In the printed media era, it used to be that an investigative journalist who researched and ran a story was ensuring increased sales for his/her newspaper/magazine, since due to the media production cycle, for that day/week/month noone else was able to run the same story.
Currently, within minutes from breaking a big story on the news, everyone else is able to run it - I am not talking here about copyright to the actual article/editorial, but the information itself, which is currently not protected under any IP laws
Now, there are obviously two interests at conflict here. On one hand, the public has a right to know, and consequently, any restriction on the spread of information would be problematic. On the other hand however, this creates an immense free-riding problem, which may eventually lead to investigative journalism media being pushed out of the market by "aggregating" media (i.e. the ones that simply scour the internet for news and rewrite them in own stories, but do not engage in any investigate journalism themselves) since the latter are definitely cheaper.
So what do you think? Should some IP-like protection be extended to information, and if so, in what way?
Does good investigative journalism still exist?
Any IP-like regulation would swiftly end up in de facto censorship and limit on the free flow of information.
Also, I don't think this is so dramatic. Yes, whoever is reading print media for news shouldn't do it.
Analysis, editorials, extended reports on a topic, etc, however, are worth paying for, and can be found in better qualitythan what you get for free (not always true, but often).
Print media, as a whole, is dying anyway. That is a natural process, and should be embraced, not delayed (with no hope of success)
We have non-government organisations that levy a certain tax-like amount on physical copies (or their media or the equipment to do these copies, e.g. CD burners) and distribute it according to some key to authors etc.
Maybe that system could be enhanced to "tax" internet connections and then distribute the money to the content providers according to some key where investigative journalism that is linked/cited often gets more than simple news aggregation (which might not get any at all as they don't create content).
That would obviously only work nationally.
Very bad idea.
Quote from: Tamas on April 20, 2012, 03:20:09 AM
Any IP-like regulation would swiftly end up in de facto censorship and limit on the free flow of information.
Not necessarily. Obviously, no law should be established to prevent publication of otherwise unpublished information - however you can think of a number of softer measures to protect the information source from freeriders - e.g. by imposing an obligation to quote the source (some sort of "bragging rights" for the original news broadcaster - e.g. with a link to the original source).
QuoteAlso, I don't think this is so dramatic. Yes, whoever is reading print media for news shouldn't do it.
Analysis, editorials, extended reports on a topic, etc, however, are worth paying for, and can be found in better qualitythan what you get for free (not always true, but often).
Print media, as a whole, is dying anyway. That is a natural process, and should be embraced, not delayed (with no hope of success)
You completely missed the point. Nowhere am I saying we should save print media, but that in digital media, we need new measures to protect investigative journalism, exactly because we don't deal with print media anymore.
Quote from: Zanza on April 20, 2012, 04:33:57 AM
We have non-government organisations that levy a certain tax-like amount on physical copies (or their media or the equipment to do these copies, e.g. CD burners) and distribute it according to some key to authors etc.
Maybe that system could be enhanced to "tax" internet connections and then distribute the money to the content providers according to some key where investigative journalism that is linked/cited often gets more than simple news aggregation (which might not get any at all as they don't create content).
That would obviously only work nationally.
Well, if people are following links to the original story, then it's not as problematic, as that already gets taken into account for advertising/traffic purposes and is monetized.
The problem comes when one news agency broadcasts information it got from another one without even quoting the source or providing a link to the original story. Such behaviour is allowed under current IP laws (as long as you are not quoting or copy/pasting the original text verbatim).
In Germany, the online news services (mostly print media offshoots) are pushing for a "Leistungsschutzabgabe" (copyright fees).
They're unhappy that news aggregators like Google show the headline and maybe first paragraph of their stories plus link to the original story for free.
Quote from: Tamas on April 20, 2012, 04:41:21 AM
Very bad idea.
It works for other types of media here.
Quote from: Zanza on April 20, 2012, 06:10:35 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 20, 2012, 04:41:21 AM
Very bad idea.
It works for other types of media here.
Yeah, but it needs something you apparently have, but many countries don't: a self-constraining state. We have what you describe, but under state control, and in effects acts like extra tax on digital storage.
As to the original point: I understand the concern, and it has grounds. Yet, how any protective measures for investigative journalism, and payed-for news service, is any different fundamentally, from the efforts of the music companies who instead of heeding the changing times and adapting to the digital media, insist on the law helping them keep the good old times?
I also don't get the news-site complaints? Can't you deny google from listing your site?
I say this thing should be let play itself out. Times are changing, and the free market should decide what form this area will take. There should not be any state-helped conservation of the status quo.
Quote from: Tamas on April 20, 2012, 06:22:30 AMYeah, but it needs something you apparently have, but many countries don't: a self-constraining state.
The state here usually just sets the legal framework and then big non-government umbrella-organisations of stakeholders figure out the details. E.g. between an umbrella organisation of authors and one of makers of digital equipment like printers/photocopiers. Or between that same organisation of authors and Google Books.
QuoteWe have what you describe, but under state control, and in effects acts like extra tax on digital storage.
Same here, but it is bound to a certain purpose and not just a drop in the ocean of the general government budget.
QuoteI also don't get the news-site complaints? Can't you deny google from listing your site?
Considering that Google has a quasi monopoly on search services, that's not realistically feasible. If a private company has a market-dominating position you can either trust-bust it (which makes no sense for Google) or regulate it so it doesn't misuse its market-domination.
QuoteI say this thing should be let play itself out. Times are changing, and the free market should decide what form this area will take. There should not be any state-helped conservation of the status quo.
I agree with the second statement, but I think the state should have a role in defining IP rights in the age of digital media too.
Certainly, but isn't it a very dangerous ground in case of news reporting?
If am a politican/businessman, I do something which shows me in a bad light but isn't de facto illegal. Who should own that news? The first to report it? Why?
I agree that will be hard to come up with a sensible key. The main criterion should be how original your content is. If a journalist merely goes to a press conference and writes down what's said there, there should be less protection and in case such a payment scheme is in place, less payment too than for a journalist who talks to dozens of people, reviews documents etc. for an investigative news story that everybody else then merely quotes. Likewise editorials should get more protection/payment than mere facts.
Quote from: Zanza on April 20, 2012, 07:41:20 AM
I agree that will be hard to come up with a sensible key. The main criterion should be how original your content is. If a journalist merely goes to a press conference and writes down what's said there, there should be less protection and in case such a payment scheme is in place, less payment too than for a journalist who talks to dozens of people, reviews documents etc. for an investigative news story that everybody else then merely quotes. Likewise editorials should get more protection/payment than mere facts.
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. But having a comittee or somesuch decide what news is original news and what is not? Bleh.
Aggregators should be charged for reprinting original content just like newspapers get charged for reprinting wire stories.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 08:42:24 AM
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?
Quote from: Syt on April 20, 2012, 08:47:32 AM
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.
Quote from: Tamas on April 20, 2012, 08:01:57 AMWell, 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.
QuoteBut 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.
Quote from: Tamas on April 20, 2012, 03:20:09 AM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 08:42:24 AM
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.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 20, 2012, 08:55:34 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 20, 2012, 03:20:09 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on April 20, 2012, 09:01:15 AM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 09:09:31 AM
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.
The aggregator is either ripping off the newspaper or they're ripping off the wire service.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 11:10:55 AM
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).
Both cost money to produce.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 11:31:48 AM
Both cost money to produce.
One costs substantially less and the costs are often shared.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2012, 11:33:21 AM
One costs substantially less and the costs are often shared.
The costs of investigative journalism are shared by subscribers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 11:41:11 AM
The costs of investigative journalism are shared by subscribers.
No. They're bought by subscribers to read. Not cost sharing or purchase to reproduce.
You've completely lost me. :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 11:46:50 AM
You've completely lost me. :huh:
Content is produced by people who sell it on for reproduction (wire services) or by news organisation sharing the costs of reporting (pool journalists). It costs money but not a great deal compared to exclusives. The costs are shared by news organisations, or are lower than maintaining their own correspondent. The aggregator rips off the wire service - or the pool journalist - and this doesn't effect the money making. The news organisations still need content, so will still share the costs through pooling or pay a wire service. The piggy backing of the aggregator's relatively benign.
Exclusives cost money, borne by one news organisation. They make that back by an increase in circulation. There's no way that this could really be done by a wire service because they wouldn't be able to sell it to all publications and, from what I understand, their revenue isn't so based on circulation. It also wouldn't work for cost sharing because several newspapers can't effectively share an exclusive (except, possibly, internationally - the Guardian's done a few pan-European stories with papers like Le Monde). Subscribers aren't sharing the costs they're buying the product (like newspapers with wire services) and they're still not generally meant to reproduce that product (I think it's often against the T&C of a subscription). Aggregator's ripping off a newspaper's exclusive investigative journalism is harming the financial case for that organisation to do that sort of journalism.
I've mentioned him before, I think, but I've a friend who works for a financial magazine. They only report exclusives. You can only read them online or in print if you subscribe and it's very expensive. They're also pretty fierce in going after people who re-use their content because it destroys their business model.
One trend in the UK is that there's a fair bit of not-for-profit organisations who now work with news organisations to do investigative journalism. My uni's got a very good journalism course and I think their Centre for Investigative Journalism has helped produce a few scoops.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2012, 12:03:58 PM
The aggregator rips off the wire service - or the pool journalist - and this doesn't effect the money making.
Sure it does. It reduces demand for the newspaper which runs the wire story, which reduces demand for the wire service.
To the OP.
For someone who's for the elimination of IP protection, no that's a stupid idea.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 12:08:18 PM
Sure it does. It reduces demand for the newspaper which runs the wire story, which reduces demand for the wire service.
I don't think those two necessarily follow. It reduces demand for the newspaper, but the content produced by wire service or pooled reporters is the price of being a respectable newspaper. I'd argue they lose more readers for failing to carry those stories than by aggregators ripping them off.
While newspapers have reduced correspondents and reporting staff in recent years they have increased their dependence on wire services because they still need to carry those stories or they get a reputation as a not terribly credibly newspaper. Tabloids on the other hand can happily get away with barely ever paying for the wire from Rome for example.
Newspapers can react to reduced revenue by running fewer wire stories. Newspapers can go out of business. Both of those impact demand for wire services.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 12:25:14 PMNewspapers can react to reduced revenue by running fewer wire stories. Newspapers can go out of business. Both of those impact demand for wire services.
Yeah but this is now getting rather general. Aggregators stealing a newspapers exclusives has a rather more direct effect.
More immediate I can see, not so sure about direct.
There is at least some level of IP protection for this kind of thing in the US under the "hot news doctrine"
For those interested follow the link: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/06/hot-news-doctrine-surviving-life-support