainment hasn't died either - that isn't helping the vast majority of musicians, whom have to sell beer cozies and t-shirts to make a living because their own music is out of their control and traded freely - without their permission or compensation. Do you know how many full size independent film companies exist in the US today? The answer is zero. Diversity has been narrowed. You have the option of watching major corporate releases or hobbyist releases on youtube, dvd, and the very occasional screening. The middle is gone. You'll find the middle has/is disappearing in all sorts of marketplaces and industries as well.

You can argue all you want for the end of gravity, your entitlement etc. Does it change physical laws?
If these large corps have too little ROI, they'll just take their $$$ and find another game to play. People can wallow in their 1st amendment rights while discussing the latest assumptions about an event that receives no news coverage. Or they can hold court on the latest celeb trainwreck. How do either of these serve an informed democratic republic? Free to talk - nothing to talk about... such irony lol.

This is the current environment in which we exist.
People steal content. These are the same people that shop at Wally world.
The same people that will not pay for news.
This is our consumable (disposable) society.
It's all interconnected.
We all are subject to gravity. There are no free lunches.
When the environment we live in affects our basic interests, changes may be required.
Someone's sacred bull may get gored in the process.

Re: AP and News Corp: Facebook, YouTube, Google Are Exploiting Us

Michelle Potter — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:08:33 -0000

"Michelle, if the second model you describe creates an environment where the first model (ROI) can not survive, what will be the outcome?"

I think it's obvious that this is not only going to happen, it is already happening. So we have some choices here. One is that everyone on the internet can agree to give up what we Americans have Constitutionally guaranteed in the 1st amendment. Everyone can just decide that even though we have a legal right to tell other people about the news, we shouldn't, in order to protect the MSM. Frankly, that seems extremely unlikely.

The second choice would be the complete elimination of Fair Use. The "threats" that the AP and Murdoch want to eliminate include Facebook (which, when you post a link only pulls a headline and a couple of sentences) and their perennial foe, Drudge (which only quotes headlines -- mere sentence fragments). This would have far-reaching effects, including a need to except the "official" news media to allow them to quote political speeches and the like. Other questions would be raised, such as just how many words need to be strung together in the same order as a copyrighted work constitute a "quote." If an AP article says, "President Obama won," are those three words now off-limits for the rest of us? There may be questions about whether Fair Use can be tossed out without amending the Constitution, but they wouldn't be concerns for long. Sites such as Drudge will simply start re-phrasing their headlines. By not quoting the MSM article at all, they could avoid any questions about copyright infringement without actually changing the nature of their sites at all -- and without diminishing their "threat" to the MSM whatsoever. A link to an AP article titled "GOP's Snowe will vote for Democratic health bill" is not fundamentally different than the same link titled "GOP's Snowe voting for Democrats' health care bill," but does not contain any more than two words in a row that are identical. (And, BTW, when getting that example I realized that Drudge does NOT always even use the AP headline. The first headline I quoted was the AP's, and the second was from Drudge. And here I was going to make something up for the re-phrased example.) (Another BTW, I just quoted MORE than Drudge did from that article. Any elimination of Fair Use that prevented aggregators from collecting AP headlines and links would have to make what I just wrote illegal.) Bloggers already often re-tell news stories in their own words, so prohibiting them from using quotes would be of minimal impact. Once aggregators and bloggers simply stop using quotes and use their own words for headlines and to retell news stories, the MSM will be stuck in the same situation again. They will still have limitless competition from individuals online spreading the news, but they won't be able to cry copyright anymore. Their only choices will be to learn to deal, or to change the law again. Then what? Will we forbid individuals from even summarizing or retelling the news in their own words? You might call this a slippery slope, but I am not arguing that if we let the media start limiting news bloggers and aggregators then it will get out of control -- I am arguing that ONLY such authoritarian measures would allow the current media establishment to survive as it is. As long as we are free to fairly quote and link to the news, or retell the news in our own words, we pose a serious threat to the way they do business.

There is a third option, which is for the current media establishment to find a way to become something completely new. It's not the first time an industry has had to do this -- candle making had to survive the electric light bulb, didn't it? I'm not saying it won't be hard, it may even be as though the MSM dies and something new rises from the ashes. But the demand for reliable, accurate news has not died; it's bigger than ever! There's a fortune waiting for the company that figures out how to turn this massive demand into a money-producing endeavor.

So I ask you, do we have a moral obligation to give up free speech (either by widespread choice and self-regulation, or by statute) in order to prop up the current news media's choice not to change with the times? Or do we have a moral obligation to protect free speech, even if it means allowing the current structure to fail, and temporary hardship as a new structure emerges?

BTW, the comparison between quoting and linking news articles and illegally downloading entire songs or movies is fallacious. Regardless of Murdoch's accusation of "plagiarist," widely accepted "Netiquette" forbids the outright copying of written news articles outside of Fair Use. Aggregators obviously don't do this, since by nature they are just links to the actual articles. The vast majority of bloggers only quote the news and give their own commentary -- in fact it's the commentary that makes or breaks a news blogger's popularity. So, a more proper comparison would be between an aggregator or news blogger and a movie review site that includes quotes and an image from the movie.

Re: AP and News Corp: Facebook, YouTube, Google Are Exploiting Us

umar — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:42:31 -0000

. I feel sorry for these millionaires who made their money this way

Re: AP and News Corp: Facebook, YouTube, Google Are Exploiting Us

Roger Toennis — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:49:41 -0000

Some good points. Bottom line is news organizations have to realize they can still be in the content business but no longer can they be directly in the content distribution business. The social media ocean does that now. The key for their survival is how effectively will they "outsource" distribution of their content through proper leverage of social media.

Re: AP and News Corp: Facebook, YouTube, Google Are Exploiting Us

Bob — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 03:50:27 -0000

Michelle, if the second model you describe creates an environment where the first model (ROI) can not survive, what will be the outcome?

If model 2 impacts the primary production of content (the goose who lays the golden eggs), this model needs to be strongly considered as a threat. Gravity exists. As a society we can not just shrug and say 'whatever...'

What happens when writers, artists, journalists can no longer produce a living from the products they produce? How does this serve a civilized society? The big businesses will just move on to some other industry. When we have less qualified news outlets providing news, and investigating (this area of news is already in decline), how will this affect our ability to stay informed? Heresay, rumours? Same goes for any other creative field.

The loss of these products and services, just add to the race to the bottom in the marketplace. Less people working, more offshoring, less diversity... a vicious cycle.

A recent roommate of mine (Wharton grad) and her Gfs laughed at me because I actually pay for movies and music instead of downloading for free. She earns 6 figures a year and not only finds nothing wrong with stealing content, she feels entitled.

Re: AP and News Corp: Facebook, YouTube, Google Are Exploiting Us

Bob — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 02:54:26 -0000

There are no free lunches.

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Re: AP and News Corp: Facebook, YouTube, Google Are Exploiting Us

paulmccord — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:01:14 -0000

This is interesting considering who is saying this. The media makes a living out of exploiting the fears of the public. Just listen to the scary music dubbed in every time they talk about Swine flu or even worse global warming.

Re: AP and News Corp: Facebook, YouTube, Google Are Exploiting Us

Ellen — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 03:27:31 -0000

People aren't going to get used to paying for news. I think as a whole we'll lapse into waiting for our news to leak rather than paying for it quickly.

Re: AP and News Corp: Facebook, YouTube, Google Are Exploiting Us

Alan — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:49:17 -0000

check out www.rackoutfit.com

Brings all the online retailer clearance/sales racks to one location... just click a stores logo in your section (guys or girls)... shopping for great deals just got easier!

Includes American Eagle, Abercrombie, Toms Shoes, Jedidiah USA, To write love on her arms, Hollister, Zumies, and many many more. Guys and Girls Sections.

Re: AP and News Corp: Facebook, YouTube, Google Are Exploiting Us

Arijit Das — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 21:50:53 -0000

Internet is only for Spreading news, and i don't Google, and others are exploiting AP. Ya to too agree with the speaking of AP about the causes of the down falling of their Market.

Re: AP and News Corp: Facebook, YouTube, Google Are Exploiting Us

deborahoverdeput — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 17:04:24 -0000

Murdoch and Curley's comments are typical of executives facing the near extinction of their industry. If they were true entrepreneurs (or leaders of industry) they would be meeting and discussing how best to use the new media forums to evolve their business. Just goes to show you that those who ride the money train for too long forget how they got on the train in the first place. A little innovation please! -- and get on the Twitter jet!

Re: AP and News Corp: Facebook, YouTube, Google Are Exploiting Us

Michelle Potter — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 12:55:38 -0000

This is my take. No one has a right to get the news for free -- no one can expect someone else to go out, on his own dime (or employer's dime), investigate, interview, collect the news, then come back and report it all to us with no compensation. People simply do not have a right to other people's time and resources.

Additionally, no one has a right to steal someone else's work. No one has a right to just copy a news article wholesale and pass it around, even if he includes a link. Copyright laws are intended to give the original author a chance to make a profit from his own work.

However, once a person has read or heard the news (whether he paid or not), or once a person has seen or experienced something newsworthy himself, he has EVERY RIGHT to pass that information along to others, assuming that any direct quotes are within the limits of Fair Use. What is the difference between telling everyone at a party about an article I read in Time Magazine, and blogging about it? A wider audience? Are free speech rights limited by audience size?

Make no mistake, free speech is the real right in question here. As long as internet users have free speech, they have the right to spread the news, and there is nothing the MSM can do about it. Even if all MSM news was completely locked down, or even completely removed from the internet, I could still buy and read a newspaper, sit at my computer desk, and tell the whole world about Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize -- without plagiarizing the paper or committing any crime or misdeed whatsoever. And if my words are interesting enough and relevant enough, people will read them. Until the MSM accepts that fact and adapts their business model accordingly, they will suffer.

Re: AP and News Corp: Facebook, YouTube, Google Are Exploiting Us

Wopular — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 12:42:08 -0000

$20 per 1000 views is on the high end. I doubt even the New York Times is able to average that for all of their inventory. The probably get that amount on average for inventory they could sell. But if you blend in all of the unsold inventory with junk ads, they'll probably average around $5 per 1000 views. When I was working at IGN, that's the average.

That's for the big guys with their own sales team. If you're joblo running adsense, then it's gonna be a lot lower, probably in the $1-2 dollar range.

Re: AP and News Corp: Facebook, YouTube, Google Are Exploiting Us

IndySkye — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:17:41 -0000

Copyright would be the only basis for attaining compensation, and that is in fact the legal claim that they are making. Under U.S. law facts cannot be copyrighted, only the particular telling of them can be. AP's assertion has been that people and web sites are copying their copy, word for word, which is illegal. However, repeating the facts of a story in your own words is not. Anything beyond that is just philosophical about fairness, but not based in law. For anyone to assert that the news belongs to them alone that Obama won the Nobel Prize is nonsensical.

Re: AP and News Corp: Facebook, YouTube, Google Are Exploiting Us

Daniel Petty — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:44:58 -0000

Realize, too, that for many newspapers, money made from PRINT advertising -- not online -- is pulling a large majority of a newspaper's revenue. More than 90 percent of the newspaper industry’s revenue still derives from the print product. A single newspaper ad might cost many thousands of dollars while an online ad might only bring in $20 for each 1,000 customers who see it." (from Oct. 28, 2008, David Carr column, from the New York Times: http://bit.ly/wIODb)

That's a crisis in the advertising industry that few people seem to be talking about in this debate. TThe people buying tradition ads _ the local pizza shop, for instance _ just don't value online as much as they do print.

Re: AP and News Corp: Facebook, YouTube, Google Are Exploiting Us

Daniel Petty — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:29:32 -0000

I agree that these "men on the street" provide a unique, unfiltered perspective that enriches reporting (which, during the Iran elections, mainstream media -- including The New York Times -- was using in its content). But these men on the street don't have the kind of access to high-level diplomats and other sources that take years of cultivating by reporters. I'm sorry, but very few bloggers get granted that kind of access. And Twitter, for all of its breaking news value, cannot put these events in a clear context or perspective. Twitter generates lots of noise, meaning you still need someone who has reported on, say, Iran for years to organize the information and put it in an easily digestible format.

Re: AP and News Corp: Facebook, YouTube, Google Are Exploiting Us

fulvius — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:01:05 -0000

I totally agree! Stop to spreed the news (with rss, twitter | digg button, or bot rules) and the problem is solved. I wanna see they try. =)

Re: AP and News Corp: Facebook, YouTube, Google Are Exploiting Us

Fulvius — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 08:50:06 -0000

Face the facts: The Times They Are A-Changin'. Poor Rupert, cry or evolve.

Re: AP and News Corp: Facebook, YouTube, Google Are Exploiting Us

Roger Toennis — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 07:49:09 -0000

The problem is they need to be innovative in how they make money. Today being able to pass on news content through social media into your network (Tweet, post, email) is considered a valuable thing. If you pass good info consistently people will follow you and a "following" is the new capital of the modern web.

So, the publishers should have a tiered, paid model for information delivery where I can pay to get news delivered to me in a premium/custom fashion. One form of premium would be early access. I may pay to get editorial content from well-known writers early and also pay to be able to be among the first to then forward that content into my social network. Think of it as me paying to be an "electronic paperboy". Except this paperboy gets to filter, edit and comment on all that news and send it through the lens of my personal branding. Bloggers do this now already but in a very manual fashion. News giants like AP could make it easy for me to become a my own editor of "all the news I think is fit to print". This is hyperlocal applied to the business of editing the news stream. You then have something people are willing to pay for.

Then when people who don't subscribe click the unique URLs I provide it, gives them limited time access to the content but they can't comment or easily forward the content into thier networks. The content itself would come with formatting/cobranding that labels the page as having been recommended/spun by me. The wisdom of the crowd would then decide who does the best polish and delivery of the news and that person, and the provider of the raw news and opinion content, could all get paid.

They could also show prominently on all the pages which social media influencers (ePaper Boys/Girls) have driven the most traffic to that news story and show a profile of those influencers. This will drive clicks back to the web content of those influencers.

What this does is recruit the top social networking influencer voices to pay premium prices for premium access to the best written pieces from the media. Those influencers then become proactive and trusted promoters of the best news gathering outlets on the web. The news outlets that recruit and retain the best social media influencers will also draw the most traffic and the most ad and subscription revenue.

Soon most people will want to pay either for a subscription to become a news editor of their own "My view of the world of news" or to get full access to the most popular and respected influencers to see the news through their lens.

By allowing everyone to set up their own virtual news room the traditional news gatherers will earn both subscription and ad revenue, just like the old days, and they can share that back to those people who emerge as the most influential and most followed. This is a win/win/win for all involved. All of us want to be influential voices. this model allows me to be more efficient in becoming an influential voice on the net.

This is the kind of innovation necessary to remake how news is done and how it is monetized.

Re: AP and News Corp: Facebook, YouTube, Google Are Exploiting Us

malexandria — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 07:40:21 -0000

For the last time Ad Revenue isn't some magical cure all. Fact is 90 percent of all All ad revenue goes to the top 5 or 10 sites on the web with the rest going to the top 5 or 10 sites in any given niche. Everyone else gets peanuts. Not to mention when you run ads then readers start pissing and moaning about having "ads" on their favorite websites.