PrisonPlanet Forum
May 22, 2013, 08:45:07 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Associated Press Declares War on Search Engines, News Sites, Forums, Blogs  (Read 1254 times)
Optimus
Globalist Destroyer
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11,089


The banksters are steaming piles of dog shit!


WWW
« on: April 07, 2009, 09:53:46 AM »

A.P. Seeks to Rein in Sites Using Its Content
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/business/media/07paper.html?ref=technology
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
Published: April 6, 2009
 
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.

They said they did not want to stop the appearance of articles around the Web, but to exercise some control over the practice and to profit from it.

The group’s new stance applies to thousands of news organizations whose work is distributed by The A.P., as well as its own material, but the debate about unauthorized use has focused on newspapers, which are in serious financial trouble, and which own The A.P. The policies were adopted by the A.P. board, composed mostly of newspaper industry executives.

The A.P. will “work with portals and other partners who legally license our content” and will “seek legal and legislative remedies against those who don’t,” the A.P. chairman, William Dean Singleton, said Monday in a speech at the group’s annual meeting, in San Diego. “We can no longer stand by and watch others walk off with our work under misguided legal theories.”

News aggregators and search companies have long asserted that collecting snippets of articles — usually headlines and a sentence or two — is allowed under the legal doctrine of “fair use.” News organizations have been reluctant to test that idea in court, and it is still not clear whether The A.P. is willing to test the fair use doctrine.

“This is not about defining fair use,” said Sue A. Cross, a senior vice president of the group, who added several times during an interview that news organizations want to work with the aggregators, not against them. “There’s a bigger economic issue at stake here that we’re trying to tackle.”

But the details remain to be worked out, she said, including how to limit use of articles and how to share revenue. When asked if The A.P. would require a licensing agreement before a search engine could show specific material, Ms. Cross said, “that could be an element of it,” but added, “it’s not that formed.”

One goal of The A.P. and its members, she said, is to make sure that the top search engine results for news are “the original source or the most authoritative source,” not a site that copied or paraphrased the work.

The A.P. will also pursue sites that reproduce large parts of articles, rather than using brief links, and it is developing a system to track articles online and determine whether they were used legally.

Neither Mr. Singleton nor a statement released by The A.P. mentioned any adversary by name. But many news executives, including some at The A.P., have voiced concern that their work has become a source of revenue for Google and other sites that can sell search terms or ads on pages that turn up articles.

At a time when newspaper revenue is collapsing and some papers are closing, the prospect of a share of revenue from Yahoo or Google is more tempting than ever. But executives at some news organizations have called the ire at the search engines misguided, saying that much of their own Web traffic arrives through links on search pages.

“We believe search engines are of real benefit to newspapers, driving valuable traffic to their Web sites and connecting them with new readers around the world,” said Gabriel Stricker, a Google spokesman. “We believe that both Google Web Search and Google News are fully consistent with copyright law — we simply link users to the site at which the news story appears.”

Mario Ruiz, a spokesman for Huffington Post, said that the site is an A.P. client, and “we pay for everything we use of theirs.” He declined to address the idea of paying for links to other news organizations.

In essence, The A.P. has taken on the role of acting as a representative for the entire industry, particularly the newspapers — including The New York Times and virtually all large newspapers — that are the group’s owners. Some owners have rebelled against The A.P. in the last year, protesting that it charges them too much.

“The A.P. is trying to assert its value to the member newspapers,” by shifting the industry discussion “from fair use to fair share,” said Ken Doctor, an analyst at Outsell, a media research firm.

The A.P. and other wire services have licensing agreements with Google, Yahoo and others, for some of their content to appear on those sites’ news pages, while newspapers generally do not. But general Web searches on those sites often turn up wire service material that is not covered by the agreements.

In parts of Europe, newspapers have gone further in trying to block unauthorized use of their work online. In 2007, a Belgian court blocked Google from using articles from some newspapers in that country, and Danish newspapers warned Google away from using their material without first reaching some kind of agreement. Several days ago, the British newspaper industry asked the government to intervene on its behalf to force Google to stop using newspaper articles without paying for them.

 
 
Logged

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<
Optimus
Globalist Destroyer
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11,089


The banksters are steaming piles of dog shit!


WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2009, 09:58:28 AM »

Newspapers Last Stand: AP declares war on fair use, blogs
http://www.inquisitr.com/21343/newspapers-last-stand-ap-declares-war-on-fair-use-blogs/


The Associated Press (AP) has declared war on news aggregators and bloggers, in what could be the last stand for the newspaper industry.

In a speech at the AP General Meeting, AP Chairman Dean Singleton told the audience that “We can no longer stand by and watch others walk off with our work under misguided legal theories. We are mad as hell, and we are not going to take it any more.” Singleton said that “AP and its member newspapers must be paid fully and fairly” where other sites quote AP content, including portals.

The “misguided legal theories” Singleton is referring to is fair use, an enshrined doctrine under US copyright law (see the Wikipedia entry here.) We also already know what AP defines as “misappropriation:” anything more than five words, which is the level they set when they went after blogs in June 2008.

Most of the attention is focused on Google News and similar sites; AP and newspapers are running the line that news aggregators steal from them. But what should be more concerning is how they’ll come after blogs as well.

Dean Singleton was interviewed by Paid Content here:

What about us? We get along fairly well with AP when it comes to using the news service in our own reports. We link to stories on member or client sites, usually with attribution and without wholesale quoting. We ask directly for artwork when there’s something we’d like to use in a news story, as was the case with the photo accompanying this post. So I was a little taken aback when I asked Singleton what would happen to sites like ours: “I’ll leave that to the rules of engagement that we’ll be developing” in coming weeks. Not “we’re not after sites like yours” or “we’re looking at flagrant violators.” And no sign at all that AP will be reaching out beyond its members for input.

Time for another AP content boycott, and we’d love to see Google strip AP content out of Google News as well; despite what Singleton claims, there’s actually a world of news outside of the AP and its members, but there’s only one way to prove it.
Logged

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<
nofakenews
Guest
« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2009, 10:02:53 AM »

Nice find.. saving this one..
Logged
Joe(WI)
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,275



WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2009, 10:23:41 AM »

Hey Route, *agrees with above*

Isn't there a fair use clause that says if its(news story, etc) out of print, you can redistribute freely? It is based on the fact if they aren't selling any more copies, then you have no loss. Follow this-isn't New York Times a time limited online paper? Doesn't the story disappear down the memory hole? Why can't we store a copy until the page dies, then we have fair use rights? I would hope so  Roll Eyes
Logged

The number, 666, has been changed. The new number is, 999.
Optimus
Globalist Destroyer
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11,089


The banksters are steaming piles of dog shit!


WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 07, 2009, 10:30:11 AM »

Behind The A.P.'s Plan To Become The Web's News Cop
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/06/AR2009040603207.html
Erick Schonfeld
TechCrunch.com
Monday, April 6, 2009; 3:31 PM

With its news syndication business under direct attack by the growing abundance of other news sources on the Internet, the Associated Press announced today that it will begin to police the Web and "develop a system to track content distributed online to determine if it is being legally used." The A.P., it appears, wants to become the RIAA of the flailing newspaper industry?ferreting out information pirates and threatening lawsuits if they don't turn over some of their Google gold.

The A.P. has a broad view of what constitutes its content. It is not just entire articles copied wholesale by spam blogs. The A.P. has problems with the unauthorized use of its headlines, even when they include links. Many of its policies ignore the concept of fair use. And even when it has cause to go after copyright violators, it sometimes relies on antiquated and tortuous legal theories. The A.P. is so backwards in its thinking that we've banned links to all of its stories on TechCrunch.

Now it wants to go after unauthorized use if its news articles across the Web. Forget for a moment that its notion of what constitutes unauthorized use may not hold up in a court of law. The A.P. is going directly after the search engines and news aggregators which often point traffic away from A.P. sources directly at the supposed infringers.

So how exactly does the A.P. plan on policing the Internet? Here I must rely on informed speculation, but I think I have a pretty good idea. The A.P. already monitors the Web for any partial or whole re-use of its articles and photos through a partnership with Attributor, a startup that has indexed the Web and can find any content for which it has a digital fingerprint. After identifying the worst offenders through Attributor, the A.P. could simply present that list to Google or any other site pointing to those offending sites and demand action. This action could be anything from redirecting links to A.P.-sanctioned sites to demanding a portion of the offending sites' AdSense or other advertising revenues if they happen to be a customer.

Would Google comply with such requests? If doing so gets the A.P. and Rupert Murdoch off its back, and it believes there is a good chance that copyright infringement is taking place, it very well might. The real troubling aspect here is that this determination would not be made by a court, but rather placed into the hands of Google and the A.P. The A.P, for one, has already proven that it cannot be trusted to distinguish between fair use and infringement on its own behalf. And Google's policy when it comes to claims of copyright infringement is to take down the offending content and ask questions later.
Logged

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<
TheHouseMan
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,842


« Reply #5 on: April 07, 2009, 11:23:31 AM »

By doing this, they're declaring war on the Internet, because this is how the Internet works. It's about open sharing of information.

Get with the times, AP.
Logged
Optimus
Globalist Destroyer
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11,089


The banksters are steaming piles of dog shit!


WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 07, 2009, 11:35:28 AM »

Quote from: Route24
The A.P. already monitors the Web for any partial or whole re-use of its articles and photos through a partnership with Attributor, a startup that has indexed the Web and can find any content for which it has a digital fingerprint. After identifying the worst offenders through Attributor, the A.P. could simply present that list to Google or any other site pointing to those offending sites and demand action. This action could be anything from redirecting links to A.P.-sanctioned sites to demanding a portion of the offending sites' AdSense or other advertising revenues if they happen to be a customer.


Copyright Cops Gain New Weapon: Attributor Corp.
http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/nbReader.asp?ArticleId=36631
by Barbara Quint
Posted On June 11, 2007

"That’s mine! Hands off!" The cry persists as digital technology continues to erode the efficacy of intellectual property rights. Now, Attributor Corp. (www.attributor.com) offers to scan the Web for text, audio, video, and images belonging to its clients. Using a technique called "digital fingerprinting," Attributor can match a snippet of client content against its Web page indexes to locate usage. After reviewing the alerts and contexts of identified users, clients who discover unauthorized uses can either ask for the removal of material from Web sites or arrange authorization, including license revenue options. Attributor’s first major client is the 161-year-old news cooperative the Associated Press (AP; www.ap.org), which will start with monitoring text but then expand the testing to other formats, e.g., photos and video. Organizations that share or distribute editorial content or information through AP will also use the services. AP and Attributor will also explore co-developing and co-distributing applications.

The digital fingerprinting at Attributor, also referred to by the company as Attributor "DNA," lets clients assign rules of use for specific types of content—rules that may specify the quantity of content available for reuse, the kind of attribution required, and terms for commercial use. The Attributor system can not only report instances of use but also whether rules were honored. After finding an unauthorized use, the system offers clients options ranging from removal to licensing requests and then monitors responses to those actions. It also supports Creative Commons license provisions.

Co-founded in 2005 by CEO Jim Brock, former senior vice president of communication and consumer services at Yahoo!, and chief technology officer Jim Pitko, former CEO and chairman of Moreover Technologies, Attributor is privately held with more than $10 million in funding from five venture capital investors: Sigma Partners, Selby Venture Partners, Draper Richards, First Round Capital, and Amicus Capital. According to Rich Pearson, senior director of marketing at Attributor, these VC firms include former backers of Google, Skype, and Overture.

Attributor maintains Web indexing for more than 13 billion pages. At present, it does not monitor peer-to-peer networks such as iTunes. Pearson said, "We are driven by our customers. We’ve been talking to publishers. There is still concern about peer-to-peer, but the main focus is the Internet at large." For its AP monitoring, Attributor will target a few hundred more popular stories and then focus on frequently updated Web sites. Although the company continually monitors its indexed Web pages, it targets specific sites, e.g., news sites that update more frequently. "It’s not one size fits all," said Pearson. "It’s based on matches and content."

The Attributor service offers considerable detail on content usage. "When we show results, for example, 100 people reusing content," said Pearson, "we don’t just list 100 matches. We provide a context-sensitive analysis, showing which matches have ads and are monetizing, which have proper attribution and send you back to authored content or show links back to a site. The owner can define the rules of attribution. We also tell how similar your content is to what’s used. Was it all or 50 percent or 10 percent?" Pearson indicated that Attributor could even match content if it were only a link, though the service does not offer that now ("an easy modification").

Srinandan Kasi, general counsel for AP, saluted the services as "part of the next-generation licensing and enforcement services we plan to provide to our global network of members and subscribers. Our agreement with Attributor will enable AP to safeguard its investment in creating and distributing news reports, while assuring licensees that unauthorized use will not diminish the value of their licenses." Relying on fees paid by member newspapers and commercial media for its revenue, AP has become more vulnerable as online advertising finds its way to sites using unauthorized copyrighted material. However, AP intends to try negotiating licensing agreements rather than litigating or removing material. With the usage assessment that Attributor’s monitoring will provide, AP should also be able to better assess how Web sites want to use its content.

"Attributor aims to bring transparency and accountability to the online content economy. As one of the largest producers and distributors of online content, AP is a perfect first implementation for our highly scalable platform," said Brock. "In addition to helping publishers of all kinds protect the value of content assets for authorized licensees, we will also help them capture additional editorial and advertising value."

Fees charged by Attributor vary. According to Pearson, "Fees are based on the amount of content monitored. It would cost more to monitor 1,000 articles than 500." However, he added, "We want to keep it affordable to be sure anyone creating content who is interested in where it is appearing, even a blogger or a professional photographer, can depend on our content. AP is the largest daily content producer on the planet, but we still want to provide some functionality that is very affordable and even free." So far, Attributor has not yet defined what it will offer as free, but, according to Pearson, it is considering different options, including ways to let people find the original owner. This year, Attributor plans to establish an open registry of copyright owners. "Nothing is free now, but we plan to offer not only inexpensive, but free," said Pearson.

Attributor alleges that building confidence in online publishers that they will not lose touch or control of their content should encourage publishers to put more content online, unlike DRM (digital rights management) protections that block usage completely or irritate consumers—and incite hackers—with technological barriers.
Logged

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<
blackturtle.us
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 734



WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 08, 2009, 03:10:56 PM »

Quote
News aggregators and search companies have long asserted that collecting snippets of articles — usually headlines and a sentence or two — is allowed under the legal doctrine of “fair use.” News organizations have been reluctant to test that idea in court, and it is still not clear whether The A.P. is willing to test the fair use doctrine.

Clearly headlines and snippets are protected under fair use provisions of copyright law. The question is how much further can someone go that the headlines and a couple of sentences? When someone profits by reprinting more than just headlines and snippets they clearly owe some form of compensation to those who created the original material. But when someone in the act of discussing a news article merely quotes snippets, then this is not the case. It seems to me that this is all fairly simple and that the Associated Press should only go after those who clearly violate the spirit of fair use provisions of copyright law. Further the AP should steer clear of intimidating those who operate with fair use provisions. No one respects a bully!
Logged

Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.17 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!