Future of Information Media: Aggregating and Content Protection

[Martinus]

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?

[Syt]

Does good investigative journalism still exist?

[Tamas]

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)

[Zanza]

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.

[Tamas]

Very bad idea.

[Martinus]

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).

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)

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.

[Martinus]

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).

[Syt]

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.

[Zanza]

Very bad idea.

It works for other types of media here.

[Tamas]

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.

[Zanza]

Yeah, 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.

We 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.

I 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.

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.

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.

[Tamas]

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?

[Zanza]

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.

[Tamas]

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.

[Admiral Yi]

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