Future of Information Media: Aggregating and Content Protection

[Syt]

Aggregators should be charged for reprinting original content just like newspapers get charged for reprinting wire stories.

Even if they only show part of the article, link to the original story and thus generate additional traffic for the producer of the original content?

[Admiral Yi]

Even if they only show part of the article, link to the original story and thus generate additional traffic for the producer of the original content?

That's a business decision for the originator in my mind.

[Zanza]

Well, I don't see any effectice control other than making that content non-free by the author, and then of course re-publication would be easily punishable.

Control is easy with mechanisms like Google Analysis.

But having a comittee or somesuch decide what news is original news and what is not? Bleh.

It would need a technical solution in form of an algorithm as the sheer volume makes it impractical to let humans decide.

[DontSayBanana]

Print media, as a whole, is dying anyway. That is a natural process, and should be embraced, not delayed (with no hope of success)

Not dying, so much as shifting in nature.  Printed media originally showed up as an art form that ended up becoming a utility, due to its speed advantage.  Tech's caught up with it, it's not the fastest anymore, and so it's shifting back down into an art form.

[Martinus]

Aggregators should be charged for reprinting original content just like newspapers get charged for reprinting wire stories.

How do you define the difference between that and the IP right to quotation that exists with respect to IP-protected works?

Also you are responding to something else than the problem I quoted. The issue here is not content per se but exclusive information.

[Martinus]

Print media, as a whole, is dying anyway. That is a natural process, and should be embraced, not delayed (with no hope of success)

Not dying, so much as shifting in nature.  Printed media originally showed up as an art form that ended up becoming a utility, due to its speed advantage.  Tech's caught up with it, it's not the fastest anymore, and so it's shifting back down into an art form.

But then it will no longer be about information - thus dead for the purpose of the question I posed. Editorials, commentaries and analyses are a different breed altogether, and there is less concern here.

[Admiral Yi]

How do you define the difference between that and the IP right to quotation that exists with respect to IP-protected works?

Also you are responding to something else than the problem I quoted. The issue here is not content per se but exclusive information.

I agree there are fair use issues for Captain Blogosphere.

Don't see the importance of the distinction between content and exclusive information.  Don't really understand the distinction.

[Sheilbh]

Don't see the importance of the distinction between content and exclusive information.  Don't really understand the distinction.

I think the distinction is that content is, for example, the wire service.  There's a cost associated with maintaining a correspondent, so newspapers use the wires which charge them for it, or they pool journalists and all newspaper are allowed to use (and adapt) the copy of one journalist.  This is a cost for news outlets to maintain credibility and provide the basic service their readers expect.

Economically that's of a different nature than exclusives and investigative journalism.  They're long-term, expensive projects the news outlet pay for because they boost circulation.  They're the only news organisation with the story and with all the details.  If you want it you need to get it from them.  It makes no sense financially for this to be done by a wire service, or to be pooled, or to be sold on by a news outlet.

[Admiral Yi]

The aggregator is either ripping off the newspaper or they're ripping off the wire service.

[Sheilbh]

The aggregator is either ripping off the newspaper or they're ripping off the wire service.

The wire service has other sources of income - the news outlets - they don't depend on exclusivity.  If anything the opposite.  The newspaper who's spent a lot of money getting a splash doesn't, their income is people buying to read that story (ideally over several days).

[Admiral Yi]

Both cost money to produce.

[Sheilbh]

Both cost money to produce.

One costs substantially less and the costs are often shared.

[Admiral Yi]

One costs substantially less and the costs are often shared.

The costs of investigative journalism are shared by subscribers.

[Sheilbh]

The costs of investigative journalism are shared by subscribers.

No.  They're bought by subscribers to read.  Not cost sharing or purchase to reproduce.

[Admiral Yi]

You've completely lost me.