Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Unsolicited advice

Posted in:

Illinois

* Dear Associated Press,

Taking aim at the way news is spread across the Internet, The Associated Press said on Monday that Web sites that used the work of news organizations must obtain permission and share revenue with them, and that it would take legal action against those that did not.

A.P. executives said they were concerned about a variety of news forums around the Web, including major search engines like Google and Yahoo and aggregators like the Drudge Report that link to news articles, smaller sites that sometimes reproduce articles whole, and companies that sell packaged news feeds.

Lemme explain this to you, APers, since you seem to be so clueless.

I, or Drudge or the Google or somebody else makes linkies to AP stories and your members then get all the ad revenue (which they share with you in the form of dues) when readers click on those aforementioned linkies. That’s somehow bad?

On the right side of this here page, you will see an automated news feed for AP stories - the sort of feed you appear to hate. Well, dingbats, that feed drives readers to your subscribers’ sites. The Chicago Public Radio people have told me that this blog is one of their top referral sites. Unlike y’all, they are not the least bit moronic. They welcome the traffic and appear to love the attention. CBS2 designed a video news feed especially for this site. They’re smart, unlike you AP goofs.

I also excerpt your stories under what’s called the Fair Use Doctrine. Linkies are always included, which drives more visitors to newspaper/TV/radio sites, which then helps those sites make money. Yes, money.

Not a day goes by that some reporter doesn’t request favorable placement for a story on this site. I’m always more than happy to comply. Reporters know that getting their stories posted here means the people who matter most in Illinois politics - my readers - will see those stories. This arrangement also benefits me, of course. But that’s the beauty of it.

If you want to go after sites that reprint entire articles, well, you already have that ability and my full blessing. Posting articles in their entirety is very bad practice and should be punished. I don’t do it and I don’t allow commenters to do it, either. Maybe one or two will get through the screen on occasion, but I do my best to prevent this.

But, if you’re thinking of trying to pass a new law to gain new powers, well, you can forget about that. We’ll crush you. If you want to start suing people, then brace for a fight, or risk making your members’ truly horrific financial situation even worse as those wonderful little linkies disappear.

Seriously, how can you be so totally idiotic?

…And another thing… Yesterday, I broke the story that Gov. Quinn had signed an executive order repealing one of Rod Blagojevich’s most controversial executive orders. The AP followed up, but no credit was given and no link to this site was offered. That’s no big deal. It happens all the time. But get off your high horse about “theft.” Look in the mirror, first.

…And while I’m at it… What if we turn the tables on you, AP? What if bloggers and aggregators demand a piece of the ad revenues which we generate for your members by driving so much traffic to their sites? Think about that for a minute, jerks.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 11:43 am

Comments

Perhaps the AP could read some of their own reports on how the Internet has changed the music industry and reconsider their plan?

Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 11:49 am
But Rich, how do you really feel about this?

Comment by Rep. John Fritchey Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 11:52 am
You just know this is the work of some intellectual property lawyer who somehow convinced a client desperate to “monetize assets” that they were losing money.

Morons.

Comment by Chicago Cynic Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 11:57 am
Well said. Ive heard other news organizations make the same stupid arguement. Their hypocrisy is astounding.

Comment by Taxman Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 12:04 pm
Hey, if they don’t want me to go to their site where I usually end up reading additional stuff and looking at more ads…

Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 12:08 pm
They might consider that the traffic I drive could be monetized by me. Perhaps I should be getting some of their revenues.

Just sayin…

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 12:14 pm
Well, we’ve just witnessed what a Blog Slap looks like….the AP is like the ‘ol boy who used to be the biggest on the block tossing his weight around…it is funny watching him still try that as a 97 lb (fill in the blank).

Comment by You Go Boy Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 12:22 pm
Good for you, Rich, and long overdue. The 19th century mindset of news bureaus and wire services is what has led to their present situation — a total inability to adapt to a changing world.

Comment by jaundiced eye Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 12:22 pm
The AP position is bizarre on a number of fronts. But the MSM Powers That Be have been flatfooted on the Internet from the get-go. I mean, they practically gave away classified ads.

Michael Kinsley put it nicely yesterday:

“If you had told one of the great newspaper moguls of the past that someday it would be possible to publish a newspaper without paying anything for paper, printing and delivery, he would not have predicted that this would mean catastrophe for the industry. But that is what it has been.”

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 12:23 pm
Feel free to delete this. Really. I don’t think you need to leave my unpaid, unknowledgeable advice up on your blog.

But I’ve often been surprised by the length of the material you’ve quoted here. It doesn’t always seem like a fair use. And frankly, I do think that news organizations should have a fair amount of leeway in deciding what is fair use.

But whatever. It’s one opinion. Ultimately, if the AP has an argument, a judge will decide that.

Comment by lincoln street Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 12:28 pm
lincoln street, the generally accepted Fair Use principle is four grafs. I try mightily to stay within that. Occasionally I digress, but usually with publications that I’m on good terms with. I also reprint my entire newspaper column because it’s mine.

And I’ve yet to hear a single complaint.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 12:31 pm
Also, papers don’t get to decide what is or what is not Fair Use.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 12:31 pm
I’m a little surprised that at no point in the post was the catchphrase “Bite Me” employed.

(Note: I like that you speak your mind, Rich, no punches pulled)

Comment by Chambananon Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 12:38 pm
@wordslinger

The obvious flip side to Kinsley (it’s now “possible to publish a newspaper without paying anything for paper, printing and delivery”) is that it’s also now possible for advertisers to publish ads without paying newspapers for the privilege, and for readers to read the news without paying for that, either.

But I digress from Rich’s well-founded diatribe.

IMO, where AP and everyone else has a legit beef on these grounds is with outright content-stealers like Huffington Post.

Comment by Reality Check Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 12:42 pm
===outright content-stealers like Huffington Post.===

HuffPo is an AP member.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 12:44 pm
The internet invalidates so many paradigms. Who knows what we will have in one hundred years.

Comment by Ahem Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 12:48 pm
That was more fun than riding the ferris wheel!! This is why we love Rich and why my journalism major kid was promptly referred to your site by me immediately upon her first day at work.

Comment by Merit Comp Slave Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 12:48 pm
@RM

Ah, thanks. So it’s just the content of other publications they steal wholesale.

http://blogs.chicagoreader.com/chicagoland/2008/12/18/grand-theft-huffpo/

Comment by Reality Check Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 12:54 pm
Good point, but I think that’s on the rare side. Still, they’re useless to me because they provide so little insight and their bloggers ain’t exactly the cream.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 12:56 pm
@ Reality Check: … it’s also now possible for advertisers to publish ads without paying newspapers for the privilege, and for readers to read the news without paying for that, either.

That’s the problem. No one pays for anything on the net. AP is grasping at straws, along with so many other professional news agencies. Paid journalists will necessarily decline in numbers. It’s a sinking ship. Citizen journalism will have to fill a lot of cracks, and the mortar will often be soupy, at best. It’s a brave new world; one that will be better informed, in some ways, and less informed in others.

Comment by jlm Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 12:56 pm
You tell them Rich!!

Comment by Mommy Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 12:58 pm
Rich, you last point should have come at the top….you buried the lead.

BTW - This reminds me of the run-up between TV broadcasters and cable TV when cable came along and hijacked over-the-air signals for their own profit. This is not new territory.

Comment by Deep South Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 1:04 pm
wordslinger: ” The obvious flip side to Kinsley (it’s now “possible to publish a newspaper without paying anything for paper, printing and delivery”) is that it’s also now possible for advertisers to publish ads without paying newspapers for the privilege, and for readers to read the news without paying for that, either. ”

Strange. I wasn’t aware that Google was somehow forcing news sites to not charge for access to stories on the Web. Actually, it’s a decision newspaper companies made because they know if THEY charged even the smallest fee for online content, some competitor could come along and do the same. Giving it away free keeps money out of the hands of would-be entrepreneurial start ups.

Comment by Billy Dennis Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 1:05 pm
===you buried the lead.===

You’re probably right, but the idea didn’t occur to me until long after I had posted the piece. So, it was put at the bottom.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 1:06 pm
So Rich, no strong feelings on this one I take it.

Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 1:16 pm
AP may not be a dumb as it seems. It’s only trying to put you and others out of business so that it can revert to its long lost monopoly.

Comment by Keyser Soze Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 1:20 pm
None, Ghost.

Actually, I got more angry as I wrote it. And now I absolutely want my share of their money!!!

lol

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 1:21 pm
Keyser, and I’m sure there are still Italians out there who pine for the days of the Roman Empire. It ain’t smart. It’s backwards and ridiculous.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 1:25 pm
You Go Boy-”Blog Slap” love it:)

Comment by wizard Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 1:26 pm
Rich, you could always provide the link to the original content… Perhaps tweaked a bit…

http://translate.google.com/transla
te?prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UT
F-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pantagrap
h.com%2Farticles%2
F2009%2F04%2F06%2Fnews%2F
doc49dab4e222ea7014225895.txt&a
mp;sl=en&tl=gl&history_state0=

Comment by Anon Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 1:28 pm
LOL. I wouldn’t do that, but what a brilliant idea.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 1:29 pm
I imagine someone has made this joke before, but…

Maybe they should call it the “Dis-associated Press” considering how they’ve clearly got mental problems based on actions like today’s…

Comment by Chambananon Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 1:30 pm
Newspapers are desperate and have been growling at AP for years. Everyone has been looking for someone to blame—did it not occur to anyone that suddenly giving away your product for free would change your business model?
It is frightful to see the fracturing of America. When one time the nation only had 3 TV networks to choose from, and everyone read newspapers and actually listend to something besides music on the radio. Now, most people have over 100 cable channels and unlimited websites to educate/entertain themselves…we have lost our common identity, and newspapers will line the coffin.

Comment by Vote Quimby! Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 1:35 pm
Way to go Rich! Let them know that they are not the sun and the world does not revolve around them!

Comment by make it so Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 1:41 pm
===suddenly giving away your product for free would change your business model?===

Since newspapers almost universally lose money on subscription and newsstand prices, they’ve been giving it away for free for a very long time.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 1:41 pm
My apologies for the insanely long URL.

Blast those URI encoded strings..

Comment by Anon Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 1:49 pm
True, Rich, but they carved out the stuff people wanted to read and kept their paid ads (except for those wonderfully efficient banners) away from it. Just as newspapers killed the town crier, the internet is doing to them. Now they are trying to change the rules?
Dead-tree editions will only survive where people have to ride (not drive) to work, and in small, localized areas where overhead can be kept down. Not that I am biased, of course–my little newspaper actually has only “bonus” content online, but may eventually offer .pdf-type files for downloads to keep the eyeballs on the ads. Our paid staff of zero has already broken even in its second edition!

Comment by Vote Quimby! Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 1:51 pm
VQ, I would argue that for years internet providers were hungry for ways to get traffic so they could generate ad revenue. At the same time internet providers and protals are pushing innovation and ideas to lure people, the newspapers were doggedly plodding away on their laurels instead of looking for innocation or creativity to drive their future.

Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 1:57 pm
Ghost, you’re having some serious typing problems today. No worries, just wondering.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 2:15 pm
I really enjoy Rich’s “Unsolicited Advice” columns. Kind of a cross between Bill Maher’s “New Rules” and Andy Rooney’s grouchy observations.

Comment by phocion Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 2:28 pm
SMOKIN’ retort to the AP! you go Rich!

Comment by Amy Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 2:29 pm
wait, Huff Po is a member of AP? are they into this stupidity from the AP? because HuffPo is a VERY biased site, and they
simply don’t know the term moderation, allowing deeply sexist things all the time in the comments. and, they have invaded
Chicago.

Comment by Amy Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 2:32 pm
Ghost–I can buy that.

Comment by Vote Quimby! Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 2:54 pm
Thanks to cap fax, I read articles in newspapers all across Illinois that I might not otherwise check out. And once I get to those sites, I usually find myself clicking through to find out what else is going on in Springfield, Belleville, Jacksonville, Marion, and other cities in my state. My eyeballs count, even if I’m not likely to buy from local vendors who pay for those ads. I work at a place where we would do just about anything to drive traffic to our site, and here’s Rich doing it for free on a daily basis. Rich, feel free to link to us any time!

Comment by soccermom Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 3:00 pm
This article is several years old, but it is a good primer on link law nonetheless.

Comment by Squideshi Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 3:05 pm
Why doesn’t the AP sue Craigslist and eBay? Probably just as effective but at least it would target the correct “offender.”

I would also point out that the internet is not free by any stretch of the imagination. There are ads everywhere you turn. I pay $50/mo for reasonable surfing speed, and you pay more for faster service. There are plenty of ways for old media to pick up a few bucks if they would stop complaining and start running a business.

Someone insightfully brought up the recording industry earlier. Adapt or die–and what’s left of the mainstream music industry is finally adapting.

Comment by Lefty Lefty Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 3:10 pm
===There are plenty of ways for old media to pick up a few bucks if they would stop complaining and start running a business.===

Exactly.

They need to whine less and innovate more. I’ve had to explain to potential advertisers how to use the Web. It hasn’t been easy, but it was fruitful. They need to train their ad pros and turn them loose and make some money. Or die. Their choice.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 3:20 pm
Blogging while talking on the phone do not mix well

Comment by ghost Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 3:24 pm
VQ, provide a low price subscription edition delivered through kindle on amazon.

Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 3:56 pm
Rich, where is the response from AP? Have I missed it somehow or do the arrogant b…… just feel above us flyover folks? I would think a simple “Bite Us” could be offered at the least.

Comment by A Citizen Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 4:53 pm
I wasn’t expecting a response. We’re just little ol’ us.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 5:02 pm
Not to us Rich, not to us. To us you’re special! Now, about that senior citizen subscription discount . . . oh nevermind.

Comment by A Citizen Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 5:05 pm
There are small local weekly and twice-weekly newspapers out there that are doing just fine. A good recipe for success is:

1) Cover local news really well and thoroughly
2) Don’t give away the entire product for free on the Net, just “tease” with free leading stories
3) Never, ever belong to the AP, unless you really feel you need national/international news
4) Remember your news is your reputation. Don’t sully it with bias and vendettas
5) Helps if the owner is hands-on, not an absentee
6) Privately held rules, especially if owner=publisher
7) Provide value for money and good customer service to advertisers; if readership is good enough (see point #1) they’ll buy in even if they have political reservations

The interesting thing is that you’ll notice Rich pretty much follows all these rules, and he doesn’t even have a print edition!

Comment by Angry Chicagoan Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 8:07 pm
Rich,
If I understand the issue, the AP started this action due to the recent movement by Google to monetize its news aggregator. In other words, Google is now selling ads based on key words appearing in its aggregate. I think it is important for readers to understand that any site can easily insert code that alerts Google (and others) that the content may not be aggregated or archived. The news sites want Google to find and offer their pages to the public as it pushes traffic. But, they want to gain the benefits of creating the content.

Some of the older court cases involving Google revolved around the use of archived copies of web sites that Google would preserve and deliver to users. Some of that archived material appeared in general Google searches, for example with a general search of Google you would sometimes find news stories. Because those pages were monetized and because copies of the entire original page were also delivered, not the current copy of the page, the news sites said Google could be held liable for violating Fair Use.

So, first of all, the AP is concerned that Google is attempting to gain revenue from its aggregate. And, I’m guessing about this part, the method being used is a violation of Fair Use.

The second issue is the reproduction of whole articles or photos by web sites without compensation and in many cases without proper credit. The Chicago Huffington Post was caught doing this by the Chicago Reader, as noted in the comments. Over the past two months, while I’ve aggregated blogs on the Fifth Congressional District race, I’ve found several instances of the Huffington Post offering a story that is credited to the “Huffington Post Editors” but links to another site. They seem to have an affinity for lifting stories from the Chicago Sun-Times in particular.

(If you want to challenge me on this, I’ll site the stories. I used a strikethrough to note these to readers).

The HuffPo, because it is visible and because it is held up by some people as a future for journalism is a worthy target. The CHuffPo will claim that it is driving traffic. However, sometimes it is not. The original story or blog is hidden in the SEO standings. CHuffPo is enjoying the improved SEO position, the revenue from the monetized aggregate and isn’t paying the property owner for the use of their creation.

It is no wonder the HuffPo is valued at more than $50 million and the Sun-Times Group at less than $4 million.

Google, Yahoo, Drudge and sites like HuffPo are very willing to disregard the rights of property owners in return for greater profits. While the AP may be pressing for a return to the past, the Huffington Post model is highly destructive to property rights. We cannot rollback to the past. But the future of these industries (music, media and writing) is bleak.

I welcome the AP action if it clarifies property rights and allows for technical innovation.

Comment by Lou Grant Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 10:34 pm
Well said AC.

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 11:04 pm
lol. This is definitely turning into a “theme” week!

TARP takers want to pay loans back because they “just” realized that taking the $$ was an invitation to have the Government step in and take over.

Sounds like the AP “suddenly” feel that the “ease of sharing information FREELY across the globe via the internet” was a “gotcha” invitation for others to take their stories without–what they consider–”appropriate compensation”.

Workers in more countries than just the US are starting to protest that THEIR money and jobs are now beginning to float “overseas” after supporting and taking up the invitation to “share the wealth”.

Here’s some unsolicited age-old advice: if a Vampire shows up on your doorstep someday asking for an invitation to come in, say no…and slam the door shut! If you let him, assume he’s going to outstay his welcome.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 11:22 pm
This is a mea culpa for the following statement in my comments above: “Over the past two months, while I’ve aggregated blogs on the Fifth Congressional District race, I’ve found several instances of the Huffington Post offering a story that is credited to the “Huffington Post Editors” but links to another site. They seem to have an affinity for lifting stories from the Chicago Sun-Times in particular.

(If you want to challenge me on this, I’ll site the stories. I used a strikethrough to note these to readers).”

In reviewing the entries, Google News attributes the articles to the Huffington Post News Editors, but the Huffington Post itself attributes that news to the publication and sometimes even to the writer. So, this is a shame on Google situation, not a shame on ChuffPo situation.

I apologize for the error. (The complete list of articles that GOOGLE News attributed to ChuffPo is listed in my blog entry here: http://www.chitowndailynews.org/Media_Insider/A_Mea_Culpa_to_the_ChuffPo,25396)

Comment by Lou Grant Thursday, Apr 16, 09 @ 12:48 pm